Talk:John Cornyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Cornyn article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated B-Class) John Cornyn is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low." ??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event." WikiProject Texas (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Houston     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion. Portal:Houston B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Anonymous Tagging 2 Balanced? 3 Wiki Sponsored Bill Policy 4 Bias 5 Bias Update 6 Roberts Hearing 7 "Most Unpopular Senator"? 8 BLP violation 9 "repeal the minimum wage"? 10 edits today

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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. Here is the link to the first poll cited: [[2]], and here is the second: [[3]]

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.[[4]] "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 [[5]], here [[6]], 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)

[edit] edits today

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