Talk:Clay Higgins

Clay Higgins

You characterized him to nothing but a lie he's not far right and into the proud boys and such. You need to start being fair,this man is a veteran to the nation and a police officer. Get off your liberal high horse. 173.246.204.95 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This article says nothing about the Proud Boys. Higgins is close with the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Higgins is far right

It seems each time "far right" is added to this article, it's removed because of sourcing. I don't get it. IMO there's already enough sources in the article documenting his views to call it "far-right" without additional citations explicitly using that phrase. It's like an article about a guy who puts on a colorful costume, some makeup, a red nose, and juggles at kids' birthdays, but you still can't call him a clown,. If he looks like a clown, acts like a clown, and there's already sources documenting the clown behavior, then I think you can call him a clown even on a BLP.

However, it's easier to just add a source that directly uses the term. Lamar White Jr. wrote a long form article about Higgins. "The Scoundrel" which I think could be used to cite that he's at least been called "far right" by relevant media. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is it so important to attach the "far-right" label to Higgins or anybody else? What purpose do such labels serve? 173.61.150.48 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your issue with an objective descriptor is suspect. Russell Lieber (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you feel the same need to apply far-left descriptors to politicians on the other side? 2601:2C5:4685:D90:BDE8:A49A:DCB0:6A3E (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"I'm easy to find" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect I'm easy to find has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20 § I'm easy to find until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Epstein Files Political Position

Clay Higgens is the sole nay vote in voting for release of the Epstein files. Please add under political positions. ~2025-34639-51 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE unless it makes more significant coverage longer than 47 minutes after the vote. If it is added, we will of course include his statement on why he voted that way, right? "As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not by my vote." cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the UK and I've never heard of this guy before now. I suspect that internationally at least, being the sole vote against the Epstein files release will remain his most notable achievement for some time, probably forever. ~2025-34663-21 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that his single, standlalone vote in opposition to the release of the "Epstein Files" (whatever they may turn out to be) may be the most noteworthy thing he has ever done, and should (maybe) be included, dependent completely on how much impact the release (if it actually happens) has, and how significant the release is to the issue of the files themselves. Might be too soon to tell. Could be an insignificant point in an insignificant politician's insignificant career.~2025-31868-12 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

military service

You state he served as a military officer. He DID NOT, he was a staff Sergeant, an enlisted man, not a commissioned officer!!!! ~2025-34681-39 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The article clearly characterizes his service. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise, please share them. We don't make changes based on individual editor's claims about someone. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not see Higgins being referred to as an "officer" anywhere in the Article. Many references as a Police Officer, Public Information Officer, etc... but no where does it convey that he was anything other than a SNCO in the US military. Unless someone can show otherwise, recommend this part of the discussion be archived.~2025-31868-12 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Higgins' association with (BLP violation removed)

Is this - reported on in Mother Jones https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/clay-higgins-incest-sex-trafficking-former-police-officer-friends/ - potentially relevant to Higgins' vote to keep the Epstein Files sealed, or should it be included in the Controversies section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34505-15 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is entirely based on hearsay and innuendo. As a BLP, that's not admissible unless there's significant coverage beyond one source. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2025

Please add to Clay Higgins career that his vote for the Epstein Files Transparency Act was the sole “Nay” vote when 427 other politicians voted for. ~2025-34660-51 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

He was the sole "nay" vote on a very popular piece of legislation that has made it past Congress today. (H.R.4405) ~2025-34692-56 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Then provide a reliable source for it. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 02:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025289?BillNum=H.R.4405

Is that a reliable souce? ~2025-34759-49 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit request is moot at this point, as the matter is covered within the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Vudu vs. Voodoo

"On September 25, 2024, Higgins made a post on X disparaging Haitians, tweeting "Lol. These Haitians are wild. Eating pets, vudu [sic], nastiest country..."

Why is it spelled "Vudu" in the hyperlink text, but the floating box text spells it "voodoo"? For readability, it should be consistent as having it spelled both ways undermines the Reader's faith that the Article is well-written. The instinctive reaction is "If it's half-assed here, it's probably half-assed everywhere else."~2025-31868-12 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's quoting his written words. We don't modify the original. That's the purpose of sic, to identify that something is misspelled, and provide the correct spelling. Nothing "half-assed" about it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The [sic] portion means that was exactly how Higgins has posted it. In direct written quotes, we include any typo's that the source had, as it is considered bad practice to modify a direct quote. Vudu was a misspelling on Higgin's part. Voodoo is the correct spelling. Isobelin (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It still fails readability. The fact that the text (a tweet) is quoted sets-up an expectation in the Reader's mind that they are about to read a QUOTE and not a mash of hyperlinked text to who-cares-what. The entire purpose of a QUOTE is to give the Reader that actual QUOTE, so that the Reader can read what the person actually SAID, without the interference of (again) who-cares-what. The word "sic" gets it's own hyperlink, and appears to be a part of a list of hyperlinked words, all in the middle of what is supposed to be a QUOTE. First I think Editors should put some effort into thinking about what a QUOTE is, what the purpose of a QUOTE is, and what the reader expects to read when something is QUOTED. I'd "be bold" and fix it myself but the Article is protected by what I would assume would be more experienced Editors. I see no point in sacrificing Readability for I-don't-care-what. READABILITY. "Invite the Reader" to "continue reading" not "annoy the reader" with excessive meaningless hyperlinked words that were never a part of the QUOTE. Personally I think all Editors should be required to declare if English is their 1st language, and pass a proficiency test.~2025-31868-12 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Typo

Under "Controversies" the word supremacist is misspelled as "supremecist". ~2025-34721-21 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out. Isobelin (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to put some restrictions on this page.

Due to a recent vote the person this page is based off of on H.R.4405 I think it might be a good idea to put some restrictions in place regarding who can edit the page. At least until it all blows over. ~2025-34692-56 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There's already a sliver lock on this page. Temporary Accounts and newly registered accounts can't change anything in the page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2025

Lone dissenter in vote to release Epstein Files. ~2025-34860-76 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2025 (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. This information is already included in a section titled "Epstein Files" under "Political Positions". Qwerty123M (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: It's not that I "don't like an edit request" or whatever the hell you were tryna say, it's that this request is basically a bunch on nothingness and I interpreted it as a troll request, although I maybe shouldnt've reverted it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO you must not delete comments except in certain circumstances and I don't think this meets the threshold of a prohibited nature. It's also not acting in good faith.

I also think this discussion is more appropriately taken to my user talk page. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not taking this discussion further ahead. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Change Twitter to X

The company previously known as twitter, but now known as X is still called Twitter in this page in at least one place, adn it should be changed to be up to date. SabrGamr (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 00:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've already updated them to the standard presentation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks SabrGamr (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Should a leftist leaning source such as Nola be considered impartial and relevant?

Citation #17 outlines a source not considered to be impartial and leftist-leaning. Article content employs leading language as a tool to arrive at a predetermined negative conclusion.

"Guidroz said he was poised to fire Higgins in 2016 when the brash deputy abruptly called a press conference to announce his resignation, claiming Guidroz was trying to muzzle him." LMikejl (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You think that The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate is "leftist"? You're wondering if the main newspaper covering New Orleans is "relevant"? It is a WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The specific language I used to describe The Advocate was "leftist-leaning." There indeed have been others who have accused them and all other forms of media in the area to be guilty of full-blown leftism, however. That aspect could indeed have an effect on their relevancy, depending on who you ask. https://thehayride.com/2021/05/crouere-only-left-wing-news-is-fit-to-print-in-new-orleans/ LMikejl (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)