Talk:Ted Cruz

Just a quick unimportant note

Hello. I would suggest to merge the "Early life and family" and the "Personal life" sections:

1. Personnal life is too short for a standalone section.
2. When I first read 'Cruz has said, "I'm Cuban, Irish, and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist."' in the Personnal life section, I thought it was a quote from Heidi Cruz.

Regards, Biwom (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Newdow reference

First of all, I do not contribute much on WIKIs or the web in general, so please be nice if I have done this incorrectly. I assume that since this is a political page I would have to ask permission to edit this page first, so here goes...

In the section "Ted_Cruz#Texas_Solicitor_General" the BLP has the following sentence: "In 2004, Cruz was involved in the high-profile case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,[43][47] in which he wrote a brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter.[61]"

There is no mention of the fact that the plaintiff is a non-custodial parent. I went to the reference and found that information. I believe that the section would be improved by including this fact. Perhaps this would work... "argued that the plaintiff, a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter."

64.237.5.238 (talk)Chuck —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Indeed, you would not be able to modify the article yourself, this is not because it's a political page but because it's a page that sees a lot of vandalism, so it is unfortunately not possible for non-registered users to edit it. Regarding your suggested change, it makes a lot of sense to me so, although I am mildly incompetent on legal matters, I will go ahead with it. Thank you and regards, Biwom (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 64.237.5.238 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Chuck

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2016

In 2016, adolescents made Ted Cruz a meme. Some adolescents believe Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. SinghhKAHIr (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a chance without a impeccable source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What CambridgeBayWeather said. You'd need to provide evidence that the meme is notable. Given that the meme itself is defamatory, we'd need a lot of good, reliable sources covering it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. There is an edit war going on regarding the presence in the lead of the following sentence:

"His victory in the February 2016 Iowa caucuses marked the first time a Hispanic person won a presidential caucus or primary."

It seems that this sentence (with slight variations) has been present since February 4. However since March 22 it has been removed 4 times by 2 different users. These 4 edits have been reverted by 3 different users. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right Biwom. It needs to stay. It is a historic fact and it is notable for the lede. It has been part of the article for a long time and most editors have seen it and have not removed it. If an editor wants to remove it now then they will have to develop a consensus to have it done because there is NO consensus to remove it right now. Also, the edit war needs to stop. If the edit warriors want to remove it then they need to make an argument--as they have been instructed and notified to do--why it is not historical and why it does not belong in the lede. The consensus has been keep in the lede. They have the burden of proving that it needs to be removed. So far they have not met that burden and they have made no attempt to even engage in discussion. They have just made blanket conclusory statements that are false. Biwom, thanks for pointing the edit warring.--ML (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's debatable whether this is a notable historic fact, but it should remain out the lead until consensus is reached to include it. I suggest removing it and running an RfC or an informal straw poll.- MrX 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is debatable whether this historic fact should be in the lead, but it should stay in the lede until someone (anyone) makes the case that it shouldn't be in the lede. All I have read, so far, is editors making conclusory statements (just like yours above) where the editors just state it shouldn't be in the lede but give no reason or rationale other than their personal opinion. But your personal opinion is the not the standard on whether it should be in the lede and the personal opinion of other editors is not the standard either. You want to run an RfC or an informal straw poll? Great. Go ahead. But the historic fact should remain in the lede because it is the current consensus of the editors. Thank you for your personal opinion, but I have not heard any rationale or reasoning, just dictating.--ML (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I have not heard rationale or reasoning, but I have heard dictating AND there has been edit warring on the other side. Edit warring usually does not lead to consensus changing.--ML (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No Explanation of Reversion?

I recently added a bit about challenges that this person faced as solicitor general and backed it up with the citation from the Criminal Justice Magazine published by the U.S. Department of Justice and then it got reverted with no explanation. Is this part of the edit war or did I miss something? (Rather not make the same mistake again if it is the latter). I think that it is a relevant paragraph as it discusses his time both success and challenges while the Texas solicitor general. Lucky Foot (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your statement above is incorrect. The Dretke case is in the Texas Solicitor General section of the article, next to last paragraph. The information you inserted has been highly edited by many other editors, removing the clear bias of the original and correcting the glaring factual mistakes of the original--ML (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Wayne Haley was arrested for stealing a calculator from Walmart in 1997. Because Haley had two prior convictions for theft, as well as prior felony convictions for delivery of a controlled substance and attempted robbery, he was sentenced as a habitual offender under Texas law to sixteen and a half years in prison. It later came to light that Haley's robbery offense occurred three days before his conviction on the controlled substance charge was finalized, so the habitual offender statute might not have applied. The habitual offender issue was discovered after Haley had exhausted his appeals. As Solicitor General, Cruz declined to vacate the sentence saying "I think justice is being done because he had a full and fair trial and an opportunity to raise his errors." The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, later remanded the case to lower courts based on Haley's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. During oral argument, Cruz conceded that Haley had a very strong argument for ineffective assistance of counsel since Haley's attorney failed to recognize the sentencing error and that he would not move to have Haley re-incarcerated during the appeal process. After remand, Haley was re-sentenced to "time served".

References

Alleged marital infidelity, rumors, and twitterverse exploding

See also: National Enquirer § Ted Cruz and Donald Trump

If this does not make it to the article, I disavow any continued support of wikipedia because I do not want to be a party to a cover-up. --Wikipietime (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please present some solid sources showing that that this is worthy of inclusion. If these are just rumors circulating on social media, without any coverage by the mainstream media, I doubt we would include it in the article per WP:BLP and WP:RUMOR.- MrX 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a tempest in a tabloid teapot, likely to blow over with nothing coming of it. Certainly not encyclopedic in nature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's important to let the dust settle on this chatter. This is an encyclopedia. There's nothing to lose if the content is added days or weeks late, but there is everything to lose if we ignore our BLP policies. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let the dust settle. And let's also remember Trump's close relationship with the National Enquirer, which broke this story. I'm a subscriber to the Enquirer and can say unequivocally that the magazine has given unusually positive attention this past year to Trump and his candidacy, including syndication of his most recent book. And more telling, it has run no recent investigative or critical pieces on Trump, which is ridiculous given his dirty laundry. An Enquirer report deserves no mention on Wikipedia unless it gets independent traction. If it gets independent coverage, let's cover it with proper NPOV. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This now has mainstream reporting, and Cruz has publicly addressed it. IMO that warrants inclusion. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ted-cruz-calls-tabloid-report-garbage-n545611 and https://www.facebook.com/cnnpolitics/videos/vb.219367258105115/1107633029278529/?type=2&theater (CNN's Facebook, video not up on their main page yet.) JamesG5 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cruz's denial on his official FB page https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10153999687717464 JamesG5 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional link to RS http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/25/ted-cruz-blames-donald-trump-enquirer-affairs-story/82257996/

I definitely think this ought to be included in the article about the National Enquirer. Possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should generally be avoided, but if they must be included then it would seem preferable in the accuser's article. Politicians are always being accused of one thing or another, usually by political opponents, and I don't think the target's BLP should include a collection of the attacks against them, or a collection of arguments about why their beliefs or positions are stupid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the National Enquirer article. If the story gets bigger then maybe we could think about including it at Ted_Cruz_presidential_campaign,_2016#Relationship_with_Donald_Trump and in the Trump campaign article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The "twitterverse" may or may have not have exploded (Sad!), but that has nothing to with us. We care about reliable sources only, not twits. Jonathunder (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See above, CNN and NBC are reporting on it now & Cruz himself has publicly addressed it. JamesG5 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If political drama belongs anywhere, it would be Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016. This is a BLP covering years of this person's life. Tabloid allegations and drama don't belong here unless they erupt into a scandal (e.g., Bill Clinton's scandal). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If this is remotely notable (which I question), put it over on the campaign page. But be sure it abides by WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's recall that in 2008, National Enquirer broke the story of the John Edwards extramarital affair. It turned out to be correct. I think we need to wait and see if there is enough response to this to see if it should or should not be included. Allegations alone aren't enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP says, as an example "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." So far we have the allegations, the denial, and the allegations published in multiple major newspapers (CNN, NBC, USAToday as mentioned above as well as Reuters, the Washington Post and BBC.. The only remaining requirement is whether it is a "scandal." The obvious first place to cover it in Wikipedia is in the article about the campaign, since it seems to be part of the trading of smears and insults in the campaign.BLP would apparently allow this to be mentioned in the bio, but not every conspiracy theory or accusation needs to be in a person's bio, regardless of how much coverage it got, if there is a more appropriate place, just as the birther conspiracy is not covered in the Obama bio. It might be undue weight if it was covered at length in this bio article, unless it has some big effect on his career or personal life. Edison (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors here should be aware that an article has been created at Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Already nominated for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Another RS source: Ted Cruz Blames Donald Trump and ‘Henchmen’ for Tabloid Report of Affairs, New York Times, March 25, 2016. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would say per Edison and per WP:BLP that there can and should be mention in the context that the affairs are an allegation and there was a denial. I disagree somewhat with Edison as to the article placement. When the John Edwards affair scandal broke, it was naturally part of the John Edwards article and no demand that it only be in the John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008 one.--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see 2 sentences about it: the allegations were published, he denied them, and accused Trump of planting them,, in the article about Cruz's campaign, That seems adequate. The consensus on this page calls for mention in the Cruz page or at least on the page about the campaign. During actual campaigns, there is a tendency for some to try and scrub and censor articles about candidates so they are fluffy campaign bios designed to gain votes for the candidate. Wikipedia should provide balanced coverage of the campaign and candidacy reflecting what the mainstream media are saying. Cruz discussed the allegation in a Sunday news talk show, and it is in the morning news today, Monday. We should make sure it is not censored out of Wikipedia. Again, the coverage is merely of this as a bit of the campaign, not any assertion that it actually happened. It is comparable to the allegations that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Mud slinging, charges and countercharges are part of American politics. Edison (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian-born American

It is recognized that he is an American but shouldn't the lead bio sentence read as, "Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz is a Canadian-born American politician..." instead of "Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz is an American politician..." I mean he was born in Canada (and help Canadian citizenship), don't you all think that should be included in there? 107.92.61.88 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This has previously discussed on multiple occasions (please see the links to this talk page's archives in the templates above). The problem with "Canadian-born American" is that it is an ambiguous phrase that strongly implies that Cruz was born a Canadian and later became an American (citizenship via naturalization). This is a false implication because Cruz became an American citizen at birth (citizenship via jus sanguinis). Unless you can propose a means to overcome the ambiguity and false implication there is no reason to overturn prior consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The comments above of Allen3 are correct. Also, referring to the country someone was born in in the lead paragraph violates the MOS of Wikipedia, unless the country of the subject's birth is somehow related the individual's notability and in Cruz's situation the country that he was born in has nothing to do with his notability. His notability is based upon his country of birth in any way whatsoever.--ML (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Allen3: He became an American citizen at birth but he also become a Canadian citizen at birth, since he was born on Canadian soil and his father was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. So technically he was born as a Canadian citizen and an American citizen, doesn't that constitute saying that he was a "Canadian-born American?" 2605:6000:E8D5:A00:2D35:B2B0:A37F:1A0C (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is his notability based upon the country he was born in? No. So, no, there is no need to have that information in the opening. Please read WP:OPENPARA. It states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Cruz's country of birth has no relevance to his notability.--ML (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: Okay I've read the policy but it also states, "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." So, Cruz was a Canadian citizen at the time he became nobale. (Since he received Canadian citizenship at birth). 107.92.61.118 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think John McCain handles a similar issue (that McCain was born in a foreign country) well. Putting what could be considered "birther" claims into the first sentence gives this issue unnecessary prominence (and is against WP:MOS as well). Since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article itself, to devote space to this issue, when most of the article is about Senator Cruz' life & career verges on WP:UNDUE. In addition to McCain, I would also suggest that this article should follow the style-conventions established in List of foreign-born United States politicians articles. None of the other articles on that list mention the country of birth in the first sentence of the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I agree with all of your comments above. This birther issue has been discussed and discarded. Cruz should be treated like McCain and Obama. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen but his mother was and since she was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth then Obama is a U.S. citizen eligible to serve as President. @107.92.61.118: Ted Cruz is no longer a Canadian citizen and he has not lived there since he was four years old, forty-one years ago. I guess I would have to ask you why do you feel so strongly about mentioning this piece of information in the first sentence when he is no longer a Canadian citizen, he has not lived there in 41 years, and the reason that he notable is because he used to be the Solicitor General of Texas, is a U.S. Senator from Texas, and he is a U.S. Presidential candidate, and none of these things have anything to do with Canada? What is the obsession with putting the word Canada in the first line? Since none of the reasons for his notability has anything to do with Canada, why do continue to pursue placing it in the first sentence of the article.--ML (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's review a few examples of people in similar situation as Ted Cruz:

(1) John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona. U.S. Senator John McCain was born in Panama.

(2) Michael Farrand Bennet (born November 28, 1964) is an American businessman, lawyer, and Democratic politician. U.S. Senator Michael Bennet was born in India.

(3) Mazie Keiko Hirono (メイジー・ヒロノ, Meijī Hirono; Japanese name: 広野 慶子 Hirono Keiko, born November 3, 1947) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Hawaii, in office since 2013. U.S. Senator Mazie Keiko Hirono was born in Japan.

These are three other U.S. Senators, from Arizona, Colorado, and Hawaii, and they were all born outside of the United States and NOT ONE of them has the name of the country in which they were born in the opening sentence. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz's notability has ZERO to do with country he was born in.--ML (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: Well, I now see that it should not be included in the lead sentence, however I think that his nationality should be included in his info box
Nationailty American (1970-present)

Canadian (1970-2014)

I think that is relavant information that can be included in the info box. I mean Barack Obama has it in his info box, why not Cruz? 2605:6000:E8D5:A00:60B2:435D:5C14:FD2E (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

"Zodiac Constellations" redirects to Ted Cruz artcle. Probably vandalism. 71.40.180.2 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

71.40.180.2 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: I don't see any page Zodiac Constellations and I don't see anything Zodiac-related redirecting here ([1]). If you still see the problem, can you link to it directly please? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)