Talk:Greg Abbott

What’s up with the last edit?

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)

Abbott threatens arrest of state reps content

I do not want to be accussed of WP:RECENTISM so should this kind of content as outlined in these RSs be added? Or should we wait for more time to pass? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added the incident. It appears to pass the WP:10YEARTEST and continued to garner coverage into the next month. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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 cited sources, 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:

1. Abbott's actual claim obviously needs to be included—not simply whatever the "fact checks" claim to have checked.
2. 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."
3. 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".
4. 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)

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)

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)

Why are those specifics WP:DUE or worthy of inclusion for the lead?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The specifics are WP:UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not use his official portrait?

Why does this article use a random photo off of Flickr instead of his official portrait as governor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalkemal (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

This appears to have been addressed. I would oppose him being described as a businessman. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

I’ve looked into this some and I’m finding no reliable sourcing discussing such protests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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;

• "We're messing with Texas". reddit.com. September 27, 2022. Retrieved September 29, 2022.
• Masnick, Mike (September 26, 2022). "Subreddit Discriminates Against Anyone Who Doesn't Call Texas Governor Greg Abbott 'A Little Piss Baby' To Highlight Absurdity Of Content Moderation Law". Techdirt. Retrieved September 29, 2022. Michael Vario alerts us that the r/PoliticalHumor subreddit is "messing with Texas" by requiring every comment to include the phrase "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby" or be deleted in a fit of content moderation discrimination in violation of the HB20 law against social media "censorship."</ref>
• Serrano, Jody (September 27, 2022). "Subreddit Forces People to Comment 'Greg Abbott Is a Little Piss Baby' to Protest Texas Social Media Law". Gizmodo. Retrieved September 29, 2022. until further notice, all comments published to the community would have to include the phrase, "Greg Abbott [the Texas governor] is a little piss baby."Anyone that did not abide by the condition would be banned from the subreddit.
• 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.'"
• Warzel, Charlie (September 28, 2022). "Is This the Beginning of the End of the Internet? How a single Texas ruling could change the web forever". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 29, 2022. Everyone I spoke with believes that the very future of how the internet works is at stake. Accordingly, this case is likely to head to the Supreme Court.
• 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 - Alison ^talk 16:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Surprise away. I, as an admin, am immune to public chastisement. Focus on the issue, not the person - Alison ^talk 23:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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 - Alison ^talk 00:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Two more;

* Seitz, Jacob (27 September 2022). "Redditors launch campaign to flaunt Texas' social media law, blocking comments that don't call Greg Abbott a 'little p*ss baby'". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 6 October 2022. - note that The Daily Dot is a reliable source

* Wolfe, Liz (27 September 2022). "Subreddit asks every user to call Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a 'little piss baby' to defy content moderation law". Reason.com. Retrieved 6 October 2022. - and Reason Magazine is also a recognized reliable source.

- Alison ^talk 00:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted a subset of revisions

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 :/ - Alison ^talk 16:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• And the rest now restored. All good again :) - Alison ^talk 16:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability of recent events.

Concerning recent events in Texas, should they be mentioned or should we wait to see how the situation evolves ?

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1750235544951349275 Maxime12346 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

2026 Texas gubernatorial election

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)

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)

Inaccuracy regarding Abbott's position on covid mandates.

In the current text, it claims "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Texas, Abbott opposed implementing face mask and vaccine mandates, while blocking local governments, businesses, and other organizations from implementing their own." But it leaves out that he actually implemented a mask mandate in July of 2022. He removed the mandate one day after the CPAC straw poll showed him with on 1% support as the next presidential nominee.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/02/texas-mask-order-greg-abbott-coronavirus/ 72.128.148.162 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

He also designated through the Essential Services and Activities Protocols that only essential businesses could be open. His actions led to businesswoman Shelley Luther being placed in jail for refusing to close her business during that time. The dog groomer next door was considered essential and Shelley's business was considered non-essential. To claim that Abbott opposed these restrictions is dishonest and possibly an attempt to rewrite history.

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-executive-order-implements-statewide-essential-services-and-activities-protocols

 72.128.148.162 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Please add the following succession box to the bottom of the article:

98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)