This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active
politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of
biased editing, talk-page
trolling, and simple
vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
Seems like the last edit by Snooganssnoogans on this page was made to look like a small edit while changing the the content that was there before drastically. I am a novice editor so maybe I’m missing something.
Maxmaximus22 (
talk) 03:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Issues of accuracy in COVID-19 section that relies on "fact-checks"
To say that Abbott "he claimed without evidence that migrants were spreading COVID-19 in Texas" is demonstrably false. But since I see it has been reverted and re-reverted, I'll be crystal clear:
Per the
citedsources, Abbott's "crucial claim" was not that "migrants were spreading COVID-19 in Texas"—it was that: "The Biden Administration is recklessly releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants who have COVID into Texas communities."
The Biden Administration was "releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants who have COVID into Texas communities"—that's acknowledged in the cited fact-checks and was in numerous news reports to which the "fact-checks" themselves link.
[14][15].
What's more: even though Abbott didn't claim it, "Migrants" were "spreading Covid-19 in TX". Again, this is not in dispute—the "fact-checks" confirm it.
The "fact checks" try to claim that part of what was "false" about Abbott's actual statement was that some "migrants" were not "illegal immigrants" as he claimed, because they were "asylum seekers" on "parole"—except that the Forbes source cited links to
articles that state clearly that "migrant families with children who’ve crossed illegally into the U.S. are being released in Texas by border patrol officials"—i.e., "illegal immigrants" per Abbott's statements.
Ultimately, the "fact checks" try to make hay of the fact that the numbers in the news reports to which they link (which Abbott never cited) show that, while hundreds of Covid-19-positive illegal immigrants were released into the US as Abbott claimed, their contribution to the total number of infections was not that "significant" or "far from the biggest factor in containing the virus’ spread"—again, confirming Abbott's actual claims and refuting ones he never made.
The "fact checks" freely acknowledge that no one knows the true number of Covid-positive migrants, legal or illegal, who have been released into the US, or how many people they infected.
In other words: incorrectly citing "fact checks" which don't in fact contradict Abbott's actual statements does not a reliable encyclopedia make. The bottom line:
Abbott's actual claim obviously needs to be included—not simply whatever the "fact checks" claim to have checked.
To correctly describe the cited "fact checks", our article would need to say something like: "While 'fact checks' corroborated Abbott's claim that the Biden Administration had released hundreds of Covid-positive illegal immigrants into the US, the true number released is unknown, and the experts they quote argue that they were not the main cause of Covid's spread in Texas."
It is flatly untrue to say that Abbott "claimed without evidence that migrants were spreading Covid-19"—because none of the cited sources actually say this. One claims that there's no evidence migrants "significantly" spread Covid, but again, that's not what Abbott claimed—or even what the problematic sentence in this article says he did. Even if Abbott had claimed that "migrants were spreading Covid-19", it would not be true that the "fact-checks" state he did so "without evidence".
The relevance of this entire kerfuffle is questionable—it got some headlines, but in hindsight seems to me pretty clearly a tempest in a teapot and a
WP:NOTNEWS issue. The truth is that the very real and
growing problem with Covid-19-infected illegal immigrants, including an exploding number of children carrying the illness, has yet to play out—and will be better added to Wikipedia with the benefit of some hindsight. Abbott doesn't make or enforce immigration policy, so the fact that he complains about it is only tangentially related to his article, and hardly an important component of its "Covid-19" section.
Let's please bring some "fact-checking" and common-sense to this article, and skip the POV-pushing—starting by removing the false statement about Abbott making claims (which he never made) "without evidence". Thanks!
Elle Kpyros (
talk) 06:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Elle Kpyros, I think you made a good case. I agree. Lets remove false segments if Abbott didn't make those claims.
EliteArcher88 (
talk) 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The specifics of Abbott's COVID-19 response should be in the lead
1. One of the shortest stay-at-home orders in the nation, 2. Prohibitions on local mask mandates, 3. Prohibitions on local and private business vaccine requirements.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk) 00:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Why are those specifics
WP:DUE or worthy of inclusion for the lead?
Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The Flickr image has an explict release of copyright. The official portrait is not a work of a federal employee, and is not automatically public domain. You'd need to clear up the license to start with.
Kuru(talk) 01:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Language in lead
Is the phrase "businessman" really an accurate way to start off the lead? Abbott was most notably a judge before entering higher-level politics, and a lawyer before that. I can get referring to him as a "politician and attorney," which seems standard, but "businessman" seems inaccurate.
Marquisate (
talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This appears to have been addressed. I would oppose him being described as a businessman.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk) 03:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Piss baby" protest
Currently multiple websites are protesting Greg Abbott's new censorship law by calling him a little piss baby (or at least refusing to censor that valid opinion). Might it be worth adding this to either Tenure or controversies?
D4m4s74 (
talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Infrequent editor here -- it seems completely reasonable to include the nationwide protest in response to the social media law under Tenure, but could see people fearing non-positive information appearing political, so controversy is probably a reasonable compromise.
76.187.80.231 (
talk) 14:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I’ve looked into this some and I’m finding no reliable sourcing discussing such protests.
Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi all. I just got here because of a technical / vandalism issue related to the page, but noticed the previous edit-war. While being cognizant of
WP:BLP, I see a lot of
WP:RS to support the "piss-baby" controversy here. Let's stack up the sources;
Nguyen, Britney (September 27, 2022).
"A subreddit post is trolling Texas' controversial content-moderation law by requiring every comment to include Gov. 'Greg Abbott is a little piss baby'". Business Insider. Retrieved September 29, 2022. A post on the PoliticalHumor subreddit is only allowing comments that say Texas Gov. "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby" to raise awareness of the state's social media content-moderation law. TechDirt first reported on the subreddit post titled, "We're messing with Texas," where user BlatantConservative, who made the post, wrote, "Until further notice, all comments posted to this subreddit must contain the phrase 'Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.'"
McSweeny, Terrell; Crowley, Megan; Xenakis, Nicholas; Cooper-Ponte, Alexandra; Salinas, Madeline (September 28, 2022).
"Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Restricting Online "Censorship"". Inside Privacy. Retrieved September 29, 2022. On September 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in NetChoice L.L.C. v. Paxton, upholding Texas HB 20, a law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and imposes various disclosure and appeal requirements on them. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction, which previously blocked the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law. NetChoice is likely to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
It would seem that this is pretty noteworthy and cited in a number of reliable sources. The main issues would be
WP:BLP and
WP:TRIVIA, but I would point out that
Rick Santorum had a similar issue some years back, and that is documented - even if delicately. So let's discuss -
Alisontalk 16:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Alison: The only source you offered that's actually reliable is The Atlantic, and it doesn't appear to mention the Piss baby protest at all. I'm surprised you, as an admin, would cite a literal Reddit thread as a RS in a BLP.
Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Surprise away. I, as an admin, am immune to public chastisement. Focus on the issue, not the person -
Alisontalk 23:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Gizmodo is a recognized reliable source.
Techdirt is regularly cited on other pages.
The Atlantic is a reliable source.
Business Insider is considered 'no consensus' but is extensively quoted on numerous articles. And the final source is an opinion piece which quotes extensively from the actual law being cited -
Alisontalk 00:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi other admins. It seems the page was deleted due to a vandalism move, but the number of revisions is too great to undelete en masse, as it runs into a software timeout. I've just restored the first handful of revisions in order to get the page back up, but we'll need to figure out how to restore the rest soon. May need a dev to help :/ -
Alisontalk 16:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
And the rest now restored. All good again :) -
Alisontalk 16:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Notability of recent events.
Concerning recent events in Texas, should they be mentioned or should we wait to see how the situation evolves ?
I believe he has stated last night on NBC news, that he's running for a fourth term as Texas governor, when asked if he'd accept the 2024 Republican vice presidential nomination.
GoodDay (
talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disability
Abbott's disability (paralysis) and it's cause (spinal injury) is referred to in a paragraph titled "wheelchair use". This title feels like a strange euphemism, that implies that disability is taboo or too shameful to directly address, except by referring to the mobility aid he uses.
I suggest that the paragraph be re-titled "Disability", in line with Stephen Hawking's page, or "1984 injury"? Or whatever Wikipedia norms require.
81.157.205.18 (
talk) 13:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply