Talk:Ken Paxton

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ken Paxton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=3948&id=969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed false and defamatory material in violation of Wikipedia policies.

Removed entire introductory section making false, partisan claims about alleged acts of "insurrection." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed false and defamatory partisan claims related to alleged acts of "bribery." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

Preserved mention in introduction of 2015 indictment related to alleged securities fraud charges. This is the only actual case of alleged criminal charges filed. All unsubstantiated, false, and defamatory claims against Paxton involving hearsay and speculation violate Wikipedia policy.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeated defamatory reverts by user violating Living Persons policy have been reported on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• (talk), (talk), IP Users have been regularly scrubbing well-sourced text from this article, sometimes briefly, i.e., removing the word "false" from "false claims of election fraud," and disguising their edits by claiming in an edit summary, i.e., that they had just corrected a typo. I'm not sure how one gets an administrator to restrict edits at this (or any) article to autoconfirmed Users. Could either of you help? Thanks. Activist (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where you go for that. Semi-protection is the usual block for IP editor vandalism, you can read Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Semi-protection is usually pretty temporary, when first applied. And it is possible that the administrator will decide the vandalism problem is infrequent enough that it need not be applied. Anyway, that's the first level, and that's where you start. Also check out Wikipedia:Protection policy, to see what the different levels and varieties are. -- M.boli (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

How to declare his current job?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My understanding is that despite the impeachment, Paxton is still attorney general. He is just suspended pending the outcome of the trial in the Texas senate. I'm not sure it is best to list his time as attorney general as "until May 2023." I'm open to differing opinions. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we should mention that he has been suspended in the main article too. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

impeachment paragraph in lead

I prefer the previous version because it showed the stunning speed with which this unfolded that surprised nearly everyone. They really wanted him gone right now. soibangla (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• So is he no longer Attorney General, unless the Senate acquits and he is restored? 331dot (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Soibangla: - hope your concerns will be assauged with this. [1] 331dot - he is still AG but suspended. For what's next, read [2]. starship.paint (exalt) 14:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Starship.paint, I don't see how 331dot's response, or yours, addresses my comment. The committee vote was a bolt from the blue, hours later on the same day articles were presented, a day later Paxton is impeached. That breathtaking speed alone is lead-notable to my thinking. The current lead doesn't even hint at how sudden and stunning this was. soibangla (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
      • @Soibangla: - Tuesday the investigation is revealed, Thursday the articles were presented, Saturday he is impeached. But if that is what you want to stress, then how about this? [3] starship.paint (exalt) 14:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
        • no one thought the investigation would lead to impeachment, the vote was Thurs dinnertime, articles came later that evening, they skip a day and impeach the next day. Wow! soibangla (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
          • My only question here was about his status, as the article suggests he is no longer AG, which is different from being suspended(though I know little about the Texas impeachment process). 331dot (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
            • @331dot: - I've tried to fix the lede accordingly. [4] starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
              • well, I still prefer how the previous version laid it out chronologically, with the rapid pace shown, but oh well, that's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a seperate article about the impeachment trial itself, given the signficance it has in the political landscape beyond the biography of Paxton personally? AddInfinty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that can wait until there is a trial in August. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to start this now, something like, The impeachment of Ken Paxton which would be about the lead-up to the trial, as well as then the trial. Novellasyes (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Did the page exist for the Trump Impeachment prior to the Trial? If so then the same should apply to Paxton IMO. AddInfinty (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple articles (7) about the Impeachment of Donald Trump, including one called the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump which was started in September 2019, which was about four months before the first Trump impeachment trial, which took place in January 2020. The impeachment trial article was started in December 2019, a month before the trial started. Novellasyes (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and with the Date set for September 5th, that means the article should be up in early August for a similar timeline. AddInfinty (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's WP:TOOSOON to consider splitting the article. I'd prefer to wait for the trial to start. Carguychris (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The impeachment trial started yesterday so it's probably time to begin a draft at minimum. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Article introduction

Is it necessary to add American “far-right” to the introduction? The bias of the authors is showing. You could add American “far-left” to the description of many democrat politicians but it is not there. 2600:1014:B14D:5E8:958A:9C95:A4BB:94AB (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim "far right" is cited. If you have sources specifically stating he is not far right, or the source is not being summarized accurately, please offer your sources. If you have independent reliable sources stating that particular politicians are far left, please offer those on the respective article talk page. Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You are free to disagree with everything presented. Wikipedia presents information with a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your cited source is an editorial, I can find hundreds of editorials that paint people in a negative or positive light. It is a lazy way to write an article and they are not scholarly sources. The presentation and link to readers presents a framework of views that does not allow a person to evaluate and judge for themselves. That is not a neutral point of view. 217.180.214.91 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be "scholarly". They need only be reliable sources. The source at issue here is not an editorial. You are free to read it and disagree with its contents, but that doesn't change what it says. If you want to argue that the preponderance of sources do not describe suspended AG Paxton as far right, okay, that's an argument, so please demonstrate that. This piece says he leads the far right wing of his party. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.boli can you please see this discussion and return the missing term? 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.boli can you also please return the term "far right" with its citation. The consensus says it should be there. It was missed by Drmies probably due to multiple edits in a row while he was fixing a vandalism edit. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, no problem. Also: I'm new to this discussion. It didn't take much google-searching to discover that Paxton is often described as far-right (or similar locutions) in reliable sources. The original poster of this thread seems to be confused on this point. -- M.boli (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

One reference shouldn't have been enough to sustain that claim. I support the general argument that the IP editors have made and have added additional references that should be sufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is required. Because wiki is set up to attack anyone who is not ultra-liberal within the last decade. And, of course they can cite it, because they keep citing ultra-liberal sources, as if that proves anything. And they will call it "consensus," despite the fact that many of us prove it's not "consensus," because that is exactly how the ultra-liberal leftist's new truth works.

To quote Thomas Sowell,

“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.”

This should be the new wiki mission statement.

(Please note: it will remain, and I'll be called a troll. I don't sign in anymore, because there is no arbitration on wiki. Just ultra-liberal indoctrination.) 2600:4040:7EDC:6400:5D34:F38:D7DD:B957 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the discussion. If you feel as though there is a liberal bias on Wikipedia, be bold and edit it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No objection to calling him "far right" if that's what sources say, but it seems odd to have that in the first sentence and not lawyer or Texan. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence currently includes "lawyer". 331dot (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be odd to call someone born in North Dakota a "Texan." The current lead sentence "and lawyer in Texas" is fine I think. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I usually lean towards including the far-right descriptor in the first sentence of politicians widely described as being on the far-right, but off the back of the current sourcing, I'm really not sure it's a widely enough used descriptor for the lead. For the amount of media coverage Paxton has received recently, none of the big outlets that I'm aware of (the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, other such sources on WP:RSP) have used the far-right descriptor for him at all; whereas other figures with it in the lede or opening sentence (Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz) are frequently described as such in news articles. With Paxton this seemingly isn't the case, and I'd like to see stronger sourcing than just four pieces. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If by NYT you mean New York Times, this article refers to him as belonging to a group hard right politicians. Is that any different from far-right? If you need more sources, the term far-right is also used extensively by the Texas Tribune to describe most of his backers.—JlACEer (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think hard-right would be understood to mean the same thing. It is a strange term, it's frequently used by publications who are for whatever reason very cagey about applying the "far-right" label in even the most obvious cases. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

By NYT, I do indeed mean New York Times. I appreciate the additional article (though it does not expressly refer to him as being a hard-right politician - and the Texas Tribune article doesn't describe him as far-right, just his supporters, so using that as a source to back this up would be a WP:SYNTH violation in my eyes) and would concur with AntiDionysius that "hard-right" is synonymous with far-right. However, I maintain my concerns that this descriptor is not applied commonly enough to warrant its placement in the lead. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you have found a good solution. Stating he was far-right in the opening paragraph was a bit much. The wording "has been described by some sources" works for me. Time will tell if it appeases the haters.—JlACEer (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of description as lawyer?

As far as I am aware Paxton has not had his law license revoked. Can the deleter please explain why you removed "lawyer and" from the short description? The deletion doesn't have an edit summary. Thanks. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it(meant to say unexplained in edit summary). Even if he is disbarred, he would be a former lawyer. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is very strange to not have this description for someone who for better or worse has argued cases all the way to the US Supreme Court. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Change far-right to conservative

Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. (born December 23, 1962) is a far-right American politician and lawyer in Texas.

 Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. (born December 23, 1962) is a conservative American politician and lawyer in Texas. Jpechacek (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jpechacek I assume you mean this as an edit request. The term "far right" is cited. Please offer reliable sources that use the term "conservative" to describe him. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"far-right" and "radical left" are generally regarded as slurs used by Democrats and Republicans. Using the term Conservative instead of "far-right" is more professional and unbiased.

Thanks for considering my edit. Jpechacek (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've already moved the far-right term out of the lead for reasons I mentioned above in this talk page, but it's demonstrated that some reliable sources describe him as holding far-right political positions. I think it's better the way it is right now, attributed to sources rather than stated verbatim. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

AN EDITOR WAS CLEARLY LGBTQ AS S/HE HAS MADE THE ENTRY AS TENDENTIOUS AS POSSIBLE, CITING ONLY NEGATIVE AND ANTI-LGBTQ DEEDS FOR THE MAN... MAKING OF THIS ENTRY AN ANTI-PAXTON PROPAGANDA. THE REFERENCES TO ANTI-LGBTQ AGENDA TOPICS NEED TO BE REMOVED. IF DEEDS ARE TO BE CITED THEY NEED TO BE NOT JUST CITED TENDENTIOUSLY, BUT FAIRLY. A WIKI PAGE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SMEAR TACTIC. Warlock529 (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Is he still under indictment for state charges? Has the case still not gone to trial?

I’m confused about the indictment paragraph. I also wonder why it is so in depth and presented in an order that buries the acquittal unlike senator menendez who’s indictment paragraph begins:

“In 2015, Menendez was indicted on federal corruption charges; the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the charges were dropped in 2018.”

this seems to be a much more accurate and neutral tone than what has been afforded to Paxton. 193.203.3.54 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

He still faces state securities fraud charges from an indictment handed down just months after he took office in 2015. He has managed to delay the case for years, but it is still pending. That seems to be pretty clearly stated at the beginning of the third paragraph of the wiki page.—JlACEer (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Swatting and doxxing needs mentioned

The fact that Ken Paxton was doxxed and swatted should be mentioned on the page. It has been widely covered. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:NOTNEWS:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion

In other words: the daily weather is widely covered in reliable sources but that doesn't make it encyclopedia-worthy. "Ken Paxton was doxxed and swatted" tells us nothing encylopedia-worthy about Ken Paxton. -- M.boli (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

These are not everyday occurrences like the weather. These are violent threats that have been made against several politicians, particularly ultra-conservatives like Paxton who have, over the years, aggravated a lot of people, possibly to the breaking point. The 2023 swatting of American politicians has its own Wikipedia page, and the Ken Paxton swatting is mentioned on that page. It is certainly noteworthy and worth mentioning in the ever-evolving Paxton story.—JlACEer (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Splash some graffiti on the Wikipedia page of a politician who aggravates you. Somebody swatted Ken Paxton, Nyah! Having been mentioned on the "2023 swatting" page tells us nothing about Ken Paxton. But you have explained why somebody rushed to add this news to the lede. Unless and until something noteworthy happens (which is possible) it doesn't belong here.-- M.boli (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The post was made in good faith by an editor who is actively involved with other pages concerning swatting. You have no right to call it graffiti or assume that it was posted because the person was aggravated. So far you've failed to make a compelling argument for its removal. It is a newsworthy event and is now part of Paxton's history. I would prefer to hear from someone else, but if no one else chimes in, I'm going to restore the text. Keep the Nyah's to yourself, and stop being so rude.—JlACEer (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So far nobody has answered the question: what does this incident tell us about Ken Paxton? Absent that, there is no reason to put it in the article. So far the rationalizations for including it have been:

1. the incident was reported in news (@ShirtNShoesPls)
2. Ken Paxton is aggravating, therefore swatting him is an encyclopedia-worthy fact about Ken Paxton (@JlACEer)
3. swatting is an unusual crime (@JlACEer)
4. there is another Wikipedia article about this crime spree which has attacked a bunch of people.

Nothing satisfactorily answered the question at hand. It may have been a notable crime spree, with its own article. That's fine, but Ken Paxton didn't do it. If Paxton had done something notable of which this swatting were a part, it could belong in this article. But to my knowledge he hasn't. I point out that this material was added to the lede as if it were all-fired important for understanding his career. Nobody has even tried to articulate why it would be lede-worthy. It was then also placed in his "personal life" section, which I think happened because there is no appropriate heading that this incident belongs to. I also point out that number 2 Ken Paxton is aggravating therefore swatting him is encyclopedia-worthy was not my argument. It is a risible rationalization, but I'm hardly being "rude" by repeating it. -- M.boli (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop misquoting. I never said that Paxton being aggravating justifies any type of entry. I stated the the aggravation of several ultra-conservatives has caused some people to act out and that those actions should be reported. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? His own staff filed lawsuits against him. Are you going to tell us that those actions tell us nothing about Paxton? Your arguement that "he didn't do it" is pointless. Half the page cover things that he supposedly "didn't do" — indictments, lawsuits, accusatons of abuse of office by his own deputy attorneys. His actions have caused reactions and the latest reactions are swatting and vaxxing. Those items are part of his history and belong on this page. I do agree that it is not lede-worthy, but there was a separate section that you also chose to delete.—JlACEer (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• "[S]ome people act out and those actions should be reported" is the topic of the page about the rash of swattings, bomb threats, etc.
• The crime spree does not seem to be about Ken Paxton. Writing that his right-wing views and actions have "aggravated" people "to the breaking point" strikes me as personalizing (and explaining) a crime spree which has attacked quite a few politicians, public servants, and government institutions. Not all of which, by the way, are right-wing. Not the same as aggravated his employees to the suing point or aggravated the state legislature to the impeachment point.
• I can see the relevance to noting that Paxton was a target of the 2023-24 tide of political lawlessness. I think an appropriate place might be a new section in the Attorney General part of his career. It would say that Paxton was a target of the wave of swatting, doxing, and bomb threats in 2023-24. Then a sentence with the specific acts.

So I've come around to the point of view that this material can be included. And in fairness to Original Poster @ShirtsNShoesPls, the edits I deleted did not personalize the attacks as being a response to Paxton policies, but merely described the attacks. -- M.boli (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Bomb threats too? I wasn't aware of that. Personally, I'm a little annoyed that the original poster never came back to add to the discussion. I do think that Paxton being a target of this recent tide of political lawlessness, as you so eloquently put it, does need to be mentioned, but I agree that restoring the original text seems inadequate. I don't have time to research this now — perhaps later in the week. I am surprised that with all the attention this page gets, someone else hasn't edited the page — or joined in the discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a new, short, section. It still strikes me as odd to include this. But since this information is being included in the web pages of a host of other public servants, politicians, and legislatures that were targeted we should have it here also. Changed the references to more mainstream news sources. -- M.boli (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Career Politician

What are the Wikipedia rules on naming a career politician a career politician? Twillisjr (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't benefit at all from adding this to articles. The term is essentially meaningless. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Military personnel in the United States spend 20 years (career) and obtain retirement. Ken Paxton has been a politician for over 20 years. There is a difference between a politician who serves a term, or maybe a decade long, where it may seem to lack meaning. However, 20 years of being in a field constitutes a career and should be added. Twillisjr (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but a great deal of politicians stay within politics for well over 20 years and to add "career" to the start feels like very WP:MILL stuff. We don't describe those in pretty much any profession as "career [job]", as far as I'm aware. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't "career" military a pension status? I don't think "career politician" is a reified thing. As described, the appellation would be Wikipedia editors applying their own gut feeling synthesis. There are no news articles or even press releases In recognition of 20 years of service State Rep Hong Gildong was awarded Career Politician status yesterday. -- M.boli (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)