Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 6

Listing of Calgary neighborhoods
When Ted Cruz lived in Calgary he was a new born baby to four years old. You support putting in the names of the neighborhoods in the article because: "Actually is relevant as indicates what friends, schooling, etc was available to him." That makes no sense. He was not even in Calgary long enough to go to school. What school are you referring to baby school? Toddler School? If yes why didn't I know about these strange institutions when my children were younger? Oh, I know, because they did not exist. It just seems to me to be just another excuse to refer to Calgary and Canada another five more times, as if there are not enough references in the article to Calgary and Canada already. As for friends, do you think that Cruz was influenced by the other babies in the neighbors. He would get his diaper changed and then he would go out and network with the other babies, giving him a head up over the other babies in the country. Your rationale is nonsensical, at best.--ML (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are going to list irrelevant information in the article such as the neighborhoods that Cruz lived in while he was a baby and a toddler then we should list the neighborhoods he lived in during elementary school, middle school, junior high, college, and graduate school and then later while he was a young attorney, etc. It is not relevant information.  It is just junk and clutter.  Who cares what neighborhood he lived in from the years of 0 to 4?  Nearly no one.--ML (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a bio, and these details are useful for context on Cruz upbringings and family. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He was 0 to 4 years old during that time period. Also, the listing of neighborhoods is never listed in other bio articles.  You haven't provided any reason to keep the information because it is irrelevant and it is clutter.--ML (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of keeping it (if it was really that silly, there wouldn't be legitimate news article about where in Calgary he lived) and seem only one contributor wants to remove it. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. It was removed by admin S.Rich. You can see that removal here: Removal by another editor.--ML (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you comment about the one newspaper in Calgary work makes my point. If the names of the neighborhoods in Calgary are important, which they aren't, then there would be more than just one newspaper pointing out the names of the neighborhoods.  It is not in other reliable sources because it is irrelevant.--ML (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To give some context to this surprisingly heated discussion, I took a look at all articles about US Presidents from Kennedy onwards. Most of them don't mention what neighborhood the subject lived in at any point in their lives. The Kennedy article has one such mention, as does one of the Bushes, and the Obama article has two. CometEncke (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole point of putting in the neighborhoods (which is not something that is encyclopedic and it is not found in other bio articles because it is not relevant) is put in the words "Canada" and "Calgary" over and over again. Where Cruz lived between the ages of 0 to 4 is irrelevant and it is only there to jam into the article the words "Canada" and "Calgary" over and over again.--ML (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Neighborhoods are sometimes relevant to biographical articles. For example, Bernie Sanders has a distinctively Brooklyn accent so it's appropriate to say that he was raised there. Unless sources discuss something similar for Cruz--that the neighborhood of Calgary where he learned to talk affected the rest of his life, for example--it's probably irrelevant. Is there such a thing as a St. Andrews Heights accent? Jonathunder (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kennedy mentions neighborhoods i.e. Hyannis Port which is a section of the town of Barnstable, Massachusetts. Cruz isn't a president, but a presidential candidate and Senator like Robert F. Kennedy which mentions that Kennedys lived in Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx when he was a child without issue. Calgary is a massively large city so being specific St. Andrews Heights beyond just Calgary isn't different than Bernie Sanders is from Brooklyn rather than just having New York City. Also shows the Cruz grew in affluence by their moves (Elbow Park is like moving from Beverly Hills/Grosse Pointe of Calgary). Barack Obama's Wikipedia article mention which neighborhoods he lived in as a child in Jakarta without issue as well as the various moves he did as a child if that matters.
 * It seems one editor is paranoid and wants to deemphasize any connection to Calgary and wants to do this because he/she doesn't want Calgary mentioned too much in the article which isn't a compelling case.Cladeal832 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hyannis Port is a village, not a neighborhood, and it has a famous connection with the Kennedy family. Are there sources showing how St. Andrews Heights is notably connected to Ted Cruz? Jonathunder (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hyannis Port is located within the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts as St. Andrews Height located within the City of Calgary. Notably connected? There has been TONS of coverage about Ted Cruz's connection to Calgary particularly in Canada. It's a fact and the more facts about that connection the better for reader whether they support him, oppose him or never heard of him before. The point is to inform and it's been mentioned beyond just the Canadian Press article. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/birthplace-of-president-ted-cruz-calgary-homeowner-hopes-it-never-happens http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada http://www.ibtimes.com/what-does-natural-born-citizen-mean-why-ted-cruz-being-born-canada-wont-keep-him-2266393 http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/12/where-was-ted-cruz-born-you-ask-heres-his-calgary-origin-story http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/reporterss-notebook-cruzs-canuck-conundrum-trudeaus-2500-a-night-vacation-hair-y-fundraising/comment-page-1/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654865/Republican-Senator-Ted-Cruz-renounces-Canadian-citizenship-clearing-path-2016-presidential-run.html Cladeal832 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are tons of sources about Cruz and Canada, yes. About how specific neighborhoods of Calgary are relevant to his later life? Not that I've seen yet. Jonathunder (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sources are specific about him and his family living in St. Andrews Heights. The specific neighborhoods of Jakarta are mentioned in Barack Obama and the specific neighborhoods of Ottawa and Montreal where the new Canadian Prime Minister was raised are mentioned in their Wikipedia entries. A bunch of journalists researched and wrote about where Ted Cruz grew up (interest certainly to Canadians and people who have been to Calgary) so that's notable.
 * Also on the point about how most recent articles don't much areas within communities. Most recent presidents were not born or raised in large urban cities i.e. George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut (area 52.1 km²) and raised in Midland, Texas (area 185.2 km²) or Bill Clinton being born in Hope, Arkansas (area 26.16 km²) and raised in Hot Springs, Arkansas (area 85.47 km²). By contrast, area of Calgary, Alberta is 825.3 km² so there are much bigger differences within Calgary so more specificity than when referring to a town or midsize city isn't a bad thing. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed the point for removal which have been false (other politicians' Wikipedia entries have listed the section of major cities they've lived during the childhood without incident, that Ted Cruz's very brief time in Canada is THE most googled question about Ted Cruz so have accurate information is important as opposed to his mother being a quarter Italian which is in this article without anybody demanding to prove that this is significant to his adult life). Also address the insinuations against me that I only added this to have repeated use in this article which isn't true. I did it because Calgary is a large city and saying St. Andrews Heights or Elbow Park instead of just Calgary isn't different than writing Bernie Sanders was from Brooklyn rather New York City. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no demand by anyone to know whether Cruz was living in a townhouse when he was 3.5 years old. No one is asking that question.  It is trivial information.  He was only between the ages of 0 and 4 when he lived in Calgary.  It is not notable. Putting the name of each and every neighborhood he lived in before he reached the age of 4 is undue weight.  It is not done is vast majority of articles.  It should only be included if the names of the various neighborhoods have some provide some insight into his life, which they don't.  In the first neighborhood for example was he crawling out of his crib and crawling around the streets of the neighborhood in his diaper? No.  It is trivial, unimportant information that you are giving way too much weight.  You have had plenty of time to provide the names of various neighborhoods in other politicians lives and you haven't because they just don't exist in Wikipedia.  You want to insert this information then you need to build a consensus to support the inclusion and so far you haven't.--ML (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a demand from me to know. I wanted to know. As would other people since news outlets have researched and reported on this very brief time of his early life which again, was the most Googled question about Ted Cruz. The standard that "insight into his adult life" isn't implied to a thousand and one other things mentioned in this article i.e. his mother being born in Wilmington or she had one Italian grandparent. The circumstances of politician's background (poor or affluent) is usually pretty standard information. What is "undue weight" by simply mentioning St. Andrews Heights. You've misstated that no other biographical entry has section of large cities in them and I provided examples i.e. Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau. Not one example is again untrue. Anthony Weiner mentions he grew up for a time in Park Slope which a smaller area of Brooklyn than St. Andrews Heights is to Calgary. You hyperbolic statements (nobody has mention cribs or diapers) aren't helpful and telling. The same can be stated you. You want to remove it, create a consensus to remove it.Cladeal832 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of neighborhoods Cruz lived in is undue weight, trivia, and has no encyclopedic purpose or value to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue weight and useless trivia aren't interchangeable terms although the people who don't like mentioning St. Andrews Heights don't seem to understand. I've shown that other politicians have used areas within large cities without issue. Two sentences showing more that the Cruz family lived a comfortable middle-class lifestyle growing in affluence and then into poverty in childhood is interesting and totally in-line with Barack Obama's Wikipedia entry. Again, is it notable what his middle name is... or ten other trivia items with this article. Removing them gives credibility that his Calgary connection matters and shouldn't be giving any or "undue" weight. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Two sentences showing more that the Cruz family lived a comfortable middle-class lifestyle growing in affluence and then into poverty in childhood is interesting and totally in-line with Barack Obama's Wikipedia entry" 1) It's trivia and leading the reader to a conclusion. That's not our job. 2) Obama's article has nothing to do with this article.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  "If people don't like Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada, two more informative and researched sentences are not going to make a difference."  Please stick to editing concerns and do off into the weeds about something that isn't policy-related or related to improving the encyclopedia.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The family were middle class and doing well and moved into more affluent neighborhood. That's not trivia, that's fact. Trivia is a subjective thing. The other contributor sited that I was something that wasn't happening on other articles on politicians and it's fair to point out that's false by siting other examples. The "undue weight" issue and the accusation that this is done simply to have Calgary mentioned more often was accusation made and so I address and now apparently your standard is that's unfair to point that isn't a concern. I don't get how every point I make is illegitimate or a red hearing when they are WAY more on the simple fact of adding two sentences that have been mentioned in NUMEROUS newspapers and news websites because it's trivia or undue weight. Again, those terms are not interchangeable. They are subjective and nobody has a standard since I have. Sections of where a politician spent their early childhood have been mentioned so I'm within the standard of Wikipedia. Beyond the nonsense about Ted Cruz opponents making an issue of it, this wouldn't even have been noticed. That's unfair standard set for removal of just mentioning St. Andrews Heights. I address the points made against it as subjective, based on false assumption and inconsistent with other articles. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it simply not true that the names of the neighborhoods are being "mentioned in NUMEROUS newspapers". That is just a flat untrue statement.  It is merely mentioned in a Calgary based paper that is playing up on the local Calgary angle to the news coverage of Cruz's current Presidential campaign.  That's all.  It is a local story in Calgary that you want to make into way more than it is. In Calgary it is a curiosity, outside of Calgary no one really even thinks about it.  Trivial, non-issue that you are giving undue weight.--ML (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't why I'm bothering since point that User:MaverickLittle is making false statements. Maclean's Magazine, Canoe.com are nationally based publication in Toronto (not Calgary) while the site newspaper is International Business Times and The Daily Mail are not based in Calgary let alone Canada. Again, I'm sure User:MaverickLittle falsely stated my case will be ignored by User:MaverickLittle as it has in the past. You are giving it undue weight by deleting showing that there is a basis of worrying of Calgary (as if that will be the reason somebody would or would not support Ted Cruz forgetting that non-Americans read Wikipedia and so I think it's undue weight to worry if this hurts Ted Cruz (which it doesn't anyway). I'm writing what brand of diapers he wore. Hillary Clinton's article has the areas of Chicago he grew up in without issue so how many times to I have to counter User:MaverickLittle's fake point that mentioning areas that a politician lived in during the childhood isn't something that happens since it does repeatedly without issue and User:MaverickLittle has already written that the reason is a worry that Calgary (in two sentences) is mentioned too much which isn't only a worry for a neutral informative article.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I've avoided commenting on the substance of this one until now, but I have to agree that the neighborhoods simply don't rise to the level of importance that would belong in a bio. Furthermore, Cladeal832, by continuing with this, you are straining the assumption of good faith -- see WP:POINT. CometEncke (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing it because your subjective take on what is or isn't important shouldn't be a standard especially as User:MaverickLittle's initial worry was that Calgary can't be mentioned too much (what counts as too much again is subjective). Is it massively important that his mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware rather then just writing she was an American citizen? Is it massively important that his mother is 3/4 Irish and 1/4 Italian? I could site 10 things that I don't think are that important in this article, but I don't confuse my own opinion as standard. I have site that Ted Cruz's connection to Canada was THE #1 googled question about him last week so people outside of me care about it and hence why so many publications, Canada-based and non-Canada based, have written about where he lived without the massively large geographically city of Calgary. The reason I keep repeatedly bring it up isn't that bad faith, but my annoyance that I address the points against it repeatedly and show that people are creating a standard that isn't consistent with other politicians' articles and yet they just ignore my points and just rely on a subjective "I don't think it's important" as that matters. It would be like me removing his middle name because I don't think it matters. There needs to be a higher standard especially when User:MaverickLittle is just admitted at the start that it's all about worrying that Calgary being mentioned in two more sentences gives it undue weight as I wrote about how much Ted Cruz loves Calgary (I didn't) rather than a researched fact repeated in media around the world. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016
Cruz also had a half-brother, Michael Wilson (1960–1965), from his mother's previous marriage.

This is incorrect information. According to Eleanor Darragh's ex-husband, Michael Wilson was not a product of Eleanor Darragh's previous marriage. He was born (out of wedlock) in 1966 and died the same year. Suggest replacing with "Cruz's mother had a son in 1966 who died when he was an infant. He is buried in Kensal Green Cemetary in London, England." < http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article54995180.html

FX1950 (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Incorrect text has been removed and is no longer an issue. Be prosperous!  Paine   23:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz's position on net neutrality
Under Political Positions->Domestic Affairs, the article has the following: "Cruz opposes net neutrality arguing that the Internet economy has flourished in the United States simply because it has remained largely free from government regulation.[159]"

The source provides quotes from Ted Cruz and Net Neutrality, but the entry introduces significant interpretation and bias of Ted Cruz's actions that may not be accurate.

In the source, Ted Cruz's argument is summed up in a quote by him (stated in the article): ‟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.”

Rather than stating the Ted Cruz does not support net neutrality, the article should choose a more neutral point of view that Ted Cruz opposes giving authority to the FCC over internet services. Just using the quote from Cruz may be sufficient. Jeffreymanzione (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This does not address the issue of net neutrality. He must take an explicit position. Net neutrality is different from "free speech." Jimbaba (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"I'm the son of two mathematicians/computer programmers."
This quote is in the lead. It's true enough, both the quote and the information. But wouldn't it be more sensible for the lead to state who his parents actually are, rather than give the quote? It looks like his father did earn a math degree, then later went into various other fields, and his mother did earn a CS degree. So that's fine. I just wonder if it could be presented better.

As a side issue, doing so would likely orphan the ref for that quote. But the quote is already in the article elsewhere. At which point, what does one do with the ref? CometEncke (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Ted Cruz made this nervous quote to once again side-step the issue of him not being a natural-born United Syes citizen! --184.207.7.22 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Veryverser

Percentages
A recent edit summary says: "the cited number '67%' is found by adding percentages for 'false,' 'mostly false' or 'pants on fire' on cited page". I don't see a percentage for "pants on fire" or for anything else. Additionally, I would be very surprised if "67% of Cruz's statements" are false, given that he makes hundreds of statements everyday, most of which are never evaluated by published media articles, much less by Politifact.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Presidential campaign section, Citizenship subsection
The correct place for content on the citizenship controversy as it related to the presidential campaign, is in the citizenship controversy subsection of the presidential campaign section. This WP:RS content on the citizenship controversy in the presidential campaign was deleted without discussion at talk, with edit summary "removed info, put in the wrong place". The content was deleted, but was not put in the purported "right place". I restored it because it was in the correct section and correct subsection. Please discuss at talk before deleting this WP:RS content. MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On a substantive level, the vast majority of legal scholars appear to agree he's fine, so it's a waste of space. On a practical level, in regards to using the Natural Born Citizen clause to derail someone's Presidential ambitions -- how'd that work out with Obama? CometEncke (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment is not responsive. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad math
In the section on domestic affairs, it mentions "Cruz advocates for a 500% increase (from 65,000 to 325,000 annually)...". It faithfully quotes the source article, but the math is incorrect. It is a 5x multiple, but a 4x increase, or a 400% increase. Imagine he wanted the numbers to go from 65,000 to 65,650, an increase of 650. Would we say he wanted an increase of 101%? I suggest we correct the percentage here or just omit the percentage while continuing to cite a source with unfortunately bad math. Therealjohnfreeman (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the "500%" and left the actual numbers. We can leave the percentage as an exercise for the reader if interested. Jonathunder (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Campaign logo
Shouldn't it be in the public domain (consists of simple geometric shapes or text)? MB298 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Baptist or Christianity as religion in article's Infobox
Let's discuss the matter, stop the unending edit/revert cycle and come to some sort of a consensus. I'm not sure which (if either) is correct. One example - I noticed that Elizabeth II has her infobox religion as "Church of England/Church of Scotland". While there are many articles of faith in common, there are also many differences between the various strains of Christianity - for instance, a Roman Catholic church is set up differently than an Assembly of God and both differ widely in their interpretation of Scripture and the tenets of their faith. To me it would seem more appropriate to delineate Ted Cruz' religion as Baptist or Southern Baptist but I was unable to find pertinent WP policy/guidelines on the matter. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that name his religion? The infobox should state what the preponderance of reliable sources state.  -- Jayron 32 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite my considerable involvement with the article, I'm pretty much an outsider on this particular issue, and I'll give my opinion, whose value may be ascertained by the number of sources in this reply. My opinion is that Christianity is a "religion" and Baptist is a "denomination." CometEncke (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is a slowly-brewing edit-war over what to delineate his religion as within the article's info box. Sources state he is a Southern Baptist *and* sources also state that he is a "born-again" or evangelical Christian but is either descriptor his religion?  Christianity is the religion, but that is not the church organization he belongs to.  My understanding of the religion delineator within the info box is that it is actually the church the person belongs to (like my example above of Queen Elizabeth).  I have been unable to find if there are any WP guidelines or policy as to what is appropriate.  To look at other hypotheticals - would WP state that the Pope's religion is Christianity?  Well, it's true, but that's not the church he is a member of and while he is a Christian he is regarded as a Catholic which is understood to be part of Christianity...
 * Anyway, looking at various sources:
 * USA Today says he is Southern Baptist.
 * Washington Post says he's a member of a Baptist church while also describing him as an evangelical.
 * US News & World Report describes him as Southern Baptist.
 * At this moment the religion is delineated as "Southern Baptist" but one editor has persistently been re-adding "Christianity" to the religion line. This would seem to add needless detail and contravene accepted WP practices since Southern Baptist itself is classified as a Christian sect or denomination.  I am also unaware of other articles where the religious organization the person belongs to is further classified as "Christianity", etc.  The Wikilink of the group the person belongs to should be enough.Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment My feeling is that the religion is Christianity, which is different than denominational preference (which is Southern Baptist). -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but do those sources say that his *religion* is baptist, or do they say that he is a Baptist. If the latter, they may simply be assuming that their readers know that Baptists are Christians. CometEncke (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM in Eligibility section
An editor recently removed the word "stated" and replaced it with "claimed" in the eligibility section. This is a classic weasel word move. I reverted the edit. You can review the edit, along with the edit summary's editorializing commentary, here: WEASEL WORD edit which was reverted.--ML (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
There has been a big carryon over at template talk:infobox about what should or should not be in certain parameters of the infobox. I noticed that infobox person supports more parameters than infobox officeholder. As I am not a regular editor of this article (or even close reader of it), I will suggest on the talk page that the infobox be converted from Officeholder to Person, with Officeholder modules. The example is included here for someone else to review and insert to the article if you choose. It contains the same information, but the infobox code renders it in a different order. --Scott Davis Talk 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it works. I think it would be better to add the parameter to infobox officeholder (Template talk:Infobox officeholder), but that's better than how it is. —Musdan77 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some sly devil removed the citizenship field from the infobox. He was formerly a Canadian citizen. He was a citizen of Canada from birth until 2014. This is noteworthy and should be included in the infobox.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would not be appropriate for the infobox, and likely undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016
Remove this line from the Wiki page: Recently evidence has come to light indicating that Ted Cruz is the man behind the unsolved Zodiac murders. Cruz has yet to make any offical statement regarding this accusation.

M0untpWiki (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - MrX 13:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016
Reference 19 link ( https://infotomb.com/4ffm4.pdf) is no longer working and should be removed.

Rajo89 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I will put an archived version instead. Turns out that was a pdf of a book and a copyright violation. I've put in a citation for the book itself. Thanks for notifying about the deadlink though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Signature
I have been wanting to put Senator Ted Cruz' signature on this article, and (I think that) I have found a good source which reproduces it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/donald-trump-handwriting-analysis-2016-candidates-213161. Is that good, and might I add his signature should that be good? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Politico doesn't say how and from where it obtained a sample of Cruz's signature, I'd avoid using that article as a source for it. That source is fine for entertainment, not necessarily an encyclopedic entry.  General Ization   Talk   04:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel as though I were disruptively editing (which I was).
So I tried to help two times, but, then, I learned that I made two mistakes; one was the note one (which does not bother me very much now that I have gotten an explanation), and the other is compressing it in order to speed up the loading times of the article (which turned out to be vandalism). Moreover, no guideline has ever been written about compression, and my purpose was to speed up the loading, but, instead, I vandalized it by making every, single thing much more difficult for other editors, so I deserve a block Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing 375 spaces from templates and the infobox in the article is not going to significantly improve anyone's loading time, even if they were reproduced when the templates/parameters are processed (which they're not). I don't think anyone's thinking about blocking you, but I would suggest you give your contributions more thought, especially when editing a high-profile article such as this one.  General Ization   Talk   04:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't sweat it; you made a couple mistakes and they got corrected. Big deal. Your talk page has an acknowledgement of being "one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors", and you've got a pretty good edit record, so don't go beating yourself up over an occasional error. You certainly don't deserve a block. General Ization's suggestion is probably a good one. I steer clear of very high-traffic articles, both to stay out of the fray and on the assumption that if it's getting a lot of edits, other editors are taking care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 March 2016‎ (UTC)
 * As for the "more thought" part, well, I certainly thought that I had given my latest contribution as much "thought" as I needed, so I think that I need help with knowing how to give my contributions "thought" (just I believe that there ought to be a guideline about making edits solely to compress articles [which I surprisingly have never found]). Also, I know that I am who a Wikipedian ought to be, but it is my OCD "who" speaks of lies, and I really need not to be doing that every, single time I make a small mistake (about which I am lied to by my problem, whereby I need to learn how not to be deceived). Anyway, I am thinking about looking for a few areas in the article which may be in need of help. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a guideline concerning the removal of whitespace from templates and infoboxes to "compress" articles because given the ratio of text and images to whitespace in the typical article, the way in which templates and infoboxes process the whitespace (they ignore it), the broadband speeds that most users employ, and the processing speed of WMF's servers, there is absolutely no value in doing so (and as I explained in my earlier edit summary, the whitespace serves a purpose). Appreciate your interest in helping, but please don't do so by removing whitespace.  General Ization   Talk   05:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As in "There needs to be a guideline which says not to make edits solely to compress (which would have the faintest value possible, therefore not worth trying).". Also, I will try not to let my OCD make me sound awful. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 12:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Early Life
The very FIRST place (aside from the infobox) full place of birth should be mentioned is the first line of 'Early Life' section. For encyclopedic content why would consensus be needed for including full city/state/country in place of birth? Most biographies list full place of birth in the first line of an 'Early Life' section. Specifically city/state/country. Maybe not as much for someone born in one country still living there, but someone born in one country now living in and famous in another. For example -Henry Kissinger was born in Furth, Bavaria, Germany. Not just Furth and Bavaria. It's a completely neutral point of view, not an attack or contentious, and can't be challenged. Some editors insist on removing Canada from this first mention of place of birth. The only reason for doing so would be to downplay this fact, to suit a particular point of view. There is simply no other reason for removing it from there. No matter how many times it's mentioned in other parts of the article. It was a good faith edit, with neutral point of view, not for or against Cruz. Again it's not an attack, simply a neutral fact. Isn't removing it for the only purpose to suit a (political?) point of view amount to vandalism? 1305cj (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer the actual questions asked, consensus is needed because that is a key base for cooperative editing on Wikipedia. As for the question "Isn't removing it for the only purpose to suit a (political?) point of view amount to vandalism?" that is your personal assumptions about the motivations of others, and no, editing out the word Canada is not WP:VANDALISM or even particularly close to that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't consensus needed by the editor who removed it? Does it help the article at all to remove this fact? WP:AGF 1305cj (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you were attempting to shift the status quo. adding to or removing from the status quo requires WP:CON If your WP:BOLD edit gets WP:SILENCE, then there is a new status quo. If you get pushback, then you have to build consensus for the change. Also in this particular case, this has been hashed out and warred previously. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a status quo, or that was even a thing. Neutrality would suggest that City and Country would be the default position here, so there would need to be a really good reason to edit out the Country. I did read through many archives on this but really couldn't find a consensus for removing Country from place of birth in Early life section. Hope this RFC will finally settle it. 1305cj (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is the goal for all content here. "Neutrality" does not mean the automatic inclusion of all facts in strong detail. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that the community's response became obvious very quickly. I've learned a lot in this process, mainly that in addition to building consensus, there are Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS and naming conventions WP:PLACE that address this issue and clarify that it is generally reasonable to use [placename, nation] format. With the exception[] being the United States. WP:CANSTYLE states that "In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the format "City, Province/Territory, Canada". Giving undue weight to hiding or excluding the country from the geographic place name, because it's well known where Alberta is, or it can be found by clicking the link, or it's mentioned elsewhere, sounds very close to suggesting a Content fork WP:CFORK or Point-of-view fork. My concern now is that I might violate a revert rule, but since it's been discussed at length and there's a pretty clear consensus, I don't think an edit after discussion would at this point. I don't see any reason not to edit the 'Early life and family' section to read [Calgary, Alberta, Canada]. It's WP:COMMONSENSE, and it would seem to be unreasonable not to. WP:Reasonability. 1305cj (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC

 * Question: in the first line of "Early life" where Cruz's birthplace is given, should "Canada" be included (thus: Calgary, Alberta, Canada)? 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes -- we are a global encyclopedia, and we should not assume that all readers know where Calgary is. I realise that Canada is given in the infobox, but some readers will only read the article and not look at the infobox.  It's hard to imagine a good reason for excluding this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of Alberta already provides enough specificity — while technically there is one other much smaller and much less famous Calgary in the world, there's no other "Calgary, Alberta". And an editor who doesn't already know that Calgary, Alberta is in Canada can click on either of those links to find out where it is. So it's never actually necessary to preference "Calgary, Alberta, Canada" over "Calgary, Alberta", any more than it would ever be necessary to specify "Denver, Colorado, United States" over "Denver, Colorado". "City, Province, Canada" is virtually always just redundant overkill, because "City, Province" is already specific enough and additional context is provided for those who need it by the fact that City and Province are wikilinked. So I don't see why it's necessary, and accordingly I take great issue with the assumption that the editor who removed it was necessarily acting in bad faith. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes --Someone well known in one country but born in another would have as a matter of fact City, State, and Country listed at the first mention of birthplace in Early life section as well as infobox. Assuming good faith WP:AGF I assume others are trying to help, not hurt the article. What hasn't been answered is how removing Country from this section is helpful in any way. Listing full location as encyclopedic fact doesn't hurt the article at all. 1305cj (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably - I cannot find any guidelines about this, and I thought I recalled a push to get rid of U.S. from infoboxes, but I think we probably should include the country here. Basing this on the idea that, unlike somewhere like California or England, most readers likely to not know where Alberta is and need another level of information to place it mentally. I'm generally for the exclusion of country names when the lower-level geographical unit is well-known, but I don't think that's the case here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Cruz' birth country is a noteworthy fact even though it has no bearing on his eligibility for the presidency. Alberta is a smallish province that could just as easily be a US State or a British Isle to someone unfamiliar with Canadian provinces. We should consider the needs of our readers on the other side of the globe who may not be familiar with North American geography. - MrX 21:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per WP:BIRTHPLACE it doesn't belong in the lead, but later is fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - We should include Canada. Not everyone knows where Calgary is exactly, and we are an encyclopedic platform.  I don't think that there is any good reason for excluding this, and I don't think it will hurt the article.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - on first instance the full place is given. Jonathunder (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Jonathunder, I would argue that point. Most, if not all, well written bios, do not include the country of birth in the Early life section since its "understood" through nationality in the lead. Again, if people want to argue that he is a well known American NOT born in the US so mention should be made of it, or some such argument, then fine, but lets not say that this would be a "standard" MOS entry to include the full country. Maybe look at List of people from Calgary--Malerooster (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Malerooster, I haven't seen that to be true about bios. It seems to really depend on the country being referenced, and in many cases whether the person was born in the United States or a country other than where he/she resides and is well known. All that the lead states is that he's an American Politician, so it's not "understood" from the lead. As to your point on manual of style WP:MOS I looked up Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) [guidance] which states "Where there is no Wikipedia convention on a specific country and disambiguation is necessary, it is generally reasonable to use [placename, nation], as in Shire, Ethiopia." While not a Canada related article Canadian communities/Structure guideline [In article text] states "In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the format [City, Province/Territory], Canada unless the article text or title has already established that". Only the United States doesn't include country in naming conventions [] "A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, USA"); that is contrary to general American usage". This would all support having a "standard" MOS entry to include the full country, as in City/Province/Nation. 1305cj (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Summoned by bot. No valid reason to exclude country. Seems logical and typical. See, e.g., Dan Aykroyd Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I compared to John McCain (yes-ish), Henry Kissinger (yes), Madeleine Albright (yes) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (no, but let´s change that too) and it seems reasonable enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - If it is acceptable enough for the infobox then one mention in the early life section of the article is simply appropriate. Omitting the country of birth from the childhood bio paragraph kinda feels like a cover-up. If he were an American politician born in the United States of America then the common assumption in country of birth drawn from the intro would be accurate. If anything were to be removed i would argue that Alberta could be dropped to diminish the length of the sentence. While most of the provinces in Canada are the sizes of countries in Europe they are still political subdivisions, to use a phrase Senator Cruz has enjoyed in the past. A matter of 8 or 9 characters, including a space, seems a small thing to have an RFC for but the principle is so much grander. I live in Calgary and nothing could make me happier than honestly being able to claim he has never tainted this city by his presence but that would be factually inaccurate and more than a bit misleading. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Alberta could be dropped to diminish the length of the sentence"...no, no, a million times no. For the same reason that it's not acceptable to just say "Boston, United States" without "Massachusetts" in between, a Canadian city may never just be "City, Canada" without "Province" — "City, Province" or "City, Province, Canada" are acceptable, but not "City, Canada" without "Province". Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, i think you missed my point. American politicians who retain ties to their country of birth are described as "American-(other_country)" in the intro whilst those who do not maintain such ties are simply "American" and their childhood biography paragraph(s) include country of birth. Omitting the province is not good style. Omitting the country of birth for a foreign-born person of broad notability is just not good content, especially when the sentence is about their birth. The reason i said Alberta could be omitted if those 8/9 characters really are too many is because Canadians are not citisens of their province of birth. :P    delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Whether it is or is not in the lede is not material. The lede is supposed to summarize points in the article; it does not replace them. The full place of birth, including country, should be included in the portion of the article that most naturally deals with it; and in this article it is the section "Early life and family." That's really barely debatable. I could understand (but would not agree with) an argument that it should not be in the lede or infobox, but having it in "Early life and family" is a no-brainer. TJRC (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - I see no reasonable argument for excluding "Canada". We should be more descriptive and not assume readers know where Calgary, Alberta is located. Meatsgains (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes In the case of a top global city it would likely be OK to omit the country for conciseness, but Calgary is not such a city. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. For pretty much the same reason as . Richard27182 (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, essentially per the above. If this were in the lede, this might have been different, but in the body detail should be included when it is helpful. There's no real argument for exclusion here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed RFC - Discussion agreed as Yes. Aeonx (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?
As far as I can tell, there is no criticism of Cruz in this article. And that violates WP:NPOV. Is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no general rule that all BLPs (or all Republican BLPs) must contain plenty of criticism. See Mother Theresa, for example.  That said, if you would take the time to read this BLP, you will find criticism.  For example: "After Time magazine reported on a potential violation of ethics rules by failing to publicly disclose his financial relationship with Caribbean Equity Partners Investment Holdings during the 2012 campaign, Cruz called his failure to disclose these connections an inadvertent omission.[98]"  And there's lots more.  Criticism is supposed to be proportional to its appearance in reliable sources, and not to satisfy any need to be negative about the BLP subject.  You might want to take a look at the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read it carefully. The financial disclosure is a pretty mild criticism. Is there any other criticism?
 * BTW, the Mother Theresa article does have a criticism section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Criticism Is there anything that substantive in this article? --Nbauman (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Touché. I withdraw the Mother Theresa comment, and substitute Harriet Tubman and Clara Barton.  Anyway, as I said, there is "lot's more" criticism in this article beyond that financial disclosure bit.  All you need to do is read the article, to find it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick unimportant note
Hello. I would suggest to merge the "Early life and family" and the "Personal life" sections: Regards, Biwom (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

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)
 * What 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 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".

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)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I don't see any page Zodiac Constellations and I don't see anything Zodiac-related redirecting here . If you still see the problem, can you link to it directly please?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)