|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greg Abbott article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourced must 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This page is about an active politician who is running 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.|
|WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Texas||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Biography assessment rating comment
-The entire section about Mr. Abbott being paralyzed by a falling tree and subsequently suing the owner of the house, tree trimmer and the city was removed. Its removal is conspicuous, especially considering Mr. Abbot has long been a proponent of denying others the monetary benefits he received in his lawsuit which ironically supplied him with much of the money needed to run for office. At the very least, the omission/removal of such a major event from even the "Personal History' section is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, Abbott sued the owner of the property where the tree fell. The owner was Roy Moore, a prominent Houston attorney. Abbott won a settlement worth over $10 million dollars, most of it in the form of an annuity that'll pay ever-more princely sums each month ($30,000 a month by the time he hits 60) along with tri-annual payments. Abbott's actual damages (medical bills and lost wages) were quite small. The bulk of the damages were "non-economic" -- pain and suffering from the disability -- that Abbott himself now wants to limit. See the October 8th, 2002 article in the Austin-American Statesman, "Lawsuit brought Abbott $10 million settlement". As an added bonus, the attorney who represented Abbott in the tree suit (Don Riddle) is now "offended" by Abbott's attacks. See, for example, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20100531-Accident-set-Texas-Attorney-General-Greg-3032.ece, "Accident set Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on a path toward politics" at the Dallas Morning News, May 31, 2010 by Theodore Kim. Then, of course, the cherry on top is that Abbott -- as a state employee -- enjoys full health insurance coverage at taxpayers' expense. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You seriously need to get your facts straight. The noneconomic damages cap in Texas only relates to medical malpractice cases. See Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Section 74.301. Abbott's settlement was a personal injury case, not a medical malpractice case. The noneconomic damages cap under current law does not apply to personal injury cases like Abbott's. A jury today, in a personal injury case, can still award noneconomic damages as well as exemplary (punitive) damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Section 41.008(b). So the talking point that Abbott wants to deny people a benefit he once received is not true and wholly without merit. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.74.htm#74.301 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm#41.008
- Moreover, a plantiff does not "win" a settlement. A settlement is agreed to by the parties. The fact that Abbott received such a generous settlement without a trial is indicative that the facts in the case were highly in his favor. Speculating about the damages is silly. The defendants were convinced that the settlement was appropriate when they agreed to it. Otherwise, they would have gone to trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniscientest (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This article reads like it was written by Abbott himself. He is described as a monster by people who are more familiar with him. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7544107.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- By "people who are more familiar with him," you mean a criminal defense lawyer posturing in the media to gain leverage for his client? Really? That is your reliable source? Did you even read the article you cited? A judge ordered that the child support be paid, not the Attorney General:
- Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland responded, "While we are deeply offended by the ridiculous and meritless claims lodged by Anthony Graves' counsel, this office has nothing but sympathy for Mr. Graves. His experience is truly troubling and deeply compelling."
- Strickland said the system that tagged Graves for child support payments is automated and handles 1.2 million cases. The child support division "regularly files wage withholding orders without any involvement from the executive office," Strickland said. "And that is exactly what happened in this case."
I've added a reference to the missing Libertarian Party candidate in the 2010 election. If we're going to list all opponents in the election history, it makes sense to list them all when talking about the upcoming election. Doches (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Abbott warned that he could prosecute the OSCE election observers, they will not be allowed to come wthin 100 feet of a polling station in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. http://www.france24.com/en/20121025-texas-warns-it-could-prosecute-osce-poll-monitors and http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/wahl-in-amerika/wahl-in-amerika-texanischer-generalstaatsanwalt-droht-osze-wahlbeobachtern-11937840.html --18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Abbott's education proposals not notable?
- That's not what you wrote about. You wrote about Abbott visiting a certain school. Abbott visiting a certain school in Spring Branch ISD is not notable. He must visit 5 or 6 different places in each campaign day. The fact that he visited one school is not notable. You wanted to add the information to the article you provide a reason why it is notable. You have not done that. All you did here was ask why? Asking why is not a substantive reason. There is zero notability there. If you want to write about his "education proposals" then do that. Don't write about him visiting a certain school and then acting like you wrote about Abbott's education proposals because they are not the same.--NK (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Abbott vs concealed carry
- Hcobb I want to apologize for this edit. Your additions were brief, NPOV statements of fact cited to reliable sources; they do not look like things I would normally remove. I would think that my account has been hacked, but I have seen no other suspicious edits. (I've changed my password just in case.) Therefore, I am going to chalk it up to something I did accidentally.
Rick Perry Indictment
The current version mentions the indictment of Governor Rick Perry on two felony charges. This article is about Greg Abbott, not Perry. The information presented in the current version at time of this writing has nothing to do with Greg Abbott at all. For that reason, I am going to remove this paragraph from the article. If more information surfaces that involves Abbott directly, it can be re-written and added to this article. Bobbyschultz (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
14 October Reversions
I just fixed two editorial comments that were inserted between properly sourced statements and the appropriate references. (A third such edit, by the same anonymous IP address, was already fixed.) There is at least some chance there's merit to the edits (one makes a claim about 1984 Texas tort law, the other about responses from advocacy groups-- both might be true, but those weren't fairly derived from the cited articles), but they need their own citations, particularly in a living person bio. AGF notwithstanding, it's hard to regard an anonymous editor sneaking contentious edits into an article in a way to suggest that they're part of a preexisting citation with anything other than suspicion. I have no objection to the content being reinserted, if it's properly sourced. DCB4W (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)