Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

free from regulation

User:DrogoChubb has repeatedly reverted my edits to this article, adding in a sentence that reads, He argues the Internet economy has flourished in the United States because it has remained largely free from government regulation. Why is this sentence even worth including? It's irrelevant to the discussion since net neutrality does not involve the government regulating the internet; it is a regulation of internet service providers and the government itself. Additionally, DrogoChubb states that this is a direct quote of Cruz from the source, but it isn't; it is a paraphrase of Cruz's position by the source's author (who is not Ted Cruz). This sentence replaces another sentence that describes his position on net neutrality without pushing any POV. I've removed both sentences for the time being. ComfyKem (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I included it because it is in the Daily Dot article you refer to. The Dot article your refer to says this is the reason that Cruz opposes net neutrality. This article is about Ted Cruz. This article should state the main reason Cruz opposes net neutrality. The Daily Dot article says: "The FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality' would stifle innovation and subject the Internet to nanny-state regulation from Washington,” Cruz said in a statement. ‟Internet freedom has produced robust free speech for billions and a wide-open incubator for entrepreneurs to generate jobs and expand opportunity. A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans.” Cruz’s argument is that the Internet economy has flourished in the United States in recent decades simply because it has remained largely free from cumbersome government regulation. He charged that any regulatory changes to the way the government treats ISPs should come from the slower-moving, more deliberate legislative process. This article needs to provide why Cruz opposes net neutrality and the Dot article, which you specifically refer to states that Cruz opposes net neutrality because he is against government regulation. That is what the author of the Dot article says. We cannot throw out the Dot article author's opinion because we don't agree with it.--DrogoChubb (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You should try to work the sentence that you keep removing into the article in a good faith manner instead of simply reverting me. You have reverted me over three times. How do you want to compromise here? Why? Because the Daily Dot article clears says the wording I included and it says what Cruz's position is and it needs to be in the article in some way.--DrogoChubb (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added in why he opposes it. The other sentence is problematic as it is irrelevant and does not directly state why he opposes it. ComfyKem (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Your statement it not entirely correct. In black above is the direct quote from the Daily Dot article. It clearly states that in the U.S. the Internet has done well because the U.S. government has backed off from regulating it. I simply took that sentence and modified it a bit and added to the article. You removed it without discussion. Later, you made the most recent comment, which was simply not true.--DrogoChubb (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me propose a compromise:
Cruz opposes net neutrality because he argues that the Internet economy has flourished in the United States simply because it has remained largely free from government regulation. He has expressed support for stripping the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) of its power under Section 706 of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] to ensure net neutrality,<ref>{{cite news|last=Sankin|first=Aaron|date=May 16, 2014|title=The conservative case against net neutrality|url=http://www.dailydot.com/politics/net-neutrality-ted-cruz-fcc/|newspaper=The Daily Dot|accessdate=November 13, 2014}}</ref> and opposes reclassifying [[internet service provider]]s as [[common carrier]]s under Title II of the [[Communications Act of 1934]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Wiseman|first=Todd|date=November 14, 2014|title=Livestream: Ted Cruz on Internet Regulation|url=http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/14/livestream-ted-cruz-on-internet-regulation/|newspaper=The Texas Tribune|accessdate=November 15, 2014}}</ref> He opposes an internet sales tax, saying that doing so would hurt competition by creating additional costs for internet-based businesses.<ref>{{cite news|last=Cruz|first=Ted|date=May 5, 2013|title=Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/05/why_i_oppose_the_internet_tax_bill_118255.html|newspaper=RealClearPolitics|accessdate=November 13, 2014}}</ref>
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is a good compromise. The Texas Tribune has posted a recent speech that Cruz gave in Austin, Texas where he pointed out why he opposes net neutrality: He argues "that using regulations to enforce net neutrality would stifle online innovation and encourage the creation of monopolies." Aman Batheja, Texas Tribune, November 14, 2014, "Cruz Explains His Opposition to Net Neutrality". I think that the article needs to point out what Cruz believes because that is what the article is about: He believes nn: (1) stifles online innovation and (2) creates monopolies. His point of view needs to be presented fairly. The current version does not do that.--DrogoChubb (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@ComfyKem:, is there any objection to the compromised text that I have put forth?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked it a bit, but it's fine. ComfyKem (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@ComfyKem:, in your tweak, a new sentence was created, can a source for the sentence please be included.
@DrogoChubb:, with the tweek of ComfyKem, is the modified compromise language a form that would receive your support?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I added the compromise language this morning and I added that Cruz sees regs leading to stifled innovation and monopolies--and I provided a reliable source for that addition.--DrogoChubb (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor Infractions

A user has insisted that "It was reported by BuzzFeed that in 1987 while Cruz was a senior in high school and at age 17, authorities found an unopened case of beer in his vehicle,
resulting in them giving him a ticket. Cruz referred to the incident on his application for Texas Solicitor General, where he was required to list an prior convictions." should be included in the article. I understand he has admitted to this, but is it worth an entry in an encyclopedia? The way I see it, Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine and this piece of information has very little bearing on anything except to point out he was a teenager.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your comments Mcmatter. There are two editors that keep inserting the article and refuse to discuss on the talk page. They are also simply claim that the removal of the non-notable information is not "constructive". That is a not a valid reason to insert the information in the article.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Who are these two editors? I'm certainly not one of them, however I share their belief that this information is notable. We've got Obama's use of drugs on here. They are in my view similar to Cruz in that he admits to doing it and the mistake he made at a young age. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't have that information aside from whitewashing. You can have this type of information for President Obama and to President Bush, who was significantly older than Cruz when he got caught, but you can't have it for the latter? I really don't understand that. -Informant16 21 January 2015
The unopened alcohol was a misdemeanour, drug possession is criminal so you are comparing apples to oranges. A misdemeanour is the equivalent of a parking ticket or speeding ticket. By your logic if some tabloid news outlet reports on his speeding tickets we should include them in the article as well. I just don't think it has any place in this article or anywhere else. If we do form a consensus to keep it in the article it should be moved to early life as the charge had nothing to do with his education.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the early life placement of the infraction, the only reason I didn't being that most if not all of it was about his parents. Apples to oranges? Both of them are still wrongdoings in the eyes of law and if we reporting tabloids then I'll kindly let the Houston Chronicle know they are a tabloid or are you referring to BuzzFeed? Neither one is a tabloid, at least not from what I'm aware of. I actually think including it served the same purpose of that as the Obama drug use; to show a person's life in its fullest form from what is confirmed, as was understood by living persons guidelines here. This isn't just some rumor like the Romney claims from his teenage years with harassing the homosexual classmate or the Palin rumor about her relationship with Glen Rice. This has been confirmed by him and acknowledged. If he can acknowledge it, then why can't we? -Informant16 22 January 2015

The Houston Chronicle is a better source than BuzzFeed, which IMHo is a questionable source at best. That being said it should not be given undue weight in this article, and the version trimmed down by another editor, states the fact without going into unnecessary detail.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"First Latino" necessarily implies "first Cuban"

"first Cuban and first Latino" is still redundant, and it's still bad writing. It's as eloquent and necessary as calling Neil Armstrong "the first man, first person, and first person named Neil on the Moon." The fact that he is the first Latino, and the fact that the article explicitly notes that he is Cuban, is enough to clue readers in to the fact that he is also the first Cuban to hold the office. We don't need to spell everything out and itemize every "first" we can construct out of the facts at hand. Evan (talk|contribs) 05:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MaverickLittle. Tagging... Evan (talk|contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No, "First Latino" does not, logically, imply that he is the "first Cuban". But I will ignore that you are incorrect and the fact that your Venn Diagram comment was snarky and unnecessary. In the first sentence we can stick with "First Latino".--MaverickLittle (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you completely ignored what I wrote. One cannot be both Cuban and the first Latino to do something without also being the first Cuban to do that something. No one who can read is going to be unclear on that. And who was I being snarky to, exactly? No one had yet reverted me or engaged me in discussion on the topic. Did I presciently seek you out as a target for my snark? Evan (talk|contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That was a confusing response. You made your first edit with a snarky comment.--MaverickLittle (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some Cubans who do not see themselves as Latino (Miami New Times, Louis Nevaer (11 January 2010). Managing Hispanic and Latino Employees: A Guide to Hiring, Training, Motivating, Supervising, and Supporting the Fastest Growing Workforce Group. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-57675-972-1., Soledad O'Brien; Rose Marie Arce (6 October 2009). Latino in America. Penguin Group US. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-101-15090-0. ). This is similar to how Somali Americans don't view themselves as African Americans (see Talk:Americans/Archive 1#Black and African Americans).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I guess it really comes down how each person self-identifies. Also, all three of the Hispanic U.S. Senators currently serving in the Senate are Cuban, i.e., Cruz (TX), Rubio (FL), and Menendez (NJ). All of them or none of them or a mix of them might or might not consider themselves "Latino". Evan, is a Venn Diagram needed for this statement?--MaverickLittle (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So the statement that "Cruz is the first Latino U.S. Senator from Texas" might not be true. Just to avoid the Venn Diagram.--MaverickLittle (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thus the question is how does the subject self-identify? And/or how do reliable sources identify the subject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis use

Cruz recently admitted to smoking marijuana in the past. Doesn't seem too extraordinary to me, but news outlets sure picked up on it (see a few sources here). Worth mentioning in any way? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I think we should include it because the media sure thinks it is important. I think it is considered shocking because Ted Cruz is a major conservative Republican, a a group traditionally opposed to marijuana. Furthermore, marijuana was illegal when he was younger and that means he broke the law. Obviously that hurts his PR. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON IMHO. See if this is mentioned a month from now. If it is still getting in-depth coverage than include it using reliable sources with neutral content without giving it undue weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Include only if it worth mentioning in the future. It has not been covered all that much. A Presidential candidate admitting that he/she smoked marijuana is not, in any way, "shocking". That's hype and Wikipedia does not need hype. Also, the comment that "conservative Republican"(s) are opposed to marijuana is misleading at best. The recent marijuana legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President was bipartisan. So to make that argument today is misleading. Democrats have not supported legalization. Read the Democratic National Committee Platform, there is nothing in there that supports legalization. We don't need incorrect political analysis to decide if the information should be included. Is it notable? I don't know. I doubt it. And we won't really know for months. But to say it is "shocking" is hogwash. Since Bill Clinton's "I did not inhale" comments, marijuana use admission by Presidential candidates is old hat, nothing more. Stay Calm and Keep Editing.--MaverickLittle (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. If it is mentioned at all then it should be mentioned as part of the table in the article List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use and that's it. That's all the treatment that the other folks got. In a few years, that whole article will be removed as a historic relic. This is a non-notable, non-story.--MaverickLittle (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015

Add American anti-communists

76.184.17.251 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) American anti-communists

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

University of Texas Law

Added needs citation here ... /* Spent 20 minutes searching google for link to page 3rd party that didn't report on press release by Ted himself */ ... it's probably not false, just hard to find under the media blitz. I even took shortcuts like ratemyprofessor, linkdin, searched within university of texas website with google for a listing in the past, way back machine. I only drilled the first 60 entries per search, but that should be enough to find this guy, shouldn't it? I went so far back as to hit 2009, the last year he was adjunct professor & someone in the law group presented him to speakers - but no one mentioned Ted was a professor at the school too, nor was he titled as such. A little dubious, but minus his own pages (on senate website etc) page & people quoting that information - the uni itself has no mention of the guy as working there. Where as for other ex-adjunt professors of other university's I can find them inside 5 minutes. I'm at the point where a phone call to the offices is probably needed. http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2009/010909_2009_TROL_symposium.html IamM1rv (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It took me two minutes. You obviously did not search very well or just didn't know what you were looking for. Ted Cruz's LinkedIn page (not "linkdin" as you spelled it above) has his time listed at UT Law clearly noted. Also, his former law firms resume of his is linked in the article (from the Way Back Machine) and it is noted there. It is common knowledge. I believe you are attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill. Good luck with that.--MaverickLittle (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Political positions

We should endeavor to add a section on Cruz's political positions, now that he is announcing his candidacy. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased edits

I saw a bot on twitter notify the world this page was just edited- they don't look unbiased either. Somebody should probably check this page for objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.37.90 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Excessive commas

The following sentence could be rewritten to have fewer than six commas: "The elder Cruz fled Cuba in 1957, two years before the revolution, at the age of 18, landing in Austin,[27] a Cuban émigré, to study at the University of Texas, knowing no English and with $100 sewn into his underwear."

For example: "The elder Cruz fled Cuba at age 18 in 1957, two years before the revolution, with $100 sewn into his underwear. A Cuban émigré who knew no English, he landed in Austin [27] to study at the University of Texas."

It would greatly improve readability to make such a change.

Meliaeli (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Meliaeli

Done, it is. For your suggestion, thank you, kindly. - MrX 11:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

21 hour filibuster

Cruz 21 hour filibuster is not mentioned in his bio, and it should be, including context and results. [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cruz's September 2013 speech is mentioned in the Ted Cruz#Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act section. It is referred to as a speech because it did not delay or block a vote and thus does not satisfy the definition of a filibuster. --Allen3 talk 23:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Where? I don't see it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change Denier

Seems there is no mention of the fact that he is a well known climate change denier. Curios how it's never been added, and as it's a confirmed fact, which can referenced from reputable sources, makes it even stranger. scope_creep 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX
WP:NOR
WP:NOTADVOCATE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is material that describes Cruz views on climate change, it should be included, of course. There are many sources, including [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The moment one becomes the chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space is the moment when ones espoused stances regarding topics which have achieved scientific consensus become indisputably topical and relevant. TheMurgy (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect meaning

The sentence beginning "As a child, his mother told Cruz that she would have to make an affirmative act to claim Canadian citizenship for him..." is incorrect and factually impossible. The phrase "As a child, his mother told Cruz" means that when Cruz's mother was a child, she told him something. On the assumption that she could not have borne him when she herself was only a child, this phrasing must be incorrect. I believe the meaning intended is "When Cruz was a child, his mother told him that...." If so, that's how it should be written.

Meliaeli (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Meliaeli

Fixed. Thank you.- MrX 11:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Conspiracy theories

Why is there nothing on his conspiracy theory beliefs? There's a significant part of his website on them. They should at least be included in 'Personal Life' DocHeuh (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of announcement

The article notes on multiple occasions that Cruz announced his campaign on March 23, 2015. Cruz's official Twitter account posted his announcement at 12:09am Eastern on the 23rd, or 11:09pm Central on the 22nd. Because Cruz's campaign is officially headquartered in Houston, Texas, in the Central time zone, the more accurate description would be that the announcement was posted on March 22, 2015. References to March 23 as the general date of announcement (as opposed to the date of his first event at Liberty University) should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.38.133 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is his legal name?

According to the article, the senator's legal name is Rafael Cruz; but the article is not titled to his legal name, which I believe is Wikipedia policy. Could someone point me, please, to where consensus granted Cruz an exception from policy? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me in the direction of the "Wikipedia policy" to which you are referring? That is the place to start. If this policy exists (which I doubt) then go to the following articles and work to have them renamed: Madonna (entertainer), Prince (musician), Cher, Elton John, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, Ariana Grande, Jay Z, Beyoncé, Pat Brown, Jim DeMint, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Beau Biden, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, Tom Foley, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Jeb Bush, Buddy MacKay, Ann Dunham, Lolo Soetoro, Ringo Starr, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis and on and on and on and on and on. Once you get all of these articles to change their names according the fictitious "Wikipedia policy" to which you refer then come back and I will find another 28 articles whose names need to be brought into compliance with your fictitious "Wikipedia policy".--ML (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The policy is in fact WP:COMMONNAME which makes Ted Cruz the correct title. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Gaijin42. I was aware of that. I was just having some fun while pointing out that there is no "exception" for Ted Cruz. He is known as Ted Cruz. That's how is referred to by almost everyone under the planet. On NBC's Today show yesterday, Matt Lauer did not call him Rafael Cruz. Lauer called him Ted Cruz. You are correct the article is named properly. By the way, if TechBear's theory was correct, which it isn't, then Matt Lauer's article would be entitled Matthew Todd Lauer because Lauer's parents did not name him "Matt" they named him "Matthew Todd". The same logic applies to all of the other articles listed above. Tip O'Neill's parents did not name him "Tip". O'Neill's parents named him "Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill, Jr." and Tipper Gore's parents did not name her "Tipper". Her parents named her "Mary Elizabeth Aitcheson". Under TechBear's line of thought Wikipedia should rename Tipper Gore's article "Mary Elizabeth Gore". But of course that is not going to happen because the correct "Wikipedia policy" is WP:COMMONNAME, not TechBear's imaginary one.--ML (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Net neutrality section is unclear

"Cruz opposes net neutrality... He has expressed support for stripping the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of its power under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ensure net neutrality"

Aren't those two sentences contradictory? Corvus sapiens (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the second sentence is not supported in the source. Cruz favors a legislative process, versus a five member FCC panel for "modernizing" communications laws. I have changed the content accordingly.- MrX 11:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This passage is still contradictory. The source of the problem is that Cruz contradicts himself when speaking about it. He states that he opposes net neutrality, but speaks about it as if he supports it. This leads me to believe that Cruz thinks "net neutrality" is the name of the legislature the FCC is trying to enact, when infact, it is the state of the net he supports.TarkusAB 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

University students faced $10 fine if they skipped Ted Cruz presidential speech

By choosing Liberty University, Ted Cruz ensured a large number of people attended his presidential speech, which gave the "false illusion" that numerous people wanted to see Ted Cruz. See Liberty University students faced $10 fine if they skipped Ted Cruz presidential speech, PolitiFact.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.119.186 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a sub-article for that content. Also politifact has a left-leaning bias (1, 2, 3).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Early life section

I think the "Early life" section does not describe Cruz early life, and instead describes his parents' early life. It should be reduced to the basics. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I reduced this section a bit, but it still way too much about his mother, father and sister and almost nothing about Cruz himself. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It could still use some trimming, especially colloquialisms like " He landed..." and "... when a slump hit the price of oil..." - MrX 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That was a considerable amount of content removed. It could be argued that the subject Parents of Ted Cruz, is notable given the amount of reliable sourced significant coverage that the two have received. Perhaps the content removed belongs in that new article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The only things about Ted Cruz's early life in that section are that he was born (in 1970), his family moved to Houston in 1974 and that his parents divorced while he was in college. Everything else is pre-1970. Maybe not a new article, but perhaps a new section on his parents, and then expand the Early Life section? I think the stuff about his parents lives is notable, given the political context of the articles subject. Bennycat (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that assessment. MaynardClark (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it could be a subsection under personal life. That way if a reader is trying to glean information about him, they could skip over the parents.- MrX 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Father fought for Castro, but "didn't know Castro was a communist". Presumes Castro was a communist during the revolution. Strange as it may seem Castro wasn't a communist until the next decade, forming the communist government in Cuba. Oddly enough, the dictator Castro overthrew had the support, initally, of the old Communist party of Cuba, which was a marginal group with little political influence, but supported Batista based on his "populist" ideas around labor. Castro was a member of the 26th of July Movement until 1965, well after the overthrow of the Batista regime. I source this information from the wikipedia articles on Batista, Castro and The Cuban Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renglish (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on his father's life story

The article opens with a rather detailed biography of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, the Senator's father. The father (who fled Castro's Cuba as a young man) has frankly led a much more interesting life than the son (who grew up in privilege and comfort.) The undue emphasis on the father's life gives a misleading view of the trajectory of the son's life. This article is about the younger Cruz, who went to two Ivy League universities before enjoying a successful but relatively uneventful career as a lawyer and Senator. The elder Cruz is also a notable enough personage in his own right to merit his own wikipedia article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The father clearly passes WP:GNG, a summary of the father's life can be left here, and a stand-alone article on Rafael Bienvenido Cruz can be created. While the above editor has a point, personal opinion of the subject of this article has no place here, but due to WP:TPO, I will leave it to the above editor to strike their own comments.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RightCowLeftCoast. The summary of Cruz's father's life should remain and stand alone article seems to be warranted. Also, this is no need for the unnecessary and irrelevant political comments of editors who are attempting to write an article in from a neutral point of view. Those comments should be struck by the editor that made them.--ML (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH

Unless a source refers specifically to Cruz, we can't use sources that either agree with Cruz's opinions, or discredits Cruz's opinions. This article is not designed to litigate global warming. I have removed the WP:SYNTH violating content, as well as content sourced to the Daily Caller, which is no a WP:RS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point. But the Daily Caller is a RS. It is used throughout Wikipedia. Let get this clear: You are not the arbiter of what is a RS and what is not. We can keep it out for right now based upon the fact that it does not mention Cruz, but if there is an article in DC that refers to Cruz and it is notable and relevant I will refer to it.--ML (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Caller is a highly partisan outlet, and most definitively not an RS. You can check the archives at WP:RS/N. Was not you that complained about partisan sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_149#The_Daily_Caller_as_a_source. I have yet to find content that cannot be sourced to a different outlet than TDC. So in most cases we will not use it as a source.) - Cwobeel (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please follow WP:BRD. It will make it much easier to edit, and avoid unnecessary edit wars. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not pleased with how this section looks. It's now a bunch of quotes with little or no analysis.
Daily Caller can be used to refute other claims--as long as the underlying source used in the Daily caller is reputable. That's in the archives and I am going to follow that Archives Notice.--ML (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the addition that I made this morning:

Cruz has stated that climate change data does not support the conclusion that global warming is due to human activity. He asserts that in the 1970s, global cooling was considered a significant issue.[1] According to FactCheck.org, Cruz based his argument on a 1975 Newsweek article that was later rejected by its own author, and one which represented a minority viewpoint in peer-reviewed literature at the time. Cruz has also stated that satellite data shows no global warming in the past 17 years, a claim that FactCheck.org and PolitiFact says is based on a cherry-picked range of data that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change views as indicative of a short term trend.[2][3][4]

Refs

References

  1. ^ Bash, Dana (February 20, 2014). "Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data". CNN. Retrieved April 2, 2015.
  2. ^ Levitan, Dave (March 30, 2015). "Fact check: Ted Cruz on the global cooling myth and Galileo". USA Today. FactCheck.org. Retrieved April 2, 2015.
  3. ^ Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (March 26, 2015). "Ted Cruz's claim that there has been 'zero' global warming in 17 years". Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2015.
  4. ^ Gass, henry (March 27, 2015). "Ted Cruz compares himself to Galileo: new language for climate change skeptics?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 2, 2015.
The section now looks like he said/she said, which is not very encyclopedic to my eyes.- MrX 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Quoting "FactCheck" over and over again is misleading because FactCheck gets thing wrong just like everyone else does. It is not acceptable to act like because something comes from FactCheck or PolitiFact that it has to be right because they put the word "check" in their names.--ML (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The facts come from secondary reliable sources reporting FactCheck.org's research. I don't care if we name the sources, but the underlying facts should be included.- MrX 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, in this case there is no need to mention FactCheck. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I'm fine with the cooling/warming content as it is (if we restore some of the secondary sources). This passage: "Cruz has stated that satellite data shows no global warming in the past 17 years." needs to have the futher analysis explaining that the data is cherry picked and, according to IPCC, is believed to represent a short term trend. Any objections to restoring that material?- MrX 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No objection - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing from the article

... are the opinions of Republican in office about Cruz's behavior in the Senate and in engaging with house Republicans to undermine the Republican leadership actions. This is very much part of Cruz's profile and requires a section in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is part of the Republican political scene at the present time and part of Cruz's profile as a Conservative politician. Maybe time to begin the Criticism or Controversy section(s) I talked about yesterday? Or perhaps 'Relationship with the Republican Party Leadership' Bennycat (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
'Relationship with the Republican Party Leadership' or similar seems like a good idea. I think we should avoid a criticism section per WP:CRIT.- MrX 22:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. No WP:CRIT. The content can be placed in appropriate sections alongside other content. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, thanks. Bennycat (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please replace "As a teenager, he fought against the oppressive regime of Fulgencio Batista." with "As a teenager, allied with Fidel Castro, he fought against the oppressive regime of Fulgencio Batista. dallasnews.com Trailblazers Blog

From the source:

Ted Cruz said his father described himself as among young teenage boys who fought Batista and allied with Castro’s forces because “they didn’t know Castro was a Communist, what they knew was that Batista was a cruel and oppressive dictator.”

planetjeffy 06:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmaslan (talk • contribs)

The edit you're requesting (or something very similar) was included in the article, and then removed. The phrase, "didn't know he was a communist" was also edited out. I think the issue here is the extent to which Cruz Sr. was politically allied with Castro. I believe that although the edit you're requesting is a truthful account according to the sources, it doesn't expand upon Cruz Sr.'s political motivation, when what we should be looking for is an edit simply explaining that Cruz Sr. was allied with Castro in the cause of removing Batista, unless editors can source information that shows political alliance between the two, and explains the position of Castro's politics at the time. An editor in a section above this one provided information that indicated that Castro himself was not officially a Communist at this point in time, though I would hesitate to say that he was not aligned ideologically with Marxist-Leninist principles. If it can be shown that Cruz Sr. belonged to the 26th of July Movement, then it is clear that the group had a membership with an array of political ideology, including members who were opposed to the strict Marxist-Leninist principles adopted by Castro. The objective should be to extract Cruz Sr.'s role as a teenager in the fight, and his political motivation. I'm not convinced that your edit request does that. This issue is complex and interesting, leading to others proposing that Cruz Sr. have his own article. Bennycat (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Global Warming

Now that the senator has declared he is running for the presidency, perhaps now is the time to put a section in that details his stance of climate change denial. User:scope_creep (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something should be added to this article under Political positions. Here is a potential source: Ted Cruz Uses The Galileo Gambit To Deny Global Warming.- MrX 14:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that something should be added to the political positions section, but if the phrase "climate change denier" is used then it will be POV hack job and unacceptable to the goals of Wikipedia. The word "denial" should also not be used because that would not be covering the topic in neutral manner. That phrase and that word are dog whistles to certain activist individuals and political groups and are not neutral in their presentation.--ML (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can write about Senator Cruz's position on ACC without attaching such a label.- MrX 16:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I read through the opinion piece from Forbes that you cited. It is not very helpful. The author attacks the students and visitors to Liberty University, who attended Cruz's 2016 campaign announcement--which has nothing to do with Cruz and his beliefs (the attack focused on evolution which has nothing to do with Global Warming). He engaged in an ad hominen attack on Cruz for making a analogy between himself and Galileo--even though Cruz never claimed to be equal to Galileo in significance or importance (You, Cruz, are No Glileo!)--once again, it does not shred any light on Cruz's positions. The author attempts to refute Cruz's claim that global warming has not happened for 17 years (which is not Cruz's claim, of course, Cruz is quoting hundreds of thousands climate scientists who have made the same claim). The author never directly refutes Cruz's 17 year claim because it is supported by hundreds of thousands of climate scientists. The author put a chart that claims to go back to 1881, even though neither NASA or NOAA existed in those days. The temperature readings from previous time frames (before modern science) are subject to questioning and questioning by the best climate scientists in the world. This is nub of climate science today: What ways are appropriate climate models for pre-modern times, right? Of course. So his chart was not on point to refute Cruz's claim and if you look at it for the last 17 years, it is going in flat line over that 17 year period, which actually SUPPORTS Cruz's claim--a claim that is supported from hundreds of thousands climate scientists. Also, he re-states the claim that 2014 is the warmest year on record. That claim has also been refuted by hundreds of thousands legitimate climate scientists. And it is not a claim that Cruz has even attempted to refute. There is a need in the article for Cruz's political political position global warming/climate science but this article is not helpful and writing the section with use of fringe phrases like "denier" and "denial" that equates disagreeing with Al Gore to the level of being a Holocaust denier is plain, ole fashioned POV pushing. (And I'm not accusing you of that--to be clear.)--ML (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I really didn't read more than the first couple of sentence of the article. I just wanted to flag that there is a public perception of his views on the issue.- MrX 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In his usual style, Cruz did not mince words: The global warming alarmists in their treatment of those looking to the facts and evidence often behave like modern day Flat Earth proponents.

There are many sources to choose from:

This one is somewhat helpful. But doesn't cover much of what Cruz thinks, but more than Salzberg's Forbes article.--ML (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I read through this one and it is well just a rant on all Republicans and how dare a bunch of Republicans dare question the great and powerful scientists that believe whole heartily that global warming is real. It does not state Cruz's position very well at all. Not much use for the Ted Cruz Wikipedia article. It is very useful if there is an article that points out what the current talking points of the Democratic Party are toward all Republicans on global warming.--ML (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • National Journal [5]
I read this one and it does not quote Cruz on global warming at all. It does quote Cruz on NASA funding allocations extensively and it quotes the Director of NASA on NASA funding priorities, but as for global warming the article does not quote Cruz at all on that topic.--ML (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No? And what is this?

Cruz's views—especially his belief that global warming doesn't exist—are at odds with NASA's extensive climate-science programs, which study solar activity, sea level rise, and oceanic temperatures, to name a few.

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a description of NASA's work. It is a false description of his views. He did not say "global warming doesn't exist". That is there take on it. What he did say about the claim that 2014 is the "hottest year on record" has only a 38% of being correct. So you picked a source (NJ) which is a liberal politics source that incorrectly description Cruz's position on global warming. Now, I looked at Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right - Daily Mail UK--ML (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a false description of his views. You may need to read WP:V. We report what reliable sources say about a subject. Not our opinion of these reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No. I'm not going to read anything. And I'm not going to talk down to you and suggest that you need to read anything specific. That's uncalled for. I pointed that Natl J mischaracterized his views. It is simple as that. Then I provided a reliable source that characterized his views differently. It is as simple as that. The section as written is POV and I will attempt to fix it tomorrow when I have more time. But I am not going to let it stay POV. It is not written neutrally and it does not comply with Wikipedia and it needs to be fixed. I'm not going engage in a long argument about what you think about my source since you are talking down to me.--ML (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • New Republic [6]
  • The Guardian [7]
  • Washington Examiner [8]
  • Tech Times [9]

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are many sources to choose from but if the phrase "denier" or "denial" is used then it will be outside NPOV.--ML (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't need to use "denier" or "denial". We present information and we let readers decide if he is a climate change denier or not. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That comment comes close to hitting the point, but it misses. The phrase "climate change denier" as you stated does not really belong in this conversation at all. It is based upon the false premise that if someone disagrees with "X" then they are "in denial" just like a Holocaust denier. That premise and that thought process is inherently POV and should be excised from this discussion. That is all. Let's just focus on facts and drop the inflammatory rhetoric, even in side comments.--ML (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Started a section, feel free to expand as needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@MaverickLittle: no need to comment on each source proposed... just help expand the section with these sources, or your own research. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be clarified: This article is not just for Cruz's quotes on his political positions, but also on his political positions as described in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified if a source is a liberal political source and it is mischaracterizing Cruz's position then that needs to be presented in NPOV. We just don't quote a reliable source blindly. Part of our job as editors is to make sense of the so-called reliable sources. For example, above you pointed out the Natl J description of Cruz's global warming position, which was an oversimplification (for political reason because the Natl J is, I repeat, a liberal political source). What Cruz did say about the claim that 2014 is the warmest on record is that he quoted the scientists themselves who admit that the claim has only a 38% of being accurate.--ML (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Which source is a "liberal political source"? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As I stated above, Natl J is a liberal (left-wing) political journal.--ML (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Natl J is the source you quoted directly above and it the one that I keep referring to as "Natl J" over and over again. It is a liberal, left-wing source of news.--ML (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
Like I pointed out above the newly created section is biased and violated NPOV, with an undue emphasis on something other than what Cruz's political position on the topic is.--ML (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, is the Daily Mail from the UK considered neutral politically? Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Editorial_stance Just to add my two-penneth, perhaps a good way to break the deadlock on the perceived political bias of sources, would be to cite his voting record, as well as quotes attributable to him directly on political positions. ML is right that we should not use the lens of biased sources to explain Cruz's views on his behalf, but it goes both ways. Can we let the man speak for himself? Bennycat (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Bennycat, you are right. The DailyMailUK is not the epitome of neutral reporting either. But no reliable source is neutral, no matter how many times they claim that they are. See Natl J hires let-leaning reporters. I agree with your comments about letting Cruz speak for himself, instead of quoting mischaracterization from reliable, but biased sources. It will try to get to it tomorrow.--ML (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many other sources, so we can choose the most appropriates. As for the "letting the man speak for himself", we can do that but not exclusively. This is not a political pamphlet, but a biographical article based on WP:NPOV, which forces us to report significant viewpoints about Cruz, not just Cruz's viewpoints. Rather than engage in endless conversations in talk, let's do the hard work- Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right it is not a political pamphlet so when a reliable source mischaracterizes the man's point of view like the Natl J does above then we do not have to and we should not quote it. Fact is that Cruz has never said what the Natl J claims above ("especially his belief that global warming doesn't exist"). It is just flat out not workable. What Cruz did say is that the claim that 2014 is the hottest year on record only has a 38% chance of being correct--that percentage comes directly from NASA itself. Facts are a stubborn things.--ML (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, facts a are stubborn thing: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, facts are stubborn things and the thing that you present as a fact is a mere snippet of something that Cruz said, taken out of it broad context, with the wording before it and after it shamelessly deleted, as such it is not a fact but your highly edited presentation of what he said, with the express purpose to "prove" that Cruz said something controversial. Based upon your huge editing we don't know (because you did not present it) what data he is referring to and we don't know (because you did not present it) what particular claims for which "advocates" are arguing. So your claim that the phrase "facts are stubborn things" does not support your premise. But this is a debate with no purpose because it does not focus on how to make the article better.--ML (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As an example of my approach, I have edited the Environmental Protection subsection, citing Cruz's voting record, leaving it up to the reader to decide if his vote was a good or a bad thing. The problem with using potentially biased sources to explain Cruz's views (or the source's viewpoint on his political positions), is that it can't help but push a certain narrative. Let Cruz push his own narrative and views, under this Political Positions section. That is what it's for, and what the reader wants to know. It shouldn't be analyzed with bias. That's what a criticism or controversy section is for, if criticism exists from a significant viewpoint. Bennycat (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Very well done. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see this content was deleted:

In January 2015, Cruz voted in the U.S. Senate, along with 97 other Senators, that global warming is real, but not man-made, rejecting an amendment stating that human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

source: Senate Republicans voted Wednesday to say climate change was real.
Why?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Restored. It was deleted without an explanation. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Ted Cruz was not the the valedictorian of Second Baptist High School in Houston, TX for 1988. I attended the graduation ceremony as my sister Letitia Wall was the valedictorian and gave the speech in 1988. I would suggest someone call the school and verify their facts... Cwall64 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07Talk 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
According to this http://www.secondbaptistschool.org/distinguishedalumni he was an SBS Distinguished Alumni in 1988. Does not say anything about valedictorian. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a multitude of reliable sources that verify, and were already in the article that verify that the subject was valedictorian: The Fiscal Times, Biography.com, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle
Therefore the weight is for reverting to the fact, no including this rough "distinguished alumni" description.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

1995 World Debating Championship

An editor wants to put in the article the names of the two Australians that defeated Cruz and his debate partner at the 1995 World Debating Championship. The names should not be included because it is unnecessary trivia. These two obscure former college level debaters are not notable and the article is about Cruz, not the two debaters that the new editor wants to add. Can't seem to find any reason to add the material.--ML (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but a mention to whom they lost is OK. Made a small edit to accommodate that. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, agree, but the editor put the names back in. It seems to be a case of Wikipedia:SPIP.--ML (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that the editor who keeps putting the names of non-notable people in the article will not discuss the topic on this talk page.--ML (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the re-addition of the names and now the judges decision, agree that it seems pretty clear case of WP:SPIP and that they are both non-notable and trivial in this article. Melcous (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for not discussing. I haven't used the Talk page before. I love being involved in Wikipedia but am just a novice. I an keen to get involved in the community and sorry for not being a good citizen so far. I think the names should be in there because that's who Cruz lost to in his last debate. I think referring to them as "Australians" just seems pejorative. Their names should be included just as Dave Panton -- his debating partner's -- is included. I also think the fact that he lost 5-0 should be included since it's an interesting fact that is not controversial. Is there a reason not to include that -- is it too trivial? Please let me know if I'm making any other mistakes here. Thank you Matthewdark (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the phrase "a team from Australia" is a pejorative. If the debaters that defeated Cruz and his partner are actually from Australia then it would seem to be an appropriate description of who and where they are from, without promoting them by name. Since the article is specifically about Cruz then the name of his former debate partner from college, David Panton, should be mentioned since he was involved in Cruz's Texas Senate campaign (according to reports), and now is involved in his current presidential campaign seems to require his name mentioned. Panton probably deserves his own Wikipedia article, I can't say that about the two obscure former college debaters that you want to mention in the article. The two debaters from Australia have not had an on-going relationship with Cruz and they have not become note-worthy on their own. There is nothing pejorative about calling them a team from Australia. If we mention that they defeated Cruz, why is the point total important to the article and how does that specific score, out of hundreds of debate scores, so important that it must be mentioned in the article and how does that one score make the article better? I don't see how. It seems like trivia to me.--ML (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is he eligible to be President?

He must be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. His mother was a US citizen, his father was not(was he even in the US legally?). He is just as much Cuban as he is American. Born in Canada. Canada has a similar anchor baby laws as the US, and Cruz had dual citizenship with Canada until 2014. 71.218.241.94 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting the requirement that both parents must be citizens for the citizenship to inherit? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "Ted was born in Calgary in 1970, but he qualifies as a natural-born citizen of the United States because Eleanor Cruz was a United States citizen" is completely the writer's opinion. Unsourced. Some discussion about whether Mr. Cruz is "natural-born American citizen" as he was born in Canada and not even on an American military base out of country as was Mr. McCain. It looks as if he was born a Canadian citizen, and that the U.S. government didn't even know he existed until he gained American citizenship. According to information on the USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) website at [10], "In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF... One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986". Although this appears to be in effect at present and not necessarily at the time of Mr. Cruz's birth, if it does in fact apply to Mr. Cruz's case, then he is not qualified to be U.S. president. <http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents> Juniperpollen (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the comments in the early life section. They were repetitive and, as you point out, they were based upon the mere opinion of an editor of this article. Now, there is a section at the end of the Ted Cruz article that goes over the issue and provides the factual basis of Cruz's citizenship and his eligibility to be President. I point that out because your comments are merely your opinion and they are both incorrect and not supported by a reliable source. The section at the end of the article covers the topic.--ML (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the US Code regarding "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth". He appears not to qualify. Does anyone know if there are other parts of the US Code in which he would qualify? --JHP (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been adequately covered in the article. The code you provide is just the code without commentary by a reliable source. Your comment is your personal opinion and clearly you are not a reliable source. Come back with a reliable source to support your incorrect conclusion.--ML (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No show on Lawrence

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/ted-cruz-anti-gay-marriage-crusader-not-always

Can we have a note about Cruz's critical role in helping to legalize gay marriage? Hcobb (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ted cruz pressing mccain

@MaverickLittle, your claim that the addition is POV and not relevant doesn't hold water. It did mention Cruz's side of the story, which is that he "misspoke" about it. The incident was also mentioned by major reputable news organizations, including The Hill, CNN, etc. and so forth. Also, since the lead of that section mentions Cruz is a gun rights supporter, this is the right place to put this. Scaravich105nj (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The particular edit/material is here [11]. – S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Just quoting one word of Cruz's response is not providing Cruz's side of the story. Also, just because something is covered by a reliable source does not make it notable. A tit for tat between McCain and Cruz is not notable. It is a one day news story and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, you edit summary clearly outlines your bias. If you want to add to Cruz's position about gun rights then that would be great but a tit for tat between McCain and Cruz on whether they were properly communicating is not a discussion of Cruz's gun rights position. Also, you use the phrase "a claim that was swiftly rebutted and mocked by McCain" which is clearly NPOV wording and needs to be calmed down (the wording is as over the top as your edit summary). If there is a need to mention this tit for tat (but there really isn't) then it needs to be cut down to one short little line without the melodramatic wording such as "a claim that was swiftly rebutted and mocked by McCain". We should remove the whole topic and see if in a week anyone remembers this little tit for tat between McCain and Cruz.--ML (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maverick, read my user page. I'm in fact a conservative Republican. I'm not biased. Also, if you want me to calm it down, then how about this? In April 2015, Cruz told a group of gun owners in New Hampshire that he had been "pressing" fellow Republican Senator John McCain to hold hearings on whether service members should be allowed to carry concealed firearms on military bases.[1] McCain responded to Cruz's assertion, saying that neither he nor his staff had heard anything from Cruz about the issue.[2][3] Cruz later admitted that he "misspoke" about the issue, and that he had not in fact talked to McCain about it.[4][5]
Looks neutral to me. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not relevant whether you are Republican or conservative or liberal or Democrat. Your personal political opinions do not override your clearly biased comments on the edit summary. Besides, you can still be a conservative Republican as you claim and still be biased against Cruz because you think that Rand Paul or Marco Rubio is a better choice for the Republican nomination or you think a lame RINO should get the nomination. Whatever. It is not relevant and it proves nothing. Nothing you have said changes the fact we are discussing a one day news story where Cruz said something, McCain responded, and Cruz responded again. The topic does not add anything to the article that is encyclopedic and it does not enlighten anyone about Cruz's thoughts about any political positions. It is a debate about whether they (McCain and Cruz) talked or not. That is the substance. You keep talking about irrelevant information such as your personal political beliefs, which is not relevant in anyway whatsoever. Yes, you removed the over the top, breathless melodrama from your over-long blow by blow description of the completely not notable series of comments. Does the information that you want to add tell us anything new about Cruz's political positions? If yes, then what is it? That is the nub of this notability question. So far you have provided nothing to support the claim that the information is notable.--ML (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I agree with ML. This info is not WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel it is relevant. as Cwobeel just said, Curz has a personal style, and making pointed claims like this is one of this. Daredevil836 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually Cwobell has not said anything, S/he simply edited without engaging in the BRD. Consider, how encyclopedic is this disputed tidbit? It is a bit of trivia, nothing more. Moreover, Wikipedia:Relevance weighs against this material. I.e., most Republicans favor a broad application of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. So this tidbit really does not add anything new. – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't care much about the bad blood between McCain and Cruz, but I care that we present Cruz's views on guns. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What new information does the edit add about Cruz's views on guns? Please explain.--ML (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Taking Cwobeel's, daredevil's, and my comment above, the consensus is 3 to 2 for inclusion. I'm adding it back. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The most recent edited version, which puts back in the original version is still written in POV manner ("a claim that was swiftly rebutted and mocked by McCain") and it is way, way too long (if it is going to be in the article).--ML (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this affects the discussion here about the quote but Scaravich105nj has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (and some crazy edit summaries).Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
information Administrator noteNot only that, but Scaravich 105nj and Daredevil836 are both part of the same sockfarm. So it does effect the discussion in that all input from both accounts may be considered null and void. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, please see WP:WEIGHT & consensus not democracy.
Just cause media covers it doesn't mean it necessarily should be given weight. I agree with Cwobeel that we should have some content on Cruz's view(s) on firearms. It should be neutrally written, done in summary form, and well referenced (preferably from reliable sources from a multitude of political views (not just one view)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-2016-second-amendment-gun-rights-117133.html
  2. ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/john-mccain-mocks-ted-cruz-claim-on-guns-117165.html
  3. ^ http://thehill.com/policy/defense/239462-mccain-mocks-cruz-over-guns-on-military-bases-claim
  4. ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-military-members-guns-corrects-117186.html
  5. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politics/john-mccain-ted-cruz-gun-hearings/

Content Dispute

@108.45.74.201: I always thought the Liberty Caucus was Republican, not Libertarian, and he's in the Conservative Portal. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

108.45.74.201 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)All I know is, it already had him listed under "American libertarians". So, if you're going to remove my addition of "Christian libertarians" on the grounds that he's not libertarian, that's fine, but then remove him from any other libertarian categories, too.

Done. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that state that the subject of the article is libertarian? Salon, a source which could be said is not friendly to those on the right of the political spectrum, say that Cruz and Paul are not libertarian. Reason.com says that Cruz is seeking to court Libertarians, not that he is one. Kenneth Anderson, writing for the Hoover Institute Press, refers to Cruz as being on the "libertarian Right".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Cruz/Archive_4&oldid=1142779448"