Jump to content

Talk:Dan Patrick (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Patrick (politician). 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:

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) 21:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Patrick (politician). 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:

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) 17:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dan Patrick (politician). 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:

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) 23:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial bias?

[edit]

I'm a new contributor to talk discussions and not sure whether/if my questions/issues fit here or should be taken up elsewhere. Please advise.

There are many concerning issues with this article, but, to make the point succinctly, there are two in the "Education" topic:

>>> At the time, Patrick cited a statistic later determined to be misleading by PolitiFact.com that Texas's 1,200+ public school districts, considered as a group, are the fifth-largest employer in the world.[74]

The simple question: Is this about Patrick or about an author/editor trying to make Patrick look bad? The article does not even discuss the statistic in question. To be clear, I'm in favor of leaving the prior sentence on cutting identified educator roles.

>>> Patrick is on record as determined to establish creationism within the public school curriculum in Texas, despite court rulings that such a policy would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[75]

The simple question: the clause "despite court rulings that such a policy would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[75]" ... is this about Patrick or about an author/editor trying to make Patrick look bad? To be clear, I'm in favor of leaving the statement before "despite ..."

In the second example, there may be an argument about "adding context". But in the first, author/editor is happy to let the reader figure out the context. Nonetheless, both cast Patrick as a misleading violator of the 1st amendment.

Make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmderic (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that those two examples are problematic. I wouldn't completely remove the "PolitiFact" reference from the first example, but rewording both sentences is a good idea. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the bot for making me aware of the signing requirement Jmderic (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– I get the feeling some of the pageviews for the sportscaster may actually have been for the politician. The latter seems more notable now anyway.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (also, this looks like a malformed request?) This seems a bit too much like WP:RECENTISM to me. For the past two years the sportscaster has gotten 70% of the pageviews, and that's with the LG having been in office. The current spike is attributable to the LG's recent comments on coronavirus, not something that is likely to last long-term. Given that the LG is old and does not appear to have any higher ambitions, I would not be surprised to see his pageviews decrease rather sharply after he exits office anyhow. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To editor Unreal7: This is indeed a malformed request, the type known as "possibly incomplete requests". Why would you want to move the politician's page to the sportscaster's title? If you think the politician is the primary topic, then you would want to move this page to the base name, "Dan Patrick" and move that page to "Dan Patrick (sportscaster)". If you don't think there is a primary topic, then this RM should be at "Talk:Dan Patrick", and that base name page should be moved to the sportscaster's page title, while the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name, "Dan Patrick". In that case, this page would remain at its present title. Let me know exactly how you want to proceed and I'll help you get there. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above. This seems like a malformed request and doesn't seem necessary regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above as well. DonSpencer1 (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

No license for image

[edit]

I don't believe this image is properly licensed or can be freely uploaded to Wikipedia. @Maliepa: Would you be willing to check this? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not convinced about this image either: File:Dan Patrick Texas.jpg. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first image appears to have been copied from ballotpedia.org, but I don't know enough about that site's image licensing requirements to comment. The second image has an official release from Texas Senate Media Services through the WikiMedia OTRS program, so I don't see any issues there. – Maliepa (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Laws

[edit]

The article states now, that "In 2019, Patrick called for requiring background checks for gun sales between two strangers", but Kstat writes on June 17 2021 that [2] Dan Patrick with Dade Phelan and "several other Republican lawmakers who authored the legislation he signed into law" played a noteable part in writing seven pieces of legislation related to firearms that day (House Bill 1927 constitutional carry and Senate Bills 19, 20, 550, 957, 1500 and 2622). Shouldn´t that be included? Alexpl (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's included in the "Tenure" subsection of the "Lieutenant governor of Texas" section, as it deals with something Patrick helped do, rather than said. However, I would support adding this information in the "Political positions" section in addition to the section about his tenure as Lt. Gov. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fact mentioned in other wiki article not allowed in this one?

[edit]

Patrick worked for KTBU television station. This is mentioned in the KTBU article because it is relevant to the 2000-2001 timeframe, in which the station had several setbacks and changes in programming (which included sports, Lakewood Church broadcasts, and general programming). I added a sentence about this here, too, because it is part of his life story - but the few details I added were removed by @1990'sguy with the comment, "Undue info. Lakewood Church's ownership of KTBU is discussed in the latter's article".

As it stands now, it barely mentions his ownership and doesn't mention his leaving or the circumstances under which he left, even though it cites the article about it (which is only available if you have a subscription to their archival database).

I would assume that the typical reader of this article would be interested in his early ties to local leaders and early management of a media organization. Whereas the typical reader for the KTBU article would be interested in the programming details and why and how they changed over time. That's why I would assume it's worth mentioning in both places - relevant to both, but for different reasons because of context.

When a fact involves 2 entities, is it a Wikipedia policy that it only gets mentioned in one entity's article? If yes, how do you know which entity's article gets the details? I'm a new editor, just looking to learn more - link to the rule or Wikipedia discussion about this, please? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wikipedian-in-Waiting:, thanks for asking, and welcome to Wikipedia! The relevant guideline is WP:COATRACK. The facts you added are obviously true, but this article is about Dan Patrick, not the television station he worked for. Articles should be focused on the topic they're meant to discuss, and not get sidetracked by tangental topics, even if they're related in some way. I reverted your addition because it was overly focused on KTBU rather than Patrick himself. I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Patrick_(politician)&oldid=1255313656"