Talk:John Cornyn/Archive 1

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

Anonymous Tagging

An anonymous user [69.something] added a POV tag, claiming that this article is liberal-biased.

POV tags, however, cannot be added willy-nilly. The reasons must be stated in the discussion section.

Benwing 4 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Wiki Sponsored Bill Policy

I think adding potential bills that Senators sponsor is a good idea, and I would like to add information on it, particularly here and at Jon Kyl. The particular bill is about collecting DNA from suspects and placing it indefinitely in federal databases, regardless of conviction or acquittal. --Iosif 22:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Roberts Hearing

I am removing part of the edit on the Roberts hearing. Senator Cornyn did not say in his opening statement that 'gays have no rights in the constitution'. He did attack the current court for the Lawrence decision, so you can interpret that to mean what you please. But he didn't say what the author of the source you cited says that he did. [1]Montco 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


BLP violation

The "Casino investigation " section has no sources, and therefore, as an attack section, blatantly violates BLP. Corvus cornix 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just went back into the history, and that section seems to be abundantly covered by references and sources. I checked the links, and they seem to support the facts claimed. How is that then a BLP violation? Fieari 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it doesn't fit with their politics, obviously, therefore BIAS BIAS BIAS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.60.94 (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"repeal the minimum wage"?

The article claimed that Cornyn's vote for the Allard Amendment was a vote to repeal the minimum wage. Here is the actual text of the amendment: ``(h) State Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided for by the law of the State in which the employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State on January 1, 2007.. I have deleted the claim. 81.158.45.37 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can write in alternative views of the Allard amendment, but it would have eliminated the required federal minimum wage. Cornyn's position was controversial and widely reported. Obviously sponsors of the bill emphasized its state's rights component. Perhaps the solution is to write both sides of the issue into the entry; that seems more reasonable than deleting a major legislative event.Benzocane 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Read the text. It would not allow the minimum wage in any state to be less than the federal minimum wage of January 1, 2007. There may have been covereage suggesting that it meant something different, but not honest coverage. Here's the AFL-CIO blog on the matter. I'm assuming that you don't believe that the AFL-CIO blog is prone to speaking out against the minimum wage.[[2]] "The amendment would nullify the federal minimum wage standard in the 45 states that have their own minimum wage law, and allow the five states that don’t—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee—to opt-out of any federal minimum wage increase by passing a minimum wage law providing at least $5.15 an hour." In other words, so long as states had minimum wages equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage, they were welcome to ignore the federal minimum wage. In still other words, the same situation that otherwise applies (the amendment would have impacted the raise in the minimum wage in the bill it was seeking to amend, but "not raising" is not the same thing "repealing").
While voting for the Allard amendment, Sen. Cornyn loudly supported the bill as it passed after the Allard amendment failed. See his support for the minimum wage increase here [[3]], here [[4]], and in his votes. If his views to the contrary were widely publicised in reputable sources, those sources appear to have vanished. If you want to claim that "everyone knows" that the above amendment's text does not mean what it says it does, and that Cornyn supported repealing the minimum wage that he voted to raise, please cite something meeting wiki standards to that effect.Jamesofengland 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


The real effect of the amendment is of course a source of controversy. But instead of eliminating this significant chapter of his legislative history, both views should be incorporated into the entry.Benzocane 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The real effect of the amendment is not a source of respectable controversy, so far as I can tell. The plain meaning of the amendment is exceptionally clear. It is a very, very, short amendment (which doesn't mean that it was not blogged about without including the last clause, but there are activists out there who get pretty crazily irresponsible). Seriously, unless you can cite something respectable to suggest that it does not mean what it says on its face, there is no basis for incorporating the view. What is up now is even worse, since it does not incorporate two views. It presents as fact a claim that Cornyn was attempting to repeal the minimum wage and presents as fact a claim that Cornyn voted to raise it. In fact, Cornyn engaged in extensive negotiations as the bill evolved and was apparently much happier with the bill at the end than the bill at the beginning, partly because of filibuster avoiding compromises made after some struggles that included the Allard amendment. Again, if Cornyn had a different view of the amendment and it was widely publicised, it should be easy to produce a cite. Jamesofengland 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

edits today

Hi, why is sourced information being removed? Lawrence § t/e 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Military service?

As I was reading this senator's background, and actions in regards to DOD-related legislation, I wondered if he himself had any military background. I don't see anything in the article, but if it could be added, I'd think that would be informational. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to CQ Politics, he had no military service. Cassandro (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy and Summary

Re: Fiscal policy. I disagree that the latest edits are biased. All are backed up with non-partisan sources. If you disagree with the wording, I am happy to discuss - but facts should not be removed. Re: Summary. Summaries by their very nature are redundant. Facts are backed up with non-partisan sources. It seems a bit strange to me to consider a summary of a voting record in black and white as a "point of view" - but if someone wishes to discuss and edit that would be more "neutral", I'd be open to that. However, blanket deletion of content backed by factual sources seems pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjoneson (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Update - I have changed the wording to "controversial" - and I think if you talk to Cornyn himself, he will agree that he is indeed a controversial figure in the US Senate).

User:Jimjoneson, your contributions page lists only edits to this article going back to 12/11 with edit summaries like "disagree" and "it IS a fact." You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH for starters because the majority of your edits violate these strictures. No edit that includes a phrase like "cater to wealthy and corporate interests, and against the interests of the American middle class" is acceptable in a NPOV article unless you offer and identify in the text a RS for this position - and following the Wiki policy of WP:NEUTRAL, a balancing alternate perspective must also be included. Drawing conclusions from sources and using POV language like "cater" make such edits unacceptable in a NPOV article. Further, including the Bush tax cuts vs. payroll tax holiday in the lede smacks of WP:RECENT, likewise verboten in Wiki policy. Cornyn's career is broader, longer, and deeper than this.
These edits remove neutrality from the article and are better suited to a blog than an encyclopedia. I would be PERFECTLY happy to have an administrator adjudicate this, if you like, but the outcome will be the same. Edits lacking neutrality and balance in approach and language will not survive scrutiny.
And not that this is necessarily important - but I fully concur with the ideas you are trying to include. I despise Cornyn and all his works and have worked for progressive causes going back to the Johnson administration. But an objectively-written encyclopedia article is not the proper forum in which to grind axes. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Some operative strictures:
  • From WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." cf "cater to the wealthy" etc.
  • From WP:SYN section of the same article: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Ditto language regarding the effect of Cornyn's positions vis a vis the middle class.
  • From WP:RECENT:"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention..." cf lede

Sensei48 (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If Cornyn's policy on the Bush Tax cuts is WP:RECENT, then Cornyn's entire senatorial career is also WP:RECENT, hence this page shouldn't exist. That out of the way, I don't remember an edit phrased exactly as you quoted, but it certainly IS fact that the Bush Tax cuts favor unearned income (e.g. capital gains), while the payroll tax only applies to the first $110k of earned income, and thus constitutes a larger portion of the income of (a)those whos income is classified as "earned income" and (b) those who make $110k per year or less. That is NOT POV, it's FACT - and the classification of "earned" vs. "unearned" is common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjoneson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But then again, if you require a reference for 2+2=4 or, equivalently, 0.15 (capital gains tax rate) < 0.35 (highest earned income tax bracket) < 0.28+0.12 (roughly, marginal tax rate at $110k including self employment tax), then there is no hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.120.27 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimjoneson - Actually, I don't dispute the accuracy so much of what you say (and I note above that I think this guy and all like him should be run out of politics) as much as the phrasing. I think your last edit was very good because it is phrased factually. If we can find a source that makes the same point (and I bet there's one out there), then the edit stands as a clarification of the previous sentence and not as a polemic. BTW, my point about recentism referred to putting Cornyn's record on extending the Bush cuts and not the payroll tax in the lede, not in the body. Cornyn's career (and IMHO its pernicious effects) is broader than that and the lede should not focus on a single issue. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stockman Calls On Cornyn

The fact that Stockman has called on Cornyn to denounce the actions of his supporters is not relevant to Cornyn's bio.CFredkin (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the edit in question is extremely poorly written and clearly violates NPOV strictures in language such as "defamatory tactics of his supporters who are hiding behind Texans for a Conservative Majority" and "malicious lies." On those bases, the edit should be automatically reverted regardless of sourcing.Sensei48 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that Stockman is suing a PAC that is supporting Cornyn is not notable in Cornyn's bio.CFredkin (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the PAC is run by a former Cornyn staffer, running negative AD's against Senator Cornyns opponent and Senator Cornyn is not denouncing the lies is very signaficant to Senator Cornyn's bio.Javagalleria675 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it absolutely is not notable. Tiller54 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It is very significant for the Senators bio that a former staffer is running negative AD's against Senator Cornyn's opponent through his PAC and the opponent has now turned around and sued this PAC for libel and malicious lies and Senator has not distanced himself by denouncing these AD's.Justin5075 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears very likely that Javagalleria675, Justin5075, and Kroger952 are socks. I would advise that the editor discontinue edit warring on this page, otherwise sanctions may follow.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Campaign Page

CFredkin you have been removing material with citations on material relevant to the bio and making absurd accusations and threats against those who disagree with you. I noticed you have also removed comments from fellow Senators others about Senator Cornyns voting record to make this a campaign page a campaign commercial Justin5075 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm incorrect regarding the use of socks here, please accept my apology. (Now that the warning is on record, I won't mention it again in this forum.) Regardless multiple editors have weighed in against the edit you're trying to make here.CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted but I don't agree with your POV on relevant material on the Senator be kept out of Senator's bio page to make it look like his campaign page. I apologize for disagreeing with you and request you put back the material and citations you deleted, using Campaign wording so we don't go into a edit war. Senator Cornyn had opposed Senator Ted Cruz motion to defund Obamacare, and raise the debt ceiling and you have written it in the wording that maybe acceptable to the Senators Cornyn's campaign. I disagree with wording but am OK with the fact it is there. Thanks Kroger952 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not relevant at all. Please stop trying to push your anti-Cornyn POV here. I would note that some of the things the Stockman campaign have sued this SuperPAC over are things that are readily confirmable and that he once acknowledged. Tiller54 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a POV as these are significant facts to the Senator's bio. The PAC's negative AD's against Senator's opponet has many more mistatements and malicious lies than the readily confirmable story about some teeange kid with a similar name held for misdimeanor more than 40 years ago and charges droppped. The Senator has not distanced himself from this PAC I would appreciate someone puts it back in the Senators bio. George125 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The SuperPAC's ad's are irrelevant to Cornyn's bio, as are Stockman's attempts to deny what he once freely admitted to, and will not be added back to this article. You appear to be editing with a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged and may lead to you being blocked. Tiller54 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree. This is an obvious point to experienced Wiki editors who are not pushing a POV. This information might be relevant, properly phrased (without the inflammatory POV language), to the article on Stockman for the self-evident fact that the edit refers to an action by Stockman, not anything that Cornyn has ever done. With the same strictures, some notice of this suit might be of notability in the article about the senate election in Texas this year. Finally - a great deal of effort has been put into this article by a number of editors to keep partisan, POV insertions, both pro- and anti-Cornyn, out of what must be a dispassionate presentation of his life and career. The intended edit violates a number of Wiki protocols, including those that forbid POV in content and language. Sensei48 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree the Super PAC run by Senators former staffer, bombarding Texans with negative AD's against Senator's opponents in the election requires a mention in his bio preferably by a neutral editor, especially as this PAC has been sued for libel and malicious lies. Justin5075 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there any undisclosed paid editors involved in this and other politicians bio's that we are not aware of?Justin5075 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:AOBF. The edits of what appears to be you and your cohorts are in clear violation of a number of Wikipedia protocols as outlined above. This sentence above is a clear violation of yet another protocol - as the link states, "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence..." On what basis and with what evidence do you pose such an insulting question, beyond your own casual supposition? And not that it matters, but my own ideas are expressed quite clearly in the Fiscal Summary section above. Suffice it to say here that they do not align with Cornyn's in any particular. I do, however, align with Tiller54 and CFredkin in attempting to keep this article on point, objective, and free from irrelevancies and political intrusions.Sensei48 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sensei48 I did not accuse other editors of bad faith and asked a question that is being asked on Wikepedia. If you are offended I sincerely apologize. On the other hand I take offense to your language "you and your cohorts" being used for someone that does not agree with your POV. I suggest someone with NPOV puts back the sourced material that has been removed from this bio that does not satisfy campaign criteria.Justin5075 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
My use of the word "cohort" was not intended to offend, and there is nothing pejorative in the meaning of the word. I chose it instead of "friends" because I have no indication that you and the other editors in question have any association other than a commonality of interest, which is one of the definitions of "cohort." That aside, I believe you are missing the point, and you haven't responded to my queries immediately above. Do you have any evidence that any editors here are "paid campaign employees"? It matters not that it is "a question that is being asked on Wikepedia", to use your words - that simply indicates that there are editors elsewhere on Wikipedia equally in violation of an important protocol. In what way is your question regarding this any more than a casual supposition? Further, the edits that you are trying to introduce are in violation of relevance as outlined by others above, in addition to NPOV and WP:BLP. The only POV I have is an article that stays objective and on-point. Sensei48 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Additionally: please look at the article's treatment of the 2002 and 2008 elections. No information on electoral tactics or controversies are presented there. Rather, each section directs to a "main" article on the election itself, and simply and dispassionately tracks who opposing candidates were and what the outcome was. A genuinely NPOV edit to the 2014 election section could only add to the sentence already there that "Sen. Cornyn is facing seven declared candidates in the Republican primary" - with an appropriate source. To highlight anything regarding Stockman and nothing regarding the other 6 is indeed advancing a POV. Again, such information belongs if anywhere in the "main" article on this election. Sensei48 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing 8 candidates but someone deleted it and seems that the Senators PAC is obsessed with only one opponent. For Texas voters 2002 and 2008 were very different primaries than 2014. Texas voters were not bombarded with negative AD's like this primary and then the Seantors PAC got sued by the recipient of the negative AD's for libel because of their mistatements and lies. So far the only defense that have been shown for these negative AD's seems to be readily confirmable story about some teeange kid with a similar name held for misdimeanor more than 40 years ago and charges droppped. We have consensus this be put back in the bio as the Seantor has not made any statements distancing himself from this PAC operated by his former staffer running negative AD's on his opponent. Thanks George125 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Cornyn hasn't "distanced himself" from a Super PAC that has released ads that one of his opponents doesn't like is not notable and doesn't belong on this page. Tiller54 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with George125 thanksJavagalleria675 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, I've opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian. GabrielF (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Political positions

I have removed the following text by User:Kroger952. Kroger, please explain how this text is even remotely neutral:

Republican voters want party reform. Party leaders who supported Bush and refused to stand up to Obama are perceived as failures and traitors. They are the ones who collaborated in exploding debt and eroding liberty under the last two administrations. They sold the integrity of the party to the banks and international corporatists. They are not trusted to reverse these trends. Unfortunately John Cornyn has a record that he cannot run away from, which fails to meet these new standards.

Kroger, you claim that you support NPOV[5], but when you write text like this its clear that your only motivation here is to promote one political candidate at the expense of another and you just throw around terms like NPOV or consensus as a means of getting your way, without understanding or caring what they actually mean. GabrielF (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant editorializing -- blatant soapboxing -- on the part of Kroger952. Famspear (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This edit and the others under discussion in these last several Talk page sections appear to have been written by someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia NPOV protocols, or who simply disregards them in order to advance a political agenda.Sensei48 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
An administrator has confirmed the sockpuppetry: 1houstonian, also known as Actungberlin, is back at it (yawn... what a surprise...), using the following sockpuppets: George125, Javagalleria675, Dallas1963, Justin5075 and apparently Kroger952. See: [6]. Famspear (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not blatant editorializing -- it is a opposite opinion with citations of the campaign promo that is written. This just adds a NPOV as it was looking like a campaign ad otherwise. Don't make unfounded accusations of sock puppetry when a NPOV is added with references. I think there is a serious issue of undisclosed paid editors vandalizing Stockman page and making Cornyn a campaign AD. Kroger952 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between a fact and an opinion. We do not state opinions in the voice of the encyclopedia. When a particular opinion is notable and relevant we always attribute it to someone else. For instance, we might say "Person X believes that Cornyn's sold the integrity of the party to the banks and international corporatists.", provided that the person who held the opinion was notable and in a reasonable position to make that judgment, that the opinion itself was notable, and that including it would not be giving undue weight to a fringe idea. We would never make a value judgement about a person or a group of people("They sold the integrity of the party to the banks and international corporatists.") We would never make blatant statements about what broad groups of people ("Republican voters") believe unless there was some data to back that up ("Opinion polls found that a majority of Republican voters believed X"). GabrielF (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "Kroger952", it's blatant editorializing. Famspear (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Political Editing for Senator Cornyn

It is unfortunate that Senator Cornyns millions of negative advertising dollars have also entered Wikipedia. Congressman Stockmans Political Positions have been replacement by malicious mistatements and untruths. Many editors who have been editing Wikipedia for years have been blocked from correcting the subjective misstatements on Stockmans page so it becomes a negative advertisement for Cornyn. Cornyns opposition to defunding Obamacare, his support to increase debt ceiling have all been removed from Cornyn's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.168.218 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP 12.163.168.218: That's total baloney. See my commentary on the talk page for the Stockman article. Famspear (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

When reading through the overview of Senator John Cornyn I found a couple things I would do to enhance the page. First make sure that all accomplishments within each section of his political positions are up to date. Also add current legislation so that people are able to keep an updated track with what the Senator is currently working on. Ashtonet1 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Any criticism? Any? Bueller?

After reading TheRegister's article about the hopes for passage of an email privacy bill in the Senate this year, after Cornyn torpedoed last year's bill, after being unanimously passed in the House both last year and this. Think about that - the US House - unanimous - but scratched off by only one senator. And how is that covered here? Bueller? If it is notable enough for coverage by technical press based in the UK, how has it been 'overlooked' here? Shenme (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Cornyn. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Cornyn. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Cornyn. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Cornyn. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hillary vote

In the context of his delaying the Hillary Clinton confirmation, Sen. Sherrod Brown referred to him (on the Rachel Maddow Show) as "an unnamed senator from Texas, not Kay Bailey Hutchison". Pretty snarky for an institution that goes on about a minimum high regard, and it may be worth considering it for the unpopularity section.
--Jerzy•t 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA account edits

A newly created SPA account has removed reliably sourced content on Cornyn's leading role in anti-LGBT efforts in the US, as well as added a bunch of poorly sourced puffery and minutiae. The SPA's edits should be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead should cover his prominent anti-LGBT history

While on the Texas Supreme Court, Cornyn ruled with the majority to restore Texas's sodomy law (a law that was widely considered a national and international disgrace even at the time) – the ruling was later overruled by the US Supreme Court. Once in Congress, RS identify him as playing a leading role in the efforts to introduce a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage (which if successful would have meant that there would no Obergefell decision and that same-sex marriage would likely still be prohibited at the federal level). This deserves to be in his lead, because unlike many other politicians who used to hold anti-LGBT views, Cornyn took a leadership and used the powers of office to actively hinder LGBT rights in the country. This is of long-term encyclopedic value and part of what will cement his role in history when we're all dead and gone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So the problem is that putting that paragraph in the current lead is a WP:WEIGHT problem. This is a long article about a U.S. Senator who has held appointed and elected office for decades. Per WP:LEAD our intro needs to summarize the body, and that wasn't happening. Also, we need some sourcing to verify the claim that he played a "leading role." There are two sources related to that in the body right now. The first says Cornyn was writing an amendment and the second says Coryn "heads a subcommittee looking at a possible gay-marriage ban." That sourcing doesn't establish his role regarding gay marriage. I'm sure there is some better sourcing out there. Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Balanced?

This page has more information controversy surrounding Senator Cornyn, than accual information on the Senator. Three paragraphs on one remark from the Senator- is this really nescessary?

Yetiwriter —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not particularly harmful to include the text; perhaps a more effective way to balance a political page such as this would be to include references to bills and amendments authored/sponsored; noteable actions taken as attorney general, etc. A lot of work required to do that.

Rwwff —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph (in the beginning summary) sounds like it was written by a supporter of Occupy Wall Street. While it may be true that some individuals in the state of Texas believe that his policies disproportionately "cater to wealthy and corporate interests," this statement constitutes opinion and not objective fact. The paragraph has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageman4u (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This excerpt does not seem very unbaised:

On December 19, 2005, a public challenge was made to Patrick Henry's 230 year-old American standard, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Senator John Cornyn publicly proclaimed, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead." In his defense of President George W. Bush’s illegal domestic spying activities, Cornyn effectively unveiled the new Republican Party standard: Take my liberty or give me death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattle GOP (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth has a liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.60.94 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Cornyn is the ultimate partisan. His seemingly mild-mannered voice does little to conceal his disdain for respect for his fellow members and for his constituents.PeaceTrainee (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bias Update

There has been a change to accomodate for those who are interested in reality. The obviously biased and loaded phrase: "...In his defense of President George W. Bush’s illegal domestic spying activities..." is replaced with the more appropriate and applicable phrase: "...In his defense of President George W. Bush’s controversial spying activities..." No matter what we think, feel, and/or believe; this site should not contain legal conclusions based on conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.173.135 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. With respect to this article, we need to show more respect to John Cornyn than he has ever shown to the rule of law, bipartisanship or honesty.PeaceTrainee (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Most Unpopular Senator"?

This is simply a false statement. In the link posted by whomever said this, two Senators (both Democrats from New Jersey) have lowers approval ratings than Cornyn's 40%, and 26 Senators have disapproval ratings at or worse than Cornyn's 38%. Six Senators had net approval ratings worse than Cornyn's +2%. Under none of the proffered statistics can Cornyn be labeled the "most unpopular Senator in Washington, D.C." I am removing both of these references, and suggesting that the entire article be scrutinized more closely for biased POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.108.165 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the first poll cited: [[7]], and here is the second: [[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.101.250 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose 'biggest asshole' would have been closer to the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.60.94 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Only Darrell Issa is a bigger asshole.PeaceTrainee (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Campaign Commercial

This page looks like a campaign commercial. Wikepedia is neutral and this page needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.32.125 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is not neutral and looks like a campaign commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.34 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Cornyn vs Stockman

There is a primary going on in Texas. Cornyns PAC and Cornyn are spending millions of dollars in mostly negative AD's against Stockman and it seems to be playing out in Wikepedia. Some biased editors are turning Stockman page into a negative AD page for Cornyn and also keep removing sourced material from Cornyn page to make it look like Senator Cornyn's reelection AD.George125 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How does Wikepedia monitor undisclosed paid editions going on during political season? When a politican like Senator Cornyn is spending millions of dollars in negative AD's, how do we know this is not being done on Wikepedia to make the Congressman Stockman page look bad and Senator Cornyn's great?George125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear George125: How do we know that Stockman supporters aren't making edits to try to make Stockman's page look good and Cornyn's page look bad?
The answer is that the job of Wikipedia editors is to edit articles by following Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If we do that, the kind of theoretical problem you describe should not be, well, too much of a problem. Famspear (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If Stockman people were making the edits Cornyn's Policy Positions would not be on his page like a campaign Ad and Stockmans Policy Positions, bills and votes been replaced with malicious misstatements. It is public knowledge that Cornyn campaign is spending millions of dollars in negative Ad's against Stockman we just don't want Wikepedia to become another medium for this negative campaign, and lets not forget about other 6 contenders in this race Justin5075 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And if "Cornyn's people" were making the edits for the nefarious purpose of using Wikipedia to make Stockman look bad, the edits (in the article on Stockman) probably wouldn't be so well sourced. You missed my point, Justin5075. The point is that we need to focus follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and not worry about what George 125 called "undisclosed paid editions going on during political season". Famspear (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

KKK Allegations

Article was recently edited to remove news regarding Cornyn's alleged KKK ties. Rationale was WP:RS, hacktivist groups are not reliable sources. However, the sources are actually the (multiple) news articles reporting on the hacktivist group's release, which falls under WP:NEWSORG via

The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).

Cornyn's alleged membership in the KKK is noteworthy because of his involvement in controversial legislation that has direct links to the Civil Rights Movement. Even if the reports were to turn out to be false, the fact that such reports were initially presented as credible is noteworthy within the aforementioned context. Recommending the reinstatement of that passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.214.49 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

See brand New: http://thenextweb.com/us/2015/11/02/anonymous-drops-names-of-kkk-members-online-including-us-politicians/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:4000:CA60:3C58:B145:14DA:88AB (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous denies naming Cornyn and others mentioned yesterday as KKK members. APK whisper in my ear 07:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
All points here are well taken, and I as one of several of the reverters appreciate the Wiki-sensitive taking of this issue here to Talk. I would question the inclusion of anything from Anonymous as RS until there is substantially greater verification from other sources, and I appreciate 68.9.214.49's invocation of the text of WP:BLP. I would have been contented with a consensus judgment here on whether to include the rumor or not, but as AgnosticPreachersKid's cite above demonstrates, at this point that question is moot. The edit must stay out until further clarification is available. Sensei48 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Cornyn/Archive_1&oldid=1078752862"