Jump to content

Talk:Tom Cotton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Earlier versions

  • A previous version of this article was deleted on 3 November 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cotton
  • A subsequent version was nominated by DGG for speedy as copyvio, and declined as not being entirely copyvio. Jul 4, 2012
  • DGG rewrote in slightly abbreviated form the most clearly copyvio sections Jul 5, 2012, & also did a good deal of copyediting and removing a little minor campaign material

Continuing problems

As I see them:

  1. We normally have not accepted pages on mere candidates for national office unless they are elected or have demonstrated notability otherwise. I think we ought to, but such is not yet the consensus
  2. The GNG can provide such notability, but only if the material meet the requirements of WP:Reliable sources. I have strong doubts whether most of the sources here are RSs, rather than Press releases or based on press releases.
  3. In particular, the Iraq letter is sourced only to two oppositely oriented politically biased sources, and it would be very good to find some better sources. If the statements in the article are correct, they should exist. If not, the material must be removed.
  4. The problem of how to deal with individuals who are notable only because their press agents have made sure to have sufficient sources available, is unresolved. The only way of deciding in a specific case is AfD, and I will consider it. But I am somewhat reluctant to submit an AfD based on a principal that I disagree with. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


From the pre-political employment section: Cotton was quickly promoted to political interests, with an attempt to draft him for Arkansas’s 2010 Senate race. In 2011, when the 12 year Arkansas Democratic congressman had retired, Cotton ran for office. Who is the 12 year Dem congressman? What office did Cotton run for? Anewcharliega (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Error in InfoBox

As of right now, the box still states that he's a member of the House of Representatives, even though he's now a Senator. I'd change it myself if I knew how, but I don't, so I'm asking that somebody with the correct skill set make the change. JDZeff (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The Infobox correctly lists his current role as a U.S. Senator, as well as his past role as a member of the House. It shows that his term in the House ended January 3, 2015, the date he assumed his Senate office. It is convention to list past national offices as well as those presently held. See for example John McCain.Dwpaul Talk 00:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wiktionary or Webster's 1913 dictionary or the quote from Theodore Roosevelt in the Wikipedia article on the Treaty Clause and you will find that "ratify" means to give consent. That is the job of the Senate with regard to treaties. The President does not ratify a treaty. He negotiates it and presents it to the Senate for ratification. The section of this article on Tom Cotton's purported errors should be corrected. 200.83.101.149 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CNN did a poor job of reporting in my opinion. Please feel free to propose specific rewording, with better sources if possible.- MrX 12:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Cotton prepared the letter, but it was also signed by 46 other Republican members of the House. I question whether this analysis belongs in this biographical article at all; seems to me it belongs at Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program. Otherwise, this same discussion should appear on the biographical page of every House member who signed the letter. Dwpaul Talk 12:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
(And if it did, the risk is that the analysis would be different on each of the 47 pages depending on the politics of the editor.) Dwpaul Talk 12:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I would remove the sentence beginning "The letter contained factual errors", because it is not supported, and the following sentence beginning "The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution", because it is incorrect. In the sentence beginning "Within hours", I would remove the word "also", which no longer has a referent. There is no need for additional citations, I believe. I read the letter Cotton wrote, as it appears in Wikipedia, but whether there are significant errors in the letter, I simply don't know. - 200.83.101.149 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dwpaul: I think there needs to be some content in the bio about this, but we could do without the excessive detail.- MrX 13:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a pass at it. I'm still inclined to think that the two paragraphs following, concerning reactions to the letter, need to come out of this article and perhaps move to Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program. This article is not about the letter. Dwpaul Talk 14:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have also reverted the recent addition of a wiki-linked list of Republican Senators who did not sign the letter, on the basis that if we are not going to list the Senators who did sign, we shouldn't list the Senators who didn't (and I maintain we shouldn't do either one here, for the reasons outlined above). Dwpaul Talk 21:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consanguinity amendment

Tom Cotton has been widely misreported as having called for the imprisonment of relatives of those convicted of violating US sanctions against Iran. He in fact proposed adding relatives of those already under sanction, to the sanction list themselves. This is an entirely civil procedure that can be carried out by executive action, and has never required a trial. I've rewritten the relevant section in the article to reflect reality, and updated it with a news citation that also reflects that reality. Here is a blog post explaining how the misunderstanding happened. I'm posting this just as a notice to anyone who came here wondering why Wikipedia says something different than XYZ news source. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I find that rather weak to be honest. And this blog is a source of refutation for an issue that prompted an frenzy of media debate and an eventual legislative retraction? Point is this: Expanding "punishment" to include relatives is de facto corruption of the blood territory. Regardless of the hyperbole that followed the story, or Cotton's own lack of understanding, a duck is a duck. Ward Arminius (talk)

Duplication of text

I am not involved with this article, and don't wish to become involved with it, however I would like to point out that as of today, April 3, 2015, that the second paragraph of the pre military employment section essentially is a duplication of the Military Service section. Is there anyone who is editing this document that can edit this down, and remove the redundancy? Sjkoblentz (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing Non-chronological Order

The paragraph on the New York Times letter does not appear until after the summation of his military career but it was critical in determining the course of his final years of military service. There are two additional paragraphs on his service after 2006, the letter paragraph, which specifically refers to his chain of command at that time and not later, should be moved to the correct place in his military service so as to avoid confusion. john.garavelli 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.garavelli (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Cotton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Promotional excesses and Ommissions

Something seems really amiss that this article can exist in the form that exists. Some biases are screaming.--Wikipietime (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cotton invokes Mary Mallon as a political slander of Susan Rice on April 4 2017.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cotton clearly has presidential ambition with significant backers. The experienced editors who have criticized me for failings should get to work on this foundation of his, Cotton, political rise. I do seem to have a few followers who are ready to pounce; so, get to work here.--Wikipietime (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Health Care Bill

Senator Cotton I voted for you to take care of all the people of AR. If I under stand this bill it cut Medicare, if that is true you must vote agents it. I am 75 and need Medicare. There are a lot of scenarios in AR & don't forget we put you there to take care of us! Jlbateman (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Why an asterisk after Pryor?

In the Electoral History table, there is an asterisk after his Democratic opponent for Senate. There is no corresponding asterisk on the page. Error? Omission? What? Eplater (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Joined military "after 9/11"

He joined the military 4 years after 9/11. What's the limit on joining "after 9/11" versus just joining the military? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.133.32 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Cotton's view that waterboarding is not torture

It has been widely reported that Cotton believes "waterboarding is not torture", and that he supports Trump's promise to bring back waterboarding.[1]. Given Cotton is a US senator and there is speculation he could be the next director of the CIA, this seems to me, as someone who lives in the wider world outside the US, to be a grave matter that belongs in the lead of the article. So why is the matter being withheld? Have issues like this become of no consequence in the US? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The robots are coming ....

TC has some novel opinions about employment and immigration policy. See Washington Post Article here. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The text indicates that Cotton rose to the rank of First Lieutenant. The sidebar says Captain. One of these is wrong. David Cary Hart (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Formative Years and Education

"After finishing law school in 2002, he served for a year as a clerk for Judge Jerry Edwin Smith at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He then entered the practice of law, working at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for a few months to pay off his student loans, and later at the law firm of Charles J. Cooper & Kirk from 2003 to 2004.[8]"

He was able to pay off his student loans by working there for a few months?

Toobin's New Yorker article, fn 8, reads, in part, as follows:

"He decided to take the clerkship he had already accepted, with Judge Jerry Smith, on the Fifth Circuit, then work at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in Washington, to start paying off his student loans."

However, it looks like he didn't take the job with the intention of leaving it imminently, but that some sort of epiphany led him to decide to enlist in the Army to lead troops in combat.

Reasonable, provided his student loans were not excessive. I worked my way through college, but had roughly $6,000 in student loans upon graduation. Eight months into my career, they were paid in full.Clepsydrae (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing his coronavirus conspiracy theorizing

All RS clearly identify him as a promoter of coronavirus conspiracy theories.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Adding some BS qualifiers about how he is just "asking questions" or spitballin' is unacceptable (because that's what conspiracy theorists do). Adding some nonsense about he himself recognized that his nonsense was evidence-free (while still pushing the theory) is not acceptable (because that's what conspiracy theorists do). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is specifically in reference to me or not, but the -only- reason I reverted to the other lang was the use of "evidence-free theories". In my view that is colloquial and not encyclopedic. Also, I fail to see any difference between saying he was promoting a theory without any evidence and saying he promoted an "evidence-free theory." My revert was not political, I just take issue with that informal phrase and I think calling it 'white-washing' is mischaracterization my edit. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of the lang now? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Your recent change is an improvement. The only remaining change I'd make is fix the header so that it says "coronavirus conspiracy theories" or "coronavirus misinformation". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
One version suggests that he's spitballin', repeating and maybe even debunking things that are out there (which he himself may not even believe to be accurate), the other correctly identifies him as a promoter of the conspiracy theory. The first version is a whitewashed version intended to make him look better and which misleads readers as to what he's saying about the coronavirus. The other version reflects what RS actually say about him and his remarks. If someone goes out and pushes notions that the Holocaust may have been a hoax by saying "There is no concrete evidence that it was a hoax but it's reasonably to ask whether historians and governments faked all the records about the Holocaust", we don't add text that says someone "recognized there was no evidence that the Holocaust was faked". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Academic sources are saying that the idea that the virus might have escaped from the lab is not proven true or false. The emphasis differs, but that's the bottom line. [8] [9] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In section Tom Cotton#Caucuses add that he is a current member of Senate Taiwan Caucus and a previous member of Congressional Taiwan Caucus [1]

  1. ^ "President Ma meets delegation led by US Senator Tom Cotton".

2020 Reelection Campaign

This doesn't seem to have a mention or reference here and he appears not to have a Democratic challenger. Lycurgus (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Change "Cotton is a combat veteran of the War on Terrorism" to "Cotton is a combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

This change would reduce the prominence in the article of a politically charged term ('War on Terror'). The current wording has the effect of signalling the subject's stance as 'tough on terror' to his base in language more suitable for a political campaign website. For comparison, we would not neutrally introduce a DEA agent as a 'veteran of the War on Drugs'.

Many thanks 45.64.241.18 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done, in fact the statement was completely redundant, so I've removed it, along with some other similar tweaks about this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

I could find negligible further citations for Cotton's sponsorship of the Government Bailout Prevention Bill. As I intended to restore the passage in another section after a Google search, my edit summary only considered of 'ce'; other changes were merely rearrangements of text. For this reason I felt I needed to mention the issue here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Army Ranger controversy

Salon and Independent are reporting that Cotton has made false claims about being a Ranger. Here is my proposed text. "Cotton has claimed to be “a US Army Ranger in Iraq or Afghanistan” and that he “volunteered to be an Army Ranger.” Cotton told the Hot Springs Sentinel-Record in 2012 "My experience as a US Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan and my experience in business will put me in very good condition.” Though Cotton has a Ranger tab from taking a small-unit tactical infantry training course open to anyone at the Ranger School, he was never actually a part of the elite 75th Ranger Regiment."DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that the main source of this section is Salon which in 2015 had a feature article on the first female ranger school graduates. Salon referred to them as “U.S. Army Rangers” even though none of them were assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment. Seems Salon, like so many other sources that blur the lines between facts and opinion, has different standards for different people.EdJF (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Selection to Ranger School is exceptionally difficult and with over 50% of most physically fit and motivated students from every branch of service failing to complete the course, earning the Ranger tab is considered an exceptional accomplishment. Anybody who wears the tab is normally referred to as a "Ranger" whether or not they were actually assigned to the regiment.EdJF (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Now that it is clear that Salon is changing its own style deceptively in order to besmirch Cotton, in my view the whole discussion should be deleted.Mikedelsol (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not Salon has called the wrong people Rangers is not a matter for this page. Salon might be a hotbed of stolen valor, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Cotton lied. Nor should Salon's political orientation be on the page. You can bring up Salon's reliability on this specific topic here in Talk if you think it's questionable. Otherwise, to call Salon leftist on the page without a source is WP:SYNTH. Again, this page is about Cotton not Salon. The factual questions is: Did Cotton say something that isn't true? We now have Salon, Independent, Business Insider, Snopes, Rolling Stone, and Rep Jason Crow all charging Cotton with saying something that isn't true. Snopes, Independent and Rolling Stone are trusted sources per WP:RSPSRC. Salon and BI are case-by-case. Given all the newsrooms that have gotten behind this story, and Crow, it seems pretty cut and dry that Cotton has in fact been accused of lying. All of these sources (except Crow) try to make a distinction between tab and scroll, and it is subtle, but if Cotton said scroll in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the above quote from my OP sure seem like to me, then there is plenty of reason to take these charges seriously. I'll edit the page accordingly. DolyaIskrina (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It is clear now that the whole discussion is based on tabloid journalism and NewSpeak. Can you explain how to point out that Salon's own dishonesty disqualifies it as a reliable source without running awful of your peculiar definition of "original research"? When you do that, it might be possible to put this slanderous "controversy" into Wikipedia in a balanced way. Until then, the issue should stay deleted.Mikedelsol (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Obviously Salon should have researched their own back issues before they published the story about Cotton as they were clearly OK with referring to Soldiers not assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment as “Army Rangers” when it suited Salon’s purpose. That other publications repeated the same nonsense found in Salon doesn’t remove from Wikipedia editors the burden imposed upon us by WP:BLP.EdJF (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
You need a policy reason to cut the text out of the article. You could argue it is WP:UNDUE. And I agree it's getting too long, but then we'd have to cut some of the tick tock of the debate. It's important to note that the more we add people in other WP:RS defending Cotton as a Ranger, the more we show that this is, in fact, a significant and notable event in his military history. Salon could have called Brezhnev a Ranger and it has nothing to do with whether or not Cotton represented himself as having been in the 75h Ranger Regiment and whether or not it's become a discussion in reliable sources. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If this is the Salon article about the first women graduates you, EdJF, mean, Salon doesn't say that they served as Army Rangers. Graduating from the grueling training course and serving as a U.S. Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan—as Cotton claimed he did in the video ads (Salon, Rolling Stone, and Arkansas Democrat Gazette all provide the videos)—are two different things. They don't dispute Cotton's military record which includes a Bronze Star, they call out his false claims. Incidentally, the 2014 campaign video cited by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette contains another falsehood, i.e., Cotton claiming that president Obama admitted that he had underestimated the Islamic terrorists by playing a deceptively edited video. You can see the actual unedited clip here; Obama said that James Clapper acknowledge that U.S. Intelligence had underestimated what was taking place in Syria. (I'm not proposing to add this to the article.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @EdJF: Re your edit summary. WP:RS doesn't apply in this case. Numerous sources (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Rolling Stone, etc.) independently verified the ads and commercials first reported by Salon. They're available online, so everyone can check for themselves, as well. CSM (ret.) Merritt's statement is somewhat misleading—"100% a Ranger" and "will always be a Ranger" doesn't actually say that Cotton was a U.S. Army Ranger or even Army Ranger. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In a similar case last year, Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler asked the Army for a statement.

We posed the question to the Army, starting with the Ranger School at Fort Benning. We explained that a political candidate is running ads saying he is a former Army Ranger, but one of his rivals, also ex-Army, says he can’t be considered a Ranger. Our query was passed up the line until we received this statement from a U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesperson:

The U.S. Army Ranger Course is the Army's premier leadership school, and falls under Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, and is open to all members of the military, regardless of whether they have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completed the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program. A graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is Ranger qualified.

The 75th Ranger Regiment is a special operations unit with the mission to plan and conduct joint special military operations in support of national policies and objectives. The Regiment’s higher headquarters is the U.S. Army Special Operations Command located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Regiment is the Army’s largest, joint special operations force. All members of the 75th Ranger Regiment have passed the Ranger Assessment Selection Program 1, 2, or both. Anyone who is serving or has served within the 75th Ranger Regiment is a U.S. Army Ranger.

Translated, that means Messner cannot say he is an Army Ranger, only that he is “Ranger qualified.”

I bolded the two sentences that make it clear that Cotton should not have referred to himself as an Army Ranger or a U.S. Army Ranger. He has a Harvard law degree and his last rank was Captain. What are the chances that he "misspoke?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

An unnamed spokesperson made some comments that the Washington Post translated into an opinion. Hardly authoritative. From that, the conclusion by Salon, not a reliable source, another opinion that Cotton cannot refer to himself as a "Ranger". Bottom line: An opinion from an unreliable source, derived from another opinion, derived from a vague comment by an unnamed spokesperson.

By comparison, from the BI article,

Speaking to a Ranger School graduation ceremony in 2015, US Army Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, the commander of the service's infantry school, told service members, "You carry the title of Ranger. From here on out, your subordinates, your peers, your leaders, will always expect you to be able to handle the toughest tasks."

A speech not made to the 75th Ranger Regiment, but to a class of Ranger school graduates. '"You carry the title of Ranger."' Very authoritative and from a senior Army Commander, by name and on the record, responsible for training rangers and sending them off to serve as Rangers, some in the 75th Ranger Regiment, some in other units such as the 101st Airborne Division. Pretty clear that Tom Cotton had the right to refer to himself as an Army Ranger whether or not he was serving as a Ranger in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Not surpringly, the Ranger Command Sergeant Major says the same thing.EdJF (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither Miller nor Merritt mention the term "Army Ranger." unnamed spokesperson made some comments - it was a written response to a written inquiry. Quoting WaPo: We posed the question to the Army, starting with the Ranger School at Fort Benning. We explained that a political candidate is running ads saying he is a former Army Ranger, but one of his rivals, also ex-Army, says he can’t be considered a Ranger. Our query was passed up the line until we received this statement from a U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesperson: (Army statement see my above post). It's the Army, CYA applies. If the spokesperson hadn't been authorized to make the statement, WaPo would have said so. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Miller is a U.S. Army Major General, commander of the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, speaking to a graduating class at the U.S. Army Ranger school, so there is no need to state the obvious. As well, Miller is responsible for training and doctrine, so his perspective on this is the final word unless overruled by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. By comparison, the anonymous spokesperson from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command is only authorized to speak to operational matters, not those of training and doctrine, so his/her opinion is mildly interesting but actually irrelevant.EdJF (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Committee assignments

@Unknown0124: RE your edits [10], [11] - what’s the source for your information? Mine is the Senate’s assignments page, and the committees' membership lists don't say which subcommittees the individual members are on. Also, how can the assignments to the subcommittees on Personnel and on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be current if Cotton was only on there until 2017? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: As far as sources go for the committee assignments, I used exactly the same source you did, plus [12]. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I really don't understand why you don't want the committee assignments updated to reflect the current information. The last source you mention (the PDFs on the "Senate Committee & Subcommittee Assignments") doesn't have the info on the current Congress yet, so we should just remove the sucommittee info from the 116th Congress and add the 117th Congree assignments when they are available. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fox News April 2020 interview

Due to this edit by Philip Cross the article says In late April 2020, Cotton insisted in a Fox News interview that the coronavirus outbreak was a "deliberate" and "malevolent" attack by the government of China on the world. "They did not want to see their relative power and standing in the world decline because the virus was contained [in China]," he said.[158][159] The word "insist" looks inappropriate (WP:SAID), and Mr Cotton did not say the "outbreak" was deliberate and malevolent (he was talking about certain actions in response after the outbreak), and I can't find any statement that might be a paraphrase of "attack by the government of China on the world". The first cited source (Politico) doesn't refer to those words in that interview, the second cited source (Forbes) is poor per WP:RS/QUOTE because we have the original source, a Fox News transcript. I advocate removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Please make the change.EdJF (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Instead of replying, Philip Cross changed to: In late April 2020, Cotton said in a Fox News interview that the non-containment of the coronavirus outbreak was a "deliberate" and "malevolent" attack by the government of China on the rest of the world. and cited Fox News. Actually words like non-containment and attack are interpretations. I would have paraphrased as: Cotton said the Chinese communist party's response after the outbreak was deliberately malevolent. But I acknowledge that the worst matters are fixed, and will not remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Investigate Sleepy Joe - Hunter Biden!

Sleepy Joe and Hunter Biden are in the pocket of Communist China and Russia. They have been given millions between them and Ukraine. Why they have NOT been investigated into these actions. WHY!! Why are the Republicans NOT hammering them like the DemocRATS did all the way to President Trump. Why has the IRS NOT looked into these dealings.WHY! The Republicans are letting the DemocRats run all over them,and our country. WHY have the Republicans NOT asked for Sleepy Joe to have a mental incompetence evaluation like the DemocRats did to President Trump.WHY! Are the Republicans afraid to open their mouths,spineless or just sit back and collect a paycheck.If so, AMERICA IS NOT FREE. TRUMP 2024 is the only hope for America, if he is not shot dead to get him out of the way. GOD bless America. 2001:5B0:46E7:E2E8:452E:F1D3:9ED4:6CC4 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Source does not say that Afghan refugees can't prove their identification

The editor Politrukki has edit-warred text into this article that claims that a Cotton amendment would prevent Afghan refugees from obtaining federal IDs without proving their identity. The source[13] does not substantiate the claim that Afghan refugees are able to get federal IDs without proving their identity. The source says the refugees are able to get IDs "without some documentation typically required". I also fail to understand why Wikipedia should use a contentious racist term, "illegal aliens", for when non-contentious non-racist terms exist for those people (undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"without proving their identity" was a paraphrase I composed from "without some documentation typically required". The refugees would have to provide some documentation to obtain ID, i.e. prove their identity. How would rephrase that without close paraphrasing or using quotes?
"illegal alien" is a term Cotton used in the cited source. I changed "immigrants" to "aliens" to strictly adhere to the source so that nobody would complain about that. We are not allowed to editorialise, but if people think changing "aliens" to "immigrants" would be uncontroversial, I guess I would not oppose. Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"illegal immigrant" is the most accurate term, since the U.S. government did not accidentally lose their documents to make them undocumented, and they did not lose their own documents by accident, as the term implies, while numerous illegal immigrants are documented by law when they are detained.[14] using the term "undocumented immigrant" was stated to be "imprecise since an individual may have many documents even if they did not enter the country legally or do not have federal authorization to continue residing in the country." Also, the term "alien" meant a person from a foreign area[15] in the 1300s, long before it was used to refer to non-humans from other planets, so describing it as "racist" is inaccurate, but I agree that the term is outdated. Regardless, the article uses a direct quote from Cotton, so misrepresenting that quote is just misleading to readers, as it should state precisely what he said. Bill Williams 15:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

State of the Union Address

Pls reconsider and attend. Our party is bigger than the Democrats. No applause no jeers just attendance. The silence will speak louder than words 2600:1700:6750:D800:9AF:520C:E4F0:3841 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cotton/Archive_1&oldid=1137258328"