Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

NPOV

This article has serious NPOV issues. Is this really written in a dispassionate, third party voice? During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises.[17] No, that's not neutral. It may be true, but namedropping is not neutral nor informative. -174.62.68.53 (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right: the sentence is neutral but the emphasis is not. MilesMoney (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is from the source. I am not seeing the problem. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying its false. The problem is one of balance. MilesMoney (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Is this really written in a dispassionate, third party voice?" No. Isn't it obvious?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I have replaced the word "embarked" with "started", and put quotes around "national tour" in the Obamacare section, because 1) The use of the word "embarked" is the flowery and overblown prose used by politicians, campaigns, advertisers and other marketers and is not encyclopedic in this context. Cruz is not literally taking a cruise on a ship and so therefore cannot "embark" and 2) calling his political campaigning a "national tour" is also the same overblown marketer language and is not encyclopedic. Rock Stars and vacationers do "national tours" and politicians do campaigns. All of these salesy and metaphoric descriptions appear lifted from press releases and give the impression that wikipedia is being used to further someone's political agenda or (at least) it appears sloppy and "thrown together".Jonny Quick (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

The Canadian Birth Certificate released by Ted Cruz evidences his birth mother's maiden name was Eleanor Wilson. In all other previous reports his mother's maiden name was Eleanor Darragh. If Eleanor Wilson was not a US </ref></ref>citizen then neither is Senator Ted Cruz. TimInHonolulu (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. If there is a specific change you want made to the article, please state specifically what that change is, including reliable sources cited. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have seen zero RS with the full "Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh" she is either listed as "Eleanor Darragh" (in National Review, so a very low quality source indeed) or "Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson" on Ted's birth cert. Hcobb (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to get into a discussion about the common law and persons' names, but basically if you call yourself "John Doe", that is your name provided no deception is intended. Unless you have a source that explains the discrepancy, we should stay with the name she uses. TFD (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Accepting her opinion of her own name is Original Research and does not meet Wikipedia standards. From Wikipedia's perspective, her name is what reliable sources say it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Death Threats as a result of the shutdown

Because of Cruz' involvement in the government shutdown, there have been a significant number of death threats against him. I believe there should be a mention in his biography. ProudGamecock (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Another example. ProudGamecock (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say this is undue weight for this article. Arzel (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Death threats against Cruz have come about because of his involvement in the shutdown.

Here's the Houston Chronicle

The Daily Caller.

The Hill:

There are plenty of references to support and not just the opinion of undue weight. ProudGamecock (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people in public office get threatened all the time with this kind of crap, but I don't think it warrants inclusion on their Bio. I could see possibly this kind of information being included on the article talking about the shutdown as this is a direct result of the shutdown. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as there is a section titled, Affordable Care Act and U.S. government shutdown of 2013 on Senator Cruz's bio article then part of the story is the aftermath which UNFORTUNATELY includes death threats. ProudGamecock (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotta agree here. The death threats are very relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Arzel. To be worthy of inclusion, there must be something particularly noteworthy about the death threats. To ProudGamecock's point I might agree, but only if the sources show a causal connection between Cruz's political position and the death threats AND that those death threats are somehow more significant and noteworthy than the natural "background noise" level of death threats that are a natural part of the political process. Failing to include a special standard for the death threats inclusion that differentiates between these (alleged) death threats and the standard, "run of the mill" death threats is biased, as it uses wikipedia to further the political opinion that the Government Shut-down was so "bad" that it provoked death threats, which would then require Wikipedia to include the opposing view that the Government Shut-down was a "good" thing in that it proved to the American People that they could survive without the American Government supporting them as if they were helpless parasites incapable of surviving on their own, furthering the left's political agenda of encouraging dependence upon the government and excluding the Producers from the political process while enslaving them to the Parasites.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the article on Ted Cruz it says "Cruz also supports a federal definition of marriage and opposes same-sex marriage." However in an interview with Jay Leno Cruz clearly states that he thinks gay marriage should be left to the states. Thanks for your attention to the matter. http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/senator-ted-cruz-on-gay-marriage/n43013 108.192.44.110 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed by NazariyKaminski on 9 December. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela memorial

Sen. Ted Cruz represented the US Senate at the Funeral of Nelson Mandela, and was the only US Senator there. Should this be added in the article? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that event is relevant to this biography. Perhaps a mention could be made in Funeral_of_Nelson_Mandela#North_America JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

He's getting flak for supporting Mandela from the base, due to Mandela being a "leftist" "communist" "terrorist" "revolutionary" [1][2][3] And made news due to his walking out on Raoul Castro [4]. So seems more closely related to the Senator's politics. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex opposition

The article already cites http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-talks-guns-same-sex-marriage-obamacare-with-jay-leno/, which says:

Cruz also touched on a pair of hot-button social issues that have crowded the headlines throughout 2013, standing by his opposition to same-sex marriage and universal background checks for gun buyers.

This directly supports the statement that Cruz opposes same-sex marriage. There is absolutely no WP:OR or WP:BLP issue here, and the accusation of vandalism is not only meritless but a violation of WP:AGF and other policies. Remember, even if my change was in some way bad (and it's not), vandalism requires intent to damage. MilesMoney (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree on all points (much as I hate touching articles like this). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I also don't agree. There is nothing incorrect about the way that the article present Cruz's position. Cruz specifically stated, word for word, that he supports "marriage between one man and one woman." The article quotes Cruz directly on his position. You want to quote a reporter for CBS News, when that reporter is covering Cruz's appearance on Jay Leno's show. The article currently quotes Cruz directly on what he said on Leno's show. That option trumps the quoting of a reporter who wrote what he wanted to write and not what Cruz said. You have not shown why your version of what happened on Leno's show should be put in the article and Cruz's direct word for word quote should be removed from the article. What the subject says trumps the interpretation of a CBS News reporter.--NK (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If we are going to state a person's opinion or position, we should always use their words to do so. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy that requires or even favors quotes; that's a personal preference of some that must be argued for in the context of improving the article. In particular, there is no policy that requires us to use only the quote, without explanation, nor should there be.

The Cruz quote is ambiguous. He doesn't say that he supports only marriage between one woman and one man, which the article confirms is his actual position. Rather, he says he supports this form of marriage and is silent on other forms of marriage, leading to ambiguity.

We don't need to leave the reader trying to figure out what Cruz meant; the source that quotes him also helpfully states, in as many words, that Cruz opposes same-sex marriage. This paraphrase of the article in no way contradicts the Cruz quote, if only because that quote is too ambiguous to be contradicted.

My feeling is that ambiguity about his views is a writing error that we can and should correct. I don't oppose inclusion of the quote, but only if we also include a disambiguating translation culled from a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If he leaves his statement vague, than his statement is vague. It is not up to WP to interpret the meaning of his statement. Not everything is black and white. Arzel (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a violation of WP:NOR for WP to interpret the meaning. As it happens, we're not doing any such thing: we have a reliable source that interprets it. There's no problem sourcing the summary, and no controversy over what Cruz's position really is.

Last I checked, the article just summarized his stance as opposing same-sex marriage. Recently, this accurate and sourced summary was replaced with the ambiguous quote, which was not an improvement. We can keep the quote, but we have to restore the summary. MilesMoney (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You see ambiquity. I see a clearly stated opinion. The other thing you seem to be missing is that if we use the interpretation of the CBS reporter than we have to attribute that to the CBS reporter. It is always better to use a persons own words. When those words are ambiguous this is even more important. You have yet to provide a compelling reason why we should not use his own words. Without such a reason I see no reason to continue to discuss this. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Where was the ambiguity, specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, where is the ambiguity? Everyone who reads it knows that Cruz favors traditional marriage. That is very, very, very clear. You just want a CBS reporter to state this clear fact in a different way. And regardless of the comments above, there is a clear, bright line guidance that gives preference to the actual words of the subject. Cruz just did not say it like you wanted him to and so now you want to substitute the CBS reporter's interpretation for Cruz's actual wording. There is no ambiguity.--NK (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering both Thargor and Nazariy:

The Cruz quote is ambiguous, particularly to non-Americans. Cruz is using some sort of American-only political euphemism by focusing on his support for MF marriage (which is almost universally supported) and allowing his opposition to MM/FF marriage to remain implied.

This implication is clear to his base, but not necessarily to outsiders, making it a form of Dog-whistle politics. I'm an outsider because I live in a place where same-sex marriage has been legal for over a dozen years, so my ears are not conditioned to hear that ultrasonic message, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. To me, his statement just sounds strangely redundant, not anti-gay.

Let's say I am a strange exception. Let's say that most people understand that endorsing one form of marriage is intended to be interpreted as exclusive of endorsing others. Even so, there is absolutely no harm in stating directly that he "opposes same-sex marriage". For those who understand Americanisms, it's slightly redundant. For those who don't, for whatever reason, it clears up a misunderstanding.

Do you have any argument against including this accurate, sourced summary of his views? I've done my best to explain myself, so I'd appreciate it if you did the same. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not demanding that we remove Cruz' words. Rather, I want the subtitles included. MilesMoney (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that this is just a POV thing. You've decided, without evidence, that he's engaging in some sort of dog whistling. The quote is more than fine on its own. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You had a chance to participate in this decision by discussing the issue. Instead, you chose to violate WP:AGF by attacking my motives. This is extremely counterproductive and I suggest you redact it.

Now, I've explained why the quote is not clear to non-Americans, and you've offered nothing more than an unsupported conclusion to the contrary. As your suggestion is not backed by policies and sources, I see no reason to follow it. MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No surprise there. I suggest you stop watching Chris Matthews. You will probably not hear so many "dog whistles". Aside from that, you have still not provided a compelling reason to not simply use Cruz's own words. Arzel (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why we should not use a brief, accurate summary of Cruz's stance as opposed to a quote that's been shown to be ambiguous to non-Americans. I would appreciate a direct answer. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. MilesMoney's stance here is reasonable and consistent with NPOV and Wikipedia practice. I don't know why we should single this article out for the use of such an ambiguous phrase. Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Cruz is an American, this article is about an American politician. Non-Americans are unable to make any electoral difference about Cruz. That some non-Americans may be as confused about his statement as you appear to be is not a compelling reason to change what he said to fit what you think he is really saying. As for the ambiguity, you have yet to show that it actually is ambiguous. As I said earlier, I see no reason to continue this discussion as you have not provided any compelling reason to support your POV. Arzel (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia, not American-only Wikipedia. Articles must be written to be comprehensible by English speakers from other countries. MilesMoney (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption that "non-Americans" would be confused by the language. I don't buy that assumption at all. It is only based upon the comments of MilesMoney, which is not a reliable source. However, I don't see how this is a question of "one only and not the other" situation. I am can see keeping the CBS reporter's wording as long as Cruz's wording is also included. More information is better than less if there is the possibility for confusion.--NK (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all information adds value to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. And not all claims of "confusion" are true. And finally, not all opinions of admins are true either.--NK (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that this discussion will be entirely pleasant. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cruz received 40% of the Hispanic vote" in 2012

This "fact" is not supported by a reliable source, the first one quoted (ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions) says 35% and the second one may not be considered as reliable as it is only an interview of Ted Cruz. It would be more accurate to write "According to Cruz, he received 40% of the Hispanic vote". Anyway, a 60-odd percentage of Texas Latino voters supported Democrats for presidential, representative and senatorial elections according to the quoted poll, so only about 6% shifted from D to R just for the Senate and only to support a Latino candidate ? --Minorities observer (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

no mention of nationalities in intro

Why not? 174.19.169.92 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states that he is a United States Senator. Doesn't that make his nationality clear? Maproom (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No. He's also Canadian. 174.19.169.92 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cruz's dual nationality is not mentioned in the article intro because it does not meet WP:LEAD. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part? 174.19.169.92 (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not important enough to put in the lead, unless there is a lot of birtherism. TFD (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It says Canadian-born for Jennifer Granholm. Why there and not here? 174.19.166.126 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this topic has been covered. Why do feel that we need to go over exactly the same information just for you. Neither of Granholm's parents were Americans by birth. Cruz's mother was an American by birth and that makes Cruz an American by birth. Granholm is not an American by birth. That is a fact. Granholm and Cruz are apples and oranges. Just a simple as that. If you would go to the original discussion you would have seen that this question has been asked and answered. Granholm in no way justifies putting the information in the lede that you want to put in. It does not meet standards of being put in the lead. Please review the previous discussion. Please review the previous discussion.--NK (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth. Granholm did not become a U.S. citizen until she was 21 years old, via naturalization. "Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Granholm's family moved to the U.S. when she was four years old. She grew up in California and became a naturalized U.S. citizen at the age of 21." (Jennifer McFadyen. About.com, Immigrant Spotlight: Gov. Jennifer Granholm January 14, 2009.) There is absolutely no comparison.--NK (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so Anon IP from Tempe, Arizona aka 174.19.166.126 aka 174.19.169.92, who apparently only edits the Ted Cruz article and no other, now that I have conclusively answered your question, please provide me reasons that the Ted Cruz article should be edited just like Jennifer Granholm article. It was your suggestion I assume you have some thoughts on this topic, right?--NK (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting this amount of aggression here. To somebody without an agenda, your reaction appears extremely hostile. What are you insinuating? 174.19.166.126 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive. You want to add information that I find to be redundant and unnecessary. You want to add information that goes against consensus. You want to add information that has been discussed on this page many, many times. You have also broached the position that since the Granholm article uses the phrase "Canadian-born" then the Cruz article must also. I asked you to provide your reasoning for your proposal. I'm not insinuating anything. I want you to provide reasons for this proposal other than point to the Granholm article, which is an article about a politician who was born a Canadian and became an American at 21, and explain why Granholm's situation should be the guiding principal behind the Cruz article, which is an article about a politician who was an American and a Canadian at birth, not when he turned 21 years old? I ask again, what are your reasons for this proposal?--NK (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NK, using the phrase "Canadian-born American" clarifies the fact that Cruz was born an American in Canada and held dual citizenship at birth. Your so-called "consensus" seems to be you guarding this article with, as the previous user mentioned, a sense of hostility and protectionism. PM (talk)

There is nothing to clarify. There are at least three places in the article that points out that Cruz was born in Canada. There is a whole section in the article that discusses his dual citizenship. As I pointed out to the anon IP, whatever you might correctly or incorrectly think about my comments has nothing to do with the issue that should be discussed here. You need to provide a reason why the article should be edited in the manner that you advocate and you need to stop being "aggressive" in your attacks on my editing. Please focus your comments on the article and how to improve it and why your edit will improve the article, if it will. So far I have not heard substantive reasons put forth by your to support the edit you want to make. The Granholm analogy has been put forward previously and it was correctly pointed out that Granholm was born in Canada as natural born Canadian and she became a naturalized U.S. citizen at 21 years of age. Granholm's situation in not Ted Cruz's situation and it does not apply. Please focus on the article, not me, and provide reasons for the edit that you want. So far all that you have proposed is a failed analogy to Granholm. I apologize for the redundancy, but I made this point several times previously and there has been no response.--NK (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

PM, the phrase "Canadian-born American", while technically ambiguous in its detailed meaning, strongly implies that Cruz was born a Canadian and later became an American citizen (i.e. he underwent naturalization). This is clearly a false implication and the phrase should be avoided to prevent the resulting confusion its usage would cause in this article. --Allen3 ^talk 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Allen3.--NK (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cruz calls his shutdown a success for the President

In 2014 Cruz said that the government shutdown, which he had called a success, hadn't been his idea after all.

And why is this "non notable"? It's the most notable thing Cruz has ever done. Hcobb (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the article about the shutdown.--NK (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is missing are his claim of success, followed by his disclaiming of responsibility. Our story stops short. Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. There are folks in the media, that you quoting, that are attempting, after the fact, to say that Cruz is attempting to disclaim responsibility when the truth is it take two sides for the government to shutdown. Reid and Obama could have kept the government open. They do control the government. That is a fact. It is a political viewpoint question here. One side says it was Cruz's fault and the other side says it was Harry Reid and Barack Obama. You want the section to read as if it is established fact that is was Cruz's fault. The last time I check that is called Point-of-View pushing. They way that you wrote the section it is very clear that you believe that it is fact, not mere opinion, that is was all Cruz's fault. That is as believable as Obama saying that there is no IRS scandal and if there is a problem with the IRS it is FOX News's fault for making it one.--NK (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Mr. Cruz, and so we should report what he says. He's said it was a great success and he now says that it wasn't his intention. Who are we to cover this up? Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't report everything that anyone says. That is why we edit. Just the tone of your wording sounds like POV pushing to me: "Who are we to cover this up?" What cover up? If it is not notable then it is not notable. Your addition was written with your point of view showing. Cruz says the shutdown was done by the Democrats. You left that out of your edit. So, using your logic, I have to ask: Who are we to cover this up? Yes, I'm using your own words against you to make a point. You want to "spin", as Time says, the aftermath of the shutdown. So please explain to me how this POV is encyclopaedic and how it not POV pushing.--NK (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Senate history citation

In the section on political positions, reference 81 is cited as indication thar Cruz has criticized the administration for not doing enough about the mass shootings under the President's watch. The article referenced solely refers to the Hassan /Fort Hood shooting, which he referred to as a terror attack. Cruz is in fact (in the article) was calling for more effective use of the NSA to target 'bad guys'. I would offer that the last line needs to be removed from the paragraph, as the referenced item does not imply at all what the writer is inferring, I.e. that Cruz is hypocritically blocking the President on gun control but complaing about the mass shootings. Dperry4930 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)dperry4930

Cruz says "attacks", and it's the reporter who ties this to Fort Hood. The full paragraph of his statement does not mention Fort Hood at all:

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=811 "I think a great many Americans are concerned about the current state of NSA surveillance. I have concerns on two fronts: I am concerned on the one hand that the federal government has not been effective enough monitoring and surveilling bad guys. That we have not succeeded in preventing what should have been preventable terrorist attacks. And that the same time I am concerned that the sweep of the surveillance has been far too broad with respect to law-abiding citizens. And I think a great many Americans would prefer to see that reversed.

So this is a distortion by NBC News to tie that together that way. Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he is referring to terrorist attacks, not mass shootings like Sandy Hook, which is what the writeup wrongly states. Also, as you agree the article is distorted, it would seem it is not useful in any regard and should not be utilized. So, I think the last sentence in the paragraph either needs the correct citation if it exists, or it should be removed.Dperry4930 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see it was changed. Looks great.Dperry4930 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you for spotting the problem in the media's coverage. Still looking for a media outlet that covered his remarks more fully. Hcobb (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cruz's father

The account of Cruz's father is misleading and a little hagiographical. It implies that Cruz "fled" Cuba after Castro began building a Communist regime, although he left the country about two years before Castro seized power. The statement that he arrived in the US with only 100$ sewn into his pocket is rather cliched, and inappropriate considering that he was going to the US to attend a prestigious University. It may be true that he only arrived with 100$ but further context is needed; how, for example, was he accepted into the University and how did he pay for his education? The biography as a whole reads like a press release and focuses far too much on the father's anti-communism and hard work. It may be factually true, but it is certainly not neutral and overlooks some basic facts about Cruz's background which is also relevant. It ought to at least describe the Cruzes' economic & social status in Cuba before the revolution, and the fate of his other family members (besides the sister). If that information cannot be found then the whole thing ought to be shortened to simple statements about his origin.theBOBbobato (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob bobato: you need to provide actual suggested edits, instead of just saying: "either add info about Cruz's father's life in Cuba before he came or cut it down"--that suggestion is not helpful. Cruz's father's life in Cuba before he came here is not notable in an article about Ted Cruz. It seems to be possible that Ted Cruz's father might be qualified for his own article since he does get quite a bit of news coverage for being the Senator's son and his's prominent role in the Senator's work. Your suggestion would work in that article, but not this article. How the father paid for his education is not notable for this article. How do you know he headed to the U.S. just to attend the University of Texas? Do you have a reliable source for this particular personal claim? Why do you believe that the section should talk about other family members? What is your reasoning for this suggestion? Yes, this is your personal opinion, but why do hold this personal opinion. What other family members are you talking about and why are they notable in an article about Ted Cruz. Are these other family members notable at all? Remember the article is about Ted Cruz. Please point what part of the section is factually incorrect. You have made that claim, which is your opinion, but you have not pointed to anything in the actual article which is false. Just tagging a section then telling others to fix it with inappropriate suggestions is not a basis for a discussion. Please focus of the questions above.--NK (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, your claim that the section "implies" that Cruz fled Castro's communist regime is false. The section clearly states why the elder Cruz left Cuba. It clearly states in a neutral manner that Cruz fled the previous dictator. It does not "imply" anything else. That is not true.--NK (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The narrative about his father is excessive. It needs to be trimmed down. Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't find the reference

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but what is the source for the sentence "Cruz is one of three Latinos in the Senate. The others — also Americans of Cuban ancestry — are fellow Republican Marco Rubio of Florida and Democrat Bob Menendez of New Jersey"? I can't seem to find it in the article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several facts asserted in that sentence, which do you think is unsourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to clarify my question. I was looking for the reference that there are three Latinos in the Senate. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[5] appears to cover your question. (the world’s greatest deliberative body will have three Latino senators. And two of them will be Republican. WBEZ which appears to meet WP:RS for such a claim) Collect (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That citation was from 2012. Is that still the case? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is. Added the reference you provided. Thanks! Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this edit: "He was also the first Hispanic, and the first minority to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas." The reference is dead with a Page Not Found. Do we have a source that refers to Cruz as the "the first Hispanic, and the first minority", or is that editorializing WP:NOR? Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131018004355/http://wws.princeton.edu/coverstories/TedCruzCongress/ from wayback covers "first latino", but does not directly source first minority. However, as the total number of senators from texas is only 30 people long its pretty easy to verify. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Found it here too: http://wws.princeton.edu/node/11519 Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected source in article with new URL, and edited that sentence to stay close to the source accordingly. Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

hugh hewitt interview

I am unable to find that interview, there doesn't appear to be a transcript for that day http://www.hughhewitt.com/category/transcripts/page/30/ however I did find http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20121220-editorial-texan-of-the-year-finalist-ted-cruz.ece which has the "Southern Baptist" quote, which seems to be all we are using for both locations the Hewitt interview is currently cited for. Anyone have a better lead on the Hewitt interview? If not we should probably just swap out for the dallasnews source Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should just swap them out.--NK (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 elections

This sentence seems to be unsourced (the sources do not support that statement) . The "dubious" tag has been there since Jan 2014:

Cruz received 40% of the Hispanic vote.

Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

From the first source, I read it as 35% of the mexican vote, and 34% of the "other latino" vote, with an overall latino vote of 35%., He was at 40% of latinos who answered the poll in spanish. We should perhaps reword the statement to indicate that this is due to polling and not taken directly from election results. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a more explicit source [6], and agree that we have to add some text about that it was based on polling. Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[7] shows totals. And all estimates about any groups in any election are based on polling period. GWB got 49% of the Texas Hispanic vote in 2004 according to the polls -- it is far from unlikely that a person who wins with 57% of the vote did not get an appreciable share of that vote. But where Cruz significantly outran Romney, and Romney was credited with 30% of the Hispanic vote, the 40% figure looks pretty solid indeed. Weaseling by saying "it was only a poll" where the election totals (landslide time) were so lopsided is risible here. Collect (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The text does not say "only a poll", rather, I stayed closed to what the source reports. Any issues with that, Collect? Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there were no exit polls in Texas in that year from what I can gather, so we need to qualify that the poll was taken a few weeks later, as presented in the source. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

duplicated statement

See below, my highlights:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is the junior United States Senator from the state of Texas, and the first Cuban-American[4][5][6][7] to hold the office. He was elected in 2013, and is a member of the Republican Party. He was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[8] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas' history. He was also the first Latino to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas.

The two highlighted sentences say the same in two different ways. I will remove the last one, as follows:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is the junior United States Senator from the state of Texas, and the first Cuban-American[4][5][6][7] to hold the office. He was elected in 2013, and is a member of the Republican Party. He was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[8] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas' history. He was also the first Latino to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas.

Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Latinos are not Cuban-Americans -- so the fact he was the first Latino is a stronger claim than just the first Cuban-American to hold an office. Elision would only be correct if a non-Cuban-American Latino had held the office. Collect (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So we are stating that he is the first Latino and Cuban American senator fro Texas, which we have agreed is the correct way to describe him according to WP:RS, but we are not saying that he is the first Canadian-born Senator ever. Why not? Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually he is the 4th Senator born in Canada to American parents [8] Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He is (or was) technically Canadian, because his dad worked there for a few years. Him lineage is not Canadian, He did not grow up for an extended amount of time in Canada, his family has no Canadian identity or history. etc. (Conversely, they do have Cuban identity and history) Additional, being Hispanic,Latino, and Cuban are much more related to sub-cultures and communities throughout the US. There isn't a nationwide movement of Canadian descendants etc. There is no Canadian-American PAC or lobbying group. (Past that, as you say he is the 4th. Not nearly as notable.) Regarding comments you have made elsewhere, I think it is very unlikely this gets much play in wider media, especially in the run up to a hypothetical Presidential run, except as a possible "gotcha" hypocrisy moment. Obamas been through this. McCains been through this. Its not really news anymore that we have wonky naturalization laws that might depend on how old your mom was when she had you, and how many years she lived out of country. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying that being of dual citizenship (Canadian and American) is not a notable aspect for his biography?, there are sources a plenty [9] Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a Robin Hood's Barn topic now which was fully discussed and decided that we do not call him "Canadian American." When something is decided and the players seek to continue the ballgame, something is amiss. In short -- have a cup of tea.Collect (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That he had canadian citizenship and renounced it is perhaps notable enough for a one sentence inclusion. Saying he was born in canada in the infobox or bio section is fine. Describing him as Canadian, Canadian-American, etc is not. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Education

The Education sections should mention that Ted Cruz was a National Merit Scholar out of high school. He is listed on the National Merit web site as: Rafael E. Cruz (1988), Faith West Academy. The National Merit Scholars list is password protected and only available to Scholars, but Cruz's office could provide verification, or find another Merit Scholar to look him up. Although she is not a Merit Scholar, Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia article mentions that she was a Finalist. Cruz is one of two Merit Scholars in the Senate. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just find a secondary source for that fact and we can dd it to the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is NOT a Tea Party Star!

Just because he "openly identifies with the Tea Party movement" does not mean that the Tea Party identifies with him! ...Andrea Greff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.47.246 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Election

Second phrase: He was elected in 2012, not 2013. He took office in 2013, but the election was in November 2012.--78.52.212.24 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Canada as place of birth

I am confused about why stating that he was born in Canada is such a big deal. He was born there and listed accordingly. List of foreign-born United States politicians. Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article does state that he was born in canada. Multiple times, in multiple places. But he has explicitly renounced his Canadian citizenship, and has no significant Canadian identity, so it is WP:UNDUE to emphasize it past his place of birth. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue? Other foreign-born Congressmen have their country of birth clearly stated in their bios. Here are a few examples:

• Former US rep for Kentuky’s 4th district: ‘’Geoff Davis was born in Montreal, Canada to American parents (one of few House members to be born in Quebec).’’
• Junior United States Senator from Hawaii: ‘’Mazie Hirono was born on November 3, 1947, in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. ‘’
• Member of the House of Representatives: ‘’Ron Barber was born in Wakefield, West Riding of Yorkshire, England, shortly after World War II.
• US rep. for Colorado 1st district: ‘’A fourth-generation Coloradan, Diana Louise DeGette was born in Tachikawa, Japan’’

Why not in this bio as well? Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to be confused because it is not a big deal that he was born in Canada. Your statement makes no sense. The article says over and over again that he was born in Canada. You just want to add it in one more time which, of course, is overkill. It is unnecessary. It is POV-pushing. The article discussed in great detail why he can be President even though he was born in Canada, etc. There is unnecessary for a fourth mention of his Canadian birth--just drop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relax, man. There is only one place in which his place of birth is mentioned, at the bottom of the article in the section "Speculation on a possible run for higher office". This is a biography for Pete's sake, and not mentioning the country of birth in the "early life" section (as if this was a big deal) is incomprehensible. Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, it is in this bio? "Cruz was born on December 22, 1970[2][5] in Calgary, Alberta, Canada[2][14] where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh[14][15][16][17][18][19] and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz,[17][18] were working in the oil business.[20][21] " Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I added that, but Mr or Ms NK reverted it. Diff: [10]. If it stays then we are done. Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it is whitewashing. You attempted to remove all references in the article to the fact that he is a Cuban American. Now you make up the story that having it mentioned in the article that Cruz was born in Canada is "a big deal" and that his Canadian birth was not mentioned in the bio, which factually is not true. It is bad enough that you are, unsuccessfully, POV pushing but you are also just flat out getting the facts wrong compounds the whitewash. The article already stated that "Since Cruz was born in Canada, commentators for the Austin American-Statesman" long before you came along. In the intro info box there was a mention of Canada and of course the section that discusses his eligibility for the Presidency referred to the Canadian birth several times. There is no reason to POV push.--NK (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not, and you should stop the lack of good faith, it is becoming tedious and insufferable. Now that we have resolved this at WP:BLP/N do we need 4 sources for the same content? As for the inclusion on Canad, after the name of City and State, that is standard in Wikipedia.Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is one mention of Canada on the “Early life” section (which you deleted and I reverted back)
• There is another mention in the “Speculation on a possible run for higher office”
• There is no mention of Canada in the info box

Get you facts straight before you trample with your own words. Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Canada in Infobox

Calgary, Alberta is specified in the info box, which as good as says Canada I think. I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to note TC's birthplace early in the lead, and the fact that it's mentioned in the body of the article would appear to support inclusion there. Although it's not universal practice, it's fairly commonplace. While I think Gaijin's policy point is interesting, I don't think a passing mention in the lead is UNDUE. It would simply be informative. If there are genuine concerns about UNDUE, might they be assuaged by reducing the number of mentions in the body of the article? (Sorry I can't be arsed to count them, but Gaijin's "multiple times" in "multiple places" suggest there are quite a few, and I probably don't have enough fingers.) Writegeist (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (adding) OK there are two mentions of Canadian birth and one of Canadian citizenship. (The remaining mentions are all in the references section.) Seems there's plenty of leeway for a birthplace mention in the lead? Writegeist (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Calgary, Alberta, without Canada is not encyclopedic. Think of the reader: How many readers will know in which country Calgary is? Look at other congressman bios, for example: US rep. for Colorado 1st district: A fourth-generation Coloradan, Diana Louise DeGette was born in Tachikawa, Japan. Will you just put Tachikawa, without Japan? Of course not, right? But for a Japanese reader Tachikawa is obviously in Japan. And for the same Japanese reader, Calgary, Alberta, can be anywhere unless is it clearly indicated that is in Canada. Makes sense? Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Writegeist (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added to infobox as per other biographies of foreign-born members of Congress (see above thread for some examples of such bios). Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sme more examples:

• U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 4th congressional district - “Jim Himes was born July 5, 1966 in Lima, Peru”
• U.S. Representative for Maryland's 8th congressional district - “Chris Van Hollen was born in Karachi, Pakistan”
• U.S. Representative for New Jersey's 8th congressional district - “Albio Sires was born January 26, 1951 in Bejucal, Cuba.”
• Junior United States Senator from Colorado “Michael Farrand Bennet, November 28, 1964 ,New Delhi, India”

Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Although my personal gut feeling leans with cwobeel on this issue (that we should Specify Canada in the infobox), it appears that is not the standard for Canadian topics. I clicked on about 10 random people from List_of_people_from_Calgary and ALL of them that had an infobox that had a birth in Canada just listed City, Province. The same thing for how their birth las put in prose in their bio section. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Places does not have explicit guidance on this, but does seem to lean towards City, Province as the preferred usage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sean Patrick Maloney, former U.S. Representative for New York's 18th congressional district, has Canada in his infobox: July 30, 1966 (age 47) Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. Granted, Shebrooke is not as known as Calgary for some of us, but for most non-American readers, Calgary can be anywhere unless the country is explicitly stated. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as requiring consensus at this point -- very few politicians and very few people of any group have a specific "place of birth" given in an infobox at all. Please seek consensus before making this bold edit again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Most infoboxes, if not all include place of birth, including country of birth. For most American-born BLPs that is sometimes omitted (but not all, check John_Quincy_Adams and Mitt Romney infobox). Infoboxes of non-US born BLPs have the country of birth. Why should Cruz get a different treatment?Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect:, please respect the consensus and don't delete the place of birth from the infobox that has been there for a very long time. Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- if one looks, one finds it is not usual for "place of birth" to be in BLPs. As such, it requires consensus for inclusion - thus my procedural request that you obtain a consensus for any cite of his place of birth in the infobox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You will need to look really hard.... Check any of the lists of foreign-born politicians and you will be hard pressed to find one without their country of birth in their infobox. Here is a starting point for you: List of foreign-born United States politicians Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as your argument. All I ask is that you actually seek WP:CONSENSUS for including place of birth in the infobox -- which is a reasonable request. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please follow your argument. It was you who said "it is not usual for "place of birth" to be in BLPs" in your previous comment. Cwobeel (talk)

FYI, I have requested uninvolved editors' assistance at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Country of birth in Infoboxes Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason we wouldn't include the country along with Calgary, Alberta. Yes, I know some partisans want to make hey of where he was born. Such is life. He was born in Canada. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Candleabracadabra. Folks: see also comment at WP:MOS talk page: [11] - @Collect, indeed what I am trying to do is to find consensus, and as there is disagreement, asking uninvolved editors is part of WP:DR, see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Receive_outside_help_for_content_disputes. Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

After asking foir third-party advice, this is very obvious: Canada should be listed in the infobox. If there is no consensus by end of day, I will file a request at WP:DR/N, to assist us in the process of resolving this content dispute. Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, biographies (including BLPs) nearly always list the country of birth in the infobox. It is basic biographical information that is of interest to most readers. Jogurney (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Some background: AFAICT 'Canada' was added to TC's infobox in September 2011[[12] and had a mostly stable place there until on 22 August 2013 User:BingNorton—apparently an experienced editor [13] although the BingNorton account was two months old—removed it, saying Canada references are redundant as "every one knows Calgary, Alberta is in Canada." [14]. A couple of weeks after BingNorton's last edit (last-ever, in fact, as the username then suddenly disappeared from the 'pedia), User:NazariyKaminski arrived to delete 'Canada' from the article's Early life section, [15] (with an edsum giving no reason), thus reducing the total number of times that that version of the article mentioned TC being born in Canada to, um, one—in the "Speculation on future" section.

To include or not to include? I accept N-HH's word on inclusion of the country in the infoboxes for the list of foreign-born US politicians. [16] However there are many WP bios whose infoboxes specify city and state but not country. And many that include it. One can cherry-pick either way. E.g. all the following infoboxes include Canada:

• Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, born Toronto, Ontario, Canada [17]

• Norman Kim Kwong, 16th Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [18]

• Stan Stephens, 20th Governor of Montana, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [19]

• James Gosling, computer scientist, inventor of Java programming language, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [20]

• Theo de Raadt, software engineer who founded OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, residence Calgary, Alberta, Canada [21]

• Delighfully named war hero Ian Willoughby Bazalgette, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [22]

• Tibetan lama Lobsang Rampa, died Calgary, Alberta, Canada [23]

• George Stanley, designer of the Canadian flag, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [24]

• Film director David Winnng, born Calgary, Canada [25]

• Cheech and Chong's Tommy Chong, born Edmonton, Alberta, Canada [26]

• NFL player Nate Burleson, Cleveland Browns wider receiver, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [27]

• Novelist Nancy Huston, born Calgary, Canada [28]

• Actor/singer Cory Monteith, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [29]

• Heather Marks, supermodel, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [30]

Is there any sound reason in policy to exclude Canada from Cruz's infobox? As N-HH says, this is a global encyclopedia. Assumptions that all readers would already know Calgary is in Canada are, well, just assumptions. And rather imperious, First-Worldy ones at that. Writegeist (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sleuthing, in particular about the fact that "Canada" was in the infobox for years before it was deleted for no apparent reason and without consensus, and the comments from third-party editors, I think this is becoming a no-brainer. Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - being in an article "for years" is not found in any Wikipedia policy as far as need for consensus is concerned. And I can list hundreds of BLPs which do not include place of birth in an infobox (infoboxes do not generally contain everything about a topic, as a rule). All I ask is that you gain a consensus at this point -- which is not really too much of a problem, I trust. Collect (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that you are not considering the situation when you discuss consensus. By some reason, you believe that there should be consensus for adding something to an article, but you ought to consider that the consensus can be also framed for deleting something, in particular something as non-controversial, fact-based, such as the country of birth of a person. I'd argue that the burden is on you to provide a rationale for excluding that and for finding consensus for exclusion. Otherwise you are just seem to be stonewalling for no reason. Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I rather agree with much of what Cwobeel says, and sympathize with the frustration. In addition, one may or may not agree with Christopher Hitchens's dictum that "there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good," and we may prefer common sense to prevail (as consensus is often far from common-sensical). But one of the problems with Wikipedia is that common sense is rather ucommon here. So in the absence of guidance from policy or guideline, when we hear squeals of "Consensus!" there is little alternative but to go looking for it—even when it's to mention the name of the country where someone was, incontrovertibly, born; and even when it's to mention that country of birth in the part of an infobox that tells readers where the person was, er, born. However, as Collect says, I don't see it being much of a problem here. (Famous last words . . .) If it's any consolation to you, it sometimes happens that a stone wall falls on its constructor. Writegeist (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• support Saying Calgary, Alberta, Canada in infobox, and in prose where birthplace is listed. oppose describing him as Canadian, Canadian-American etc. (per MOS:IDENTITY as he is not regularly described that way, and also does not self identify that way) possibly support a brief one liner saying he had Canadian citizenship, but has renounced it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• support I would say to Collect that this is not a fight worth having. Included, or not, it does not really matter. I disagree that it is "needed" because frankly, anyone that doesn't know that Calgary is in Canada could simply click on the wiki-link and see quite quickly that it is in Canada. However, it does appear to be the common way of addressing place of birth in the infobox. Arzel (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• support reverting to the perfectly reasonable Calgary, Alberta, Canada in infobox. I haven't seen a single persuasive case made for exclusion. Writegeist (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• note This is not a "fight" on my part -- there has been edit war a few times now about this material, and WP:CONSENSUS pretty much requires this step. The facts are not disputed, but policy insists we go through this exercise, otherwise the edit war will repeat at some point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Canada in Early Life section

@NazariyKaminski: To check the article history I sampled 24 and 25 September 2013. I found you repeatedly edit-warring the word 'Canada' out of both the infobox and the Early Life section in a duel with an IP (diffs on request). I don't know how far the edit-war extended beyond those dates; I didn't look. Now it appears you may intend the same modus operandi once again for the Early Life section [31] [32]. (Excuse me if I am mistaken, but given the history you might agree it's an understandable mistake.) You have been asked to discuss this content on the talk page. Please do so this time. Thanks! Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR warnings are supposed to go on the UT pages for those involved in excess reverting and be addressed to both parties. Else this fillip seems to verge on a personal attack, alas. Using this page for the purpose to which you appear to use it is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm grateful for this reminder. I should have known better, alas, particularly as the first clause in the first sentence of this post in a conversation about Sentor Cruz had already and very recently reminded me about the importance of not writing anything that might appear to be "improper" or to "verge on a personal attack." My apologies to NazariyKaminski for my error. And I see no plausible reason for excluding the word 'Canada'. Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's focus on the content. Should the birthplace given in the Early life section include "Canada" as well as the city and Alberta? I think it should. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. This is an encyclopedia and date of birth, city of birth, country of birth are basics. If this was the bio of a singer, will we be having this conversation? Of course not. Just because this person is an American politician we should not make "special accommodations" to hide his country of birth. This is a no brainer. It is an issue because some editors here think that having Canada in this bio will diminish Cruz status as a presidential candidate (which by the way, it does not as he is a natural born American per the law). Calling a spade a spade here. Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

On the matter of dual citizenship, swearing allegiance to one country is normally sufficient to blunt any claims of citizenship in another. Cruz has taken the oath of office both in Texas and in the U.S. Senate. This would also apply to Obama in any claims of citizenship in either Kenya or the British Empire. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently, Cruz has dual citizenship (US and Canadian), as Canada requires by law for citizens to formally apply for rescinding their Canadian citizenship. Cruz has retained counsel last year to get that process done. Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The source that claims he "became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.[31]" does not mention that. That sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Source corrected.TMCk (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the formal renunciation of Canadian citizenship has been done, and acknowledged by the Canadian government. He is no longer a Canadian citizen. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh

The mother's maiden name is Darragh. For some reason she is listed as Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh. Wilson is her married name. It is not appropriate to place her maiden name after her married name. It should read Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson. Also there are 6 references following the full name and not one article references the fact that Wilson is her married name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.12.147 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cuban-American?

Is Cruz a "Cuban-American"? How so? He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Cuban-American's definition is "are Americans who trace their national origin to Cuba". How can Cruz's "National origin" be Cuban? Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues of race and ethnicity are as much about self identification as they are of actual ancestry. Cruz's father was Cuban so this makes him a Cuban-American. This is the same logic by which Barack Obama, born to an African father and an American mother of English descent, is an African American. --Allen3 ^talk 10:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cruz self-identifies as an "American" period. Wikipedia uses the person's self-identification period. So there you have the answer. It is not the job of editors to decide what Cruz will call himself. If this was true then there would a ton of editors looking to identify Obama, since he is dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, as a Kenyan-American. That description would be wrong and it is wrong to force a description on Cruz based upon Cwobeel wants it to be. Do you have a reliable source for your proposed description Cwobeel? Since you haven't provided one then I assume you don't. This discussion should be about how to improve the article not what one editor wants the article to say, e.g., POV-pushing. That is not the standard. The two standards for discussion here is: (1) self-identification and (2) improvement of the article. Let's stick with those standards.--NK (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1st, Obama does not have dual citizenship. Second, I am not trying to push a POV, just trying to understand if Cruz is a Cuban-American or not. If we use the self identification path, we need a source in which Cruz identifies himself as Cuban-American. Cwobeel (talk)

Of course, Obama had dual citizenship. His father was a citizen of Kenya, which makes him eligible for citizenship under Kenya's constitution. Obama was born in Hawaii therefore he is also a U.S. citizen. Also, Obama can claim U.S. citizenship through his mother, who was also a U.S. citizen. However, Obama lost his Kenya citizenship at 23, but no one talks about the fact that he was a dual citizen until he was 23. You have edited the article to call attention to Cruz's status that is POV pushing.--NK (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, your original edit was ludicrous you basically stated that "as of so and so date, Cruz remained a Canadian" etc. Is the new rule now that we go around and say, "Today is so and so and John McCain is still a U.S. citizen". Or today is so and so day and Obama remains a U.s. citizen, he has not reverted back to Kenyan citizenship." That would be POV-pushing that is exactly how you edited his article. It was not an improvement. It was not notable. It was pure POV pushing.--NK (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: That is what the source says, sorry if you don't like it. Also, find a source i9n which Cruz describes himself as Cuban American". Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

it does not matter what the source says. The information is non-notable. If he denounces his Canadian citizenship then there is something notable. What you are adding is not notable. Also, you have the burden to find the source for the "Cuban american" thing. You brought it up.--NK (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course is notable. He is a US Senator and potential Presidential candidate. Here is the source: Ted Cruz still citizen of U.S. and Canada [33]] Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That source [34] is (a) not an WP:RS, and (b) is not a source in which Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American. Read the thread above. Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Austin American-Statesman is a reliable source and your statement that "he still is canadian" is not notable.--NK (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have requested assistance at the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ted_Cruz Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The official biography of Cruz at senate.gov neither defines him as "Latino" or as "Cuban-American" [35] . So my question is: can we still describe Cruz as Latino and Cuban-American, given that his Father was Cuban? His mother is American from Italian and Irish ancestry. Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that your question is a ridiculous question. It is not up to Cwobeel to decide what to call Cruz. Obama's mother was also white, just like Cruz, but his article in Wikipedia refers to him, in the first line of the article, as "African-Amereican". So, if we use the Cwobeel standard going forward the editors of Wikipedia cannot call Obama African-American because Obama's mother was white. You are making a ludicrous point and the article should stay just how it is "Cuban American".--NK (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the ancestry of the President of the United States, do it at Barack Obama. Here we are discussing the ancestry of the freshman senator from Texas. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ted_Cruz where experienced BLP editors are commenting on this issue. Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are piling it on, uh? In any case, it seems that your effort will be futile. Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing Ted Cruz. There has been a long, long discussion about the phrase "African American" as it applies to Obama and it was decided, correctly of course, that "African American" would apply. The same discussion applies here. No, there will be consistency between articles in Wikipedia on this issue. You are the only editor who is making the ludicrous argument that Ted Cruz is not Cuban American. You have to justify it and you will not justify it by choosing to ignore the logical discussion that took place over at Obama's article. If are arguing that "Cuban American" should be removed then you need to explain why Obama is correctly called an "African American" when his mother is white, but Cruz cannot be called "Cuban American" when his mother is white. You need to answer this question right, right now on this Cruz talk page. Just choosing to ignore this valid, relevant, on-point inconsistency will not work. You need to explain instead of ignore and stonewall. You need to explain it.--NK (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, "futile" what are you, 12 years old?--NK (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am 64. Futile: "incapable of producing any useful result; pointless" Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that ancestry in BLPs are based in self-identification. So far I found one source that self-describes Cruz as "Hispanic", but I have not found any sources in which he self-describes as "Latino" or "Cuban-American". In BLPs the burden is on the person wanting to add content that may be contentious, so the burden is on you to find sources in which Cruz self-describes as "Latino" and "Cuban-American" if you want to keep that in the ariticle. But until then, the only denomination we can use is "Hispanic". Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You are making up rules. Cruz identifies as "Cuban American" in all of his campaign literature and he uses his father as one of his biggest speakers on the campaign stump. There are plenty of reliable sources that support the phrase. The burden is on you to change the consensus. You have not done that. Also, you have never responded to the discussion on the Obama article talk page. You will have to respond to that discussion. You will not ignore it, as long as you think you are going remove the phrase "Cuban American". The information will not be changed based upon the comments you have made so far. You have not met your burden of proof to overcome the long, long term consensus on the wording used in the article.--NK (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Listen, NK, I am not interested in the Obama biography. I am interested in this one and other potential presidential contenders. If there are plenty of sources in which Cruz self-describes himself as "Cuban-American" or "Latino", I will be the first to add that text, but I have researched in-depth and could not find even one mention. The burden is on you as this is a WP:BLP, which reads: "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material." Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Cwobeel, I know you want to have your way. I know you want to ignore the fact that Obama's mother is white. I know you want to ignore the fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources that call Cruz "Cuban American". I know you want to ignore the fact that Cruz's father was born in Cuba. I know you want to ignore the fact that on the campaign trail and in interviews Cruz constantly talks about his father's escape from Cuba. I know you want to ignore the fact that his father goes on the campaign trail with him and gives long speeches on his personal flight from Cuba. I know you want to remove all references in the article to Cruz's Latino and Cuban heritage. I know that you want to ignore all of these facts because you want to push your POV. I am aware of all of these things and because I am aware of all of these things I am not going to go along with your POV-pushing agenda. How do I know that you are POV-pushing? Because you readily admit that Cruz's father comes from Cuba, but you don't give a reason why if Cruz's father is clearly "Cuba American" then how can it be that Cruz himself isn't "Cuban American". Why haven't you explained away that fact? There are hundreds of reliable sources that back up my position. You have not provided even one reliable source that says Cruz is not a "Cuban American". I am going to go with reliable sources over your POV-pushing any day.--NK (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place at the BLP Noticeboard, where non-involved editors with experience in BLPs are weighing in. You may want to join the conversation there. BTW, I have no problems whatsoever in keeping the denomination "Hispanic" as that is the way Cruz self-describes in his official biography. Now, if you could please WP:AGF, that would be really nice. I have only one interest: accuracy. Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He counts himself as a Cuban, at the US-Cuban democracy PAC in the first few minutes of this video http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ted+cruz+cuban&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=AEE900E9704C58924164AEE900E9704C58924164 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be researched whether Cruz's father's ancestry is Latino or not. Cruz appears to come from the European Spanish class and not latino at all. If this is the case it is wrong to call him a latino. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejshalis (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

1) You are factually incorrect. Latino definitely does cover the descendants of European white people from spain/portugal.

2) If it didn't it would be the Indians that would be excluded, since Latin is a reference to the romance languages of the conquerors

3) And even if we got past that "research" by us is specifically prohibited by WP:OR - we follow the WP:RS and they say he is Latino.

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Senator's personal health-care coverage

It seems to me relevant how the senator has his personal health insurance provided -- by Goldman Sachs via his wife's employment, not through the Federal system -- given his strong stance on the public policy of health care. The fact of his coverage source was called "trivial" and deleted from this article here. Any other opinions? Swliv (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

|profession=Lawyer 110.148.158.194 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (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. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction:Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Ok, I know this has been addressed in the archives but it is still wrong:

"in which Cruz wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Constitution.[54] The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruz’s brief in a 9-0 decision."

Cruz did not write a brief stating that the Pledge is constitutional. He wrote a brief stating that the father, as a non-custodial parent, lacked standing to file suit. SCOTUS agreed with his brief. Because they agreed with his brief they never actually decided the constitutional question because there was no case. The section is deliberately misleading and needs to be rewritten actually mention the point of his brief.

And, in case anyone tries to use the argument that has been used in the archive, Rehnquist did not write the majority decision, Stevens did. Rehnquist wrote a concurrence in which he decided to address the constitutional question. The majority opinion did not discuss it at all and is the only one that matters. The lower court's ruling was overturned as a matter of procedure because the father couldn't file suit to begin with.Ayzmo (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the statement in the article for accuracy. If people want the level of detail you just discussed they can go to our article on the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Section on being boo'd offstage @ the recent Defense of Christian's Summit?

I have a link here with an audio clip of the event [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I made an article about the event here: Ted Cruz In Defense of Christians controversy FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cruz's political position on the use of the Race Card in the 2014 MS Primary

Ted Cruz appeared on the Mark Levin Show to discuss the Mississippi Primary. He called for an investigation, saying that "the ads they ran were racially-charged false attacks".

http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=Ted+Cruz%3A+We+Need+An+Investigation+Into+the+Mississippi+Race&id=10103

96.59.92.70 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox visual dependence on deprecated field being non-empty

The text "United States Senator" seems to appear as a result of a deprecated jr/sr field in the infobox being non-empty, via some templating code at Template:Infobox officeholder/Office which looks like this: {{#if:{{{jr/sr|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="background-color: lavender; text-align: center" {{!}} [[United States Senate|<!--Changed code to eliminate "Junior/Senior" distinction for U.S. Senators per [[Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Senior/Junior U.S. Senators]]{{{jr/sr}}}-->United States Senator{{#if:{{{succeeding|}}} |-elect}}]]<br />from {{{state}}} I don't understand templates myself but this feels wrong. Can it be improved? 54.240.197.225 (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will answer you query at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Miller

I have removed verified content per WP:BRD. Why should the words of a political consultant, who himself does not appear to be notable, be given weight in this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Obamacare of the internet

An IP editor just re-added content violating WP:BRD, about a statement made by the subject. This gives undue weight to a single source, and highlights a minor statement. Therefore, IMHO it should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, if this subject is brought up in greater detail in regards to this subject, content about this political issue can be re-added, but in the mean time its addition is premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And so his awards as "Man of the year" by a handful of obscure magazines is more relevant than his position against net neutrality and his use of propaganda techniques ? This page is ridiculous. It reads like an hagiography written by a team of campaign advertisers.

2014 Mississippi primary

I have removed content added by an IP editor per WP:BRD. How much weight, if any, should the subject's contents about the election that he was only indirectly involved in, be included in this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)