Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Canadian-born American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian (1970-2014)

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

@107.92.61.118: You never answered the question: Why the obsession with Cruz's Canadian roots? His Canadian background is mentioned in the infobox under the birth item, it is mentioned in the early life section, it is mentioned in the Presidential campaign section (having its own subsection on Citizenship), and there are categories that mention his Canadian background also. Why the need to add it again? Can justify it or is it undue weight? I know that the many, many discussions that we have had on this topic in the past have come up with the consensus that it is undue weight to mention it again in the infobox. You have not made the case to change the consensus and add more Canada stuff into the article.--ML (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"You never answered the question: Why the obsession with Cruz's Canadian roots?". He's not required to answer; the question is a strawman; the question is irrelevant; the question does not assume good faith; the question is now becoming badgering behavior; you are biting a newbie. Please stop all this and back off immediately - it's inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not badgering him. I asked him a question and he did not answer. I asked him the same question again. I am assuming good faith. Don't you lecture anyone on AGF since you did not AGF concerning my pictures of Heidi Cruz. You were proven wrong there. I have a right to talk to this person and it is appropriate for me to talk to him and it NOT your place to tell me who I can talk to. I am not biting anyone except you. Your comments are inappropriate. You like to act like you are an admin. You are not an admin. I will talk to this editor if I want to. You back off. I want to know why he keeps wanting to put more information in the article about Cruz's Canadian background. It is a completely appropriate question and your comment that it is inappropriate is flat out wrong. Please stop making incorrect statements. It is a waste of time.--ML (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are badgering. You are also violating WP:BITE. I am not telling you who you can and cannot talk to (that would be silly), I'm telling you to back off from needlessly and inappropriately pressuring him. The remainder of your personal attacks here are noted, but not worth arguing with you about since you never think you have violated WP:NPA. As far as your claim about non-AGF behavior in regard to the Cruz photos, bringing that up is completely irrelevant to this article and this talk page discussion. Even so, I'll ping Cirt so he can explain to you once again that our concerns were not a violation of AGF, they were not personally directed at you, and they were only about the integrity of WP:COMMONS and the possibility of a WP:COPYVIO. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You go ahead and ping him all day long. It is unfortunate when you do not tell the truth. You have stated, incorrectly, that I am badgering him. I have only asked him the question twice. He has refused to answer the question. So your comment is false. You have a very difficult time when people tell you that you comments are untrue. But unfortunately that is what the situation is. But in hindsight your complaints about the pictures turned out to incorrect. So once again you were incorrect. I have not violated AGF. That is your opinion but unfortunately as with so many things it is incorrect. I know you don't like to be told this thing kind of thing, but it has to be done. Now, as I stated before since I have told you the truth of the situation I am going to move on and wait to see if he responses to me, but I do expect him to answer the question. He needs to explain why he thinks more Canada information needs to be in the article. I don't think it does. Also, you are not an admin. You really should stop pretending to be one.--ML (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"He needs to explain why he thinks more Canada information needs to be in the article" No, he doesn't. See WP:COMPULSORY.

"you are not an admin" Apparently, you are under the false impression that administrators have more clout and deserve more attention to what they say and do than non-admin editors. When a non-admin editor acts as a good steward of the Wikipedia project by reminding other editors of policy, informing them they are violating policy, and asking them to quell certain non-productive and harmful behaviors, such action has as much (so-called) "power" as an administrator. Administrators enforce (through blocks and other exclusive actions) but don't have any more say on (most) issues than non-admin editors. That's why there's such a thing in Wikipedia called consensus that is brought about by any/all editors who participate, non-admins and administrators alike. Wikipedia is a community that relies on cooperation and civility to function well - administrators and non-admin editors make that happen, not just administrators. You will be doing yourself - and the rest of us - a favor to read up on what that means so you may stop using the "you're not an administrator" as often as you do. It's truly not an appropriate response to anything in a community such as this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are incorrect. I did not say that he has to respond. He can respond if he wants to, but he needs to make the argument on why more Canada information needs to be put in the article because right now the consensus is that enough is enough. That's the point that I was making. You interpreted incorrectly. You are not an admin and you should not state incorrect things to other editors. You say over and over again that want Wikipedia to be a more cooperative place but your lectures like the one above undermine your stated goals. I have done absolutely nothing wrong but yet I get long-winded lecture from you that are usually clocked full of incorrect comments and flat out incorrect opinions. Many, many editors waste huge amounts of time responding to your lectures. I believe you spend more editing hours just lecturing and hectoring others than you do actually making constructive changes to Wikipedia.--ML (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment was, "He needs to explain". I'm not misquoting you. And that comment means to anyone reading those words that you expect him to answer whether he wants to or not. If I interpreted your words incorrectly, it is only because of the wording you chose to use. If you don't want any misinterpretation of your meaning to occur in the future, please be more accurate and concise so it doesn't happen again and you aren't appearing to be going against policy. When that happens, then these "long-winded" responses will no longer be necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your long-winded responses are NOT necessary because they are filled with incorrect information, incorrect opinion, and are generally useless. And always, I am assuming good faith when I say your winded commentaries are useless. If I could find a use for them then I would give you credit, but no credit can be given.--ML (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Says the editor who thinks his fecal matter is odorless. That's okay, though, I get it. You feel omnipotent, elite, and untouchable. I hope that works out for you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So what I gather from your comment is that since I feel good about myself and my editing that makes you upset, but that is not relevant to this talk page. But I am not going to change something if it is not wrong. I asked an editor two times to explain his editing process on this article and then you interfered and made factually incorrect comments. I can't worry about you getting upset because I am confident in my editing. And I won't. You may not like the fact that I am confident, but I am not going to worry about it. It is not relevant to any discussion on this talk page. If the editor chooses to explain himself then fine, but if the editor does not explain then the consensus is going to hold.--ML (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• In response to User:Shearonink's initial comment, before this was out-dented... Shearonink suggested following the same approach used in the article on John McCain -- "I think John McCain handles a similar issue (that McCain was born in a foreign country) well..." McCain's situation is similar, but not that similar. McCain was born in territory that is NOW part of Panama. But, at the time of his birth, it was part of the Panama Canal Zone, and was de facto US territory. So, his situation is not really similar, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My point being that McCain's status as a citizen - and therefore being able to serve as President (according to the US Constitution) - was discussed in the media and by TV's talking heads when he was campaigning for President. So, yes, in the sense that I meant it, my point remains. In the sense you refer to, of course. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Presidential primary results

We have a large section, taking up 10kb of total markup, with proseline updates and a table updating primaries and caucuses. I believe it should be removed, as this is a biography of Cruz, and not an article about the primaries. We have Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, which is the appropriate place for this information. Putting those proseline updates and a table there reeks of WP:RECENTISM and reduces readability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It was inappropriately reverted back in, I took it out again per WP:BRD and agree with your points aboave, Muboshgu. Hopefully, the other editor will now join in here with the "D" portion of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle rather than edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi: Do not engage in an edit war. Muboshgu made a Bold edit. I Reverted it. And then you Revered it again. The suggested policy is BRD not BRRD. I am going to revert it back to the place it was before Muboshgu decided to take out a huge amount of work that many, many editors took the time to create. Now, I can see part of his point, but not ALL of that work needs to be eliminated. It sure be trimmed down, but the outrageous removal of that amount of work of many, many editors over three months is not appropriate. Stop the edit war now. Don't revert me. Discuss what needs to go and how. That's how BRD works. It is NOT BRRD. That's a farce. The consensus is what we are going back to and we can DISCUSS how to trim it down or if the whole thing must go, but Muboshgu has been reverted and we will leave that way until the discussion moves forward and a new consensus is reached. Your edit war is NOT appreciated.--ML (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Winkelvi: Do not engage in an edit war." One revert doesn't = edit warring. You, however, have now reverted twice, which does indicate edit warring behavior on your part. "Muboshgu made a Bold edit. I Reverted it. And then you Revered it again. The suggested policy is BRD not BRRD." It appears, by your statement, that you do not understand WP:BRD. The only one performing BRRD is you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the section can be trimmed down to where there is a narration about how the campaign has gone so far. I think the section can be trimmed by removing the numbers, but I do believe that some information should remain to give the reader some idea of how it has been going.--ML (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I find the two of you on this page to be extremely frustrating but I think Maverick is right, the previous consensus holds that the results section be included and therefore should be left in following the BRD cycle, and now discussed, and that it was wrong for Winkelvi to revert his revert. Just thought I'd add a third voice. SamWilson989 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't wrong. I agreed with Muboshgu, and reverted back to his appropriate removal of the undue weight. "Consensus" (which, if you want to get down to facts, there never was one on the content) can change, and Muboshgu's removal of the content based on policy (undue weight) is a step toward getting a new consensus. Nothing wrong with that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu brought an opinion in the right way by being bold. It was reverted by Maverick, and then Muboshgu brought the discussion here. The only person who has done anything wrong is you, no matter your intentions. "Consensus" is having a section on an article for numerous months without any discussion against its existence. If there's no discussion on the existence of content and no one tries to remove it, that in itself is consensus by the page's editors that the content should remain. Those are the "facts". I wasn't making a comment about the article, the undue weight, Muboshgu, or Maverick, but you alone, because I don't agree with how you approached this at all.

We're all here obviously to make this article better, but BRD works in a certain way for a reason, and from seeing your conduct on this page here today and yesterday without commenting, it seems to me that your MO is to drown someone in Wikipedia policies rather than discuss the issue. Whether or not you agree with anything I've just said, I don't mind if you completely ignore it, can we all agree to leave the page as is, as it has been for some time, and discuss the issue of whether the section is unnecessary here, rather than argue about Wikipedia policy. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about changing the section. We will leave the section as it is, the current consensus version. The rule is clear that we leave alone until there is a discussion, so that is what we will do. If you look at the Marco Rubio article you will see a longer section on the Republican primaries than what you see in the Cruz article. And Rubio has participated in fewer primaries than Cruz has. This is not to say that Cruz's section can't be trimmed down, but it is not out of the ordinary in any shape or fashion. John Kasich article is more similar in length to Cruz's section but of course Kasich has only won one primary. There is so much to talk about. I believe that there should be some discussion of Cruz's victories. In the Trump article there is a discussion of Trump's win and it goes so far to state that in March 2016 it looks like Trump has the nomination tied up--if that comment does not "reek of WP:RECENTISM" then I do not know what does since it is just not known right now that Trump will be the nominee or not. I agree to trim, but to throw the whole thing out is leaves out an important part of the Cruz presidential campaign story.--ML (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly the section needs a trim, it does not need everything laid out as it currently does, but the results of elections certainly deserve a place on the page for any politician. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"If you look at the Marco Rubio article you will see a longer section on the Republican primaries than what you see in the Cruz article. And Rubio has participated in fewer primaries than Cruz has." Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My opinion is the section needs more than a "trim", it needs to be pared down significantly as it is currently suffering from WP:UNDUE. Pare it down appropriately and remember that it already has two redirect notes at the top of the section to take readers wanting more info on the Cruz presidential campaign to articles on that subject specifically. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The only person who has done anything wrong is you, no matter your intentions." SamWilson989, how so, exactly? I didn't violate policy, I didn't exhibit edit warring behavior, and I came to the talk page immediately after re-removing what I believe Muboshgu correctly took out of the article (for the reasons I stated previously in this section). You may not agree with what I did, but that doesn't make it "wrong", just different than you would have handled it. "it seems to me that your MO is to drown someone in Wikipedia policies rather than discuss the issue" Really? Then why did I immediately come to the talk page and say, specifically, "Hopefully, the other editor will now join in here with the "D" portion of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle", indicating that I believed discussion absolutely needed to happen. Your accusations and severe lack of good faith in this isn't helping anything. Please focus on discussing edits rather than editors. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi. I'm all for assuming good faith, I even mentioned the fact that I know we're all here to improve the article. But you bring up editors' actions, and so I'm bringing up yours, to demonstrate where I think you've gone wrong. Specifically, as I haven't made myself clear then, I think you didn't follow BRD, as you reverted ML's revert of Muboshgu being bold. That's it. You didn't just come here onto this talk page, you've been arguing for quite a few hours recently on here. Please let this be the end of it now I've made myself as clear as can be. If you disagree with my actions in general, take it up with me on my talk page, not here, and discuss here only the edit, as you so desire, from now on. Thank you. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• This detail should be left out. It's way to much ephemeral detail for a bio. I guarantee that if Cruz doesn't get the nomination, or does but loses the general election, the same editors will want to remove this detail anyway. It has no enduring value, unless perhaps Cruz becomes president, in which case it still doesn't belong in this article.- MrX 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

Edit the bit on H-1B visas in the Political Positions section (see quotations bellow) to reflect a change in position. The source cites an increase proposed by Cruz in a 2013 amendment, but he has since stated that he would suspend the program as well as add requirements such as an advanced degree requirement.

https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-admits-immigration-flip

"Cruz advocates for an increase from 65,000 to 325,000 annually in skilled foreign workers entering the United States using H-1B visas." 2602:306:3859:1AA0:9C6A:4DE1:4C45:4475 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: If needed, file a new request on Talk:Ted Cruz. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged marital infidelity, rumors, and twitterverse exploding

See also: National Enquirer § Ted Cruz and Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cruz's explicit assurance of fidelity

I added a paragraph about Cruz's explicit assurance of fidelity.

In my opinion, since Cruz has gone on record about his fidelity -- or lack thereof -- then policy compliant coverage of his fidelity, or lack thereof is both possible, and responsible.

Last night I started to work on this coverage, and another contributor excised the references I planned to use. We discussed this material, in light of BLP. When Cruz goes on record with a res09nse that elevate the allegations from a "mere rumor" to something important to cover.

I hope those who disagree engage in a discussion, here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Less than three minutes after I added my paragraph @MaverickLittle: reverted my addition with the edit summary "RadarOnLine is not a reliable source."

Yeah, the other guy made that claim too. So I had already checked the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. I saw people raise questions as to whether it should or shouldn't be considered reliable. But I did not see a conclusion reached that it was unreliable.

• From 2015-03-05 WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated?
• From 2009-08-05 WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Radar Online

If MaverickLittle, or some other contributor, does not point to a discussion that established Radar Online as an unreliable source I suggest their excision was hasty and unwarranted. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Instead of describing what you wrote you should share it: Radar Online attributed this explicit assurance to fear that the customer list of the "DC madam", Deborah Jeane Palfrey, might soon be published, and the list would link him to Palfrey.<ref name=RadarOnline2016-04-03/> Palfrey's customer list included a large number of Washington's most prominent residents, and its most promient visitors.<ref name=DailyMail2016-02-03/><ref name=WhyJustHer/>

Please note that I'm not sure that those references even exist in the article.--ML (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So if this lady is going to publish something then have her publish something. Right now it is speculation and it is not encyclopedic.--ML (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Palfrey's customer list was sealed, by court order, during her trial. Palfrey couldn't legally publish her list, without getting that court order lifted -- if she hadn't committed suicide after her conviction in 2008. Palfrey's former lawyer has spent the last four years fighting to have the list released. He has written that he thought her conviction was unfair because she was barred from calling any of her former clients as witnesses.

For the record, it seems to me, @MaverickLittle:, you haven't made any effort to substantiate your claim that a discussion has concluded that the project considers Radar Online an unreliable source. How long do you think I should wait for that substantiation? Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted – even though you initially didn't add any content – because the sources you used were online tabloids and, therefore, unusable for making BLP claims. My reading of RSN discussions you linked is that Radar Online absolutely cannot be used to make BLP claims. It doesn't matter if you think a source hasn't been proven to be reliable, because per WP:BLP the burden of evidence rests with you.
The Telegraph is a RS, and I have no objections for using it to make BLP claims. BTW, after Telegraph article's release it was reported that SCOTUS rejected releasing DC Madam records. Politrukki (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @MaverickLittle: chose to excise both of my recent edits, even though their justification could not apply to my first edit, at all. So I restored it. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've moved this material to the campaign article because that's where the context is (National Enquirer et cetera), and we cannot list here all the stuff Cruz has not done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you please reconcile this action with WP:NOTCENSORED?

    This material is not about "stuff Cruz has not done". He responded to allegations that he was a hypocrite and whore-master with an explicit assertion that he has been faithful to his wife. So, the explicit assertion is something he HAS done. This would be relevant to the article on Ted Cruz without regard to whether he was or wasn't a candidate. I believe this material should be restored. I think @Anythingyouwant: falls short. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    • Sure, WP:NOTCENSORED is about Wikipedia's policy of allowing content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. The material that I moved to the campaign article is still allowed on Wikipedia, and I did not remove it from this article because of offensiveness. I moved it because of WP:Summary style and the like. It doesn't make much sense to omit the accusations here but include the response.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is any question as to whether coverage of Ted Cruz's claims that he has been faithful, to his wife, belongs in the article on Ted Cruz.

        If you think it should be consigned to the article on the campaign, because you, personally, don't find the allegations that he patronized prostitutes and had extramarital affairs credible, then, I'm sorry, but I think you are editorializing, and that you are not in compliance with NPOV.

        Various RS, including The Telegraph and Hollywood Life, have pointed out that Cruz's assertion that he has always been faithful to his wife is not a denial that his name could be found on the DC madam's customer list, as he lived in Washington, for years, prior to his marraige.

        Yes, we can have a good faith disagreement as to when coverage of his assertions about his sexual propriety exceeds the recommendation of UNDUE. But, I honestly believe that if you tried to offer a fuller explanation as to why coverage of this important aspect of Cruz's life didn't belong in his article, you would come around to realizing some coverage of this issue does belong here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Necessity to Clearly Delineate State Wins

It is clearly necessary given multiple reports of what the National Republican convention could become to clearly show which states Sen. Cruz won a majority in.

Such a clear delineation is an easy reference to point to for others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersk (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That delineation is present at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

private school count incorrect...no mention of his days as "Felito"

The current article makes no mention of Ted's tenure at West Briar School (not to be confused with West Briar Middle School) in Houston back in the late 70's and early 80's. His classmates knew him as Felito, something also surprisingly not mentioned even though it's been public knowledge for many years.

On a FB page dedicated to West Briar alumni, one will find a snippet of the 1979 West Briar Warrior yearbook showing Felito's third grade picture.

His time at Awty International School also is not mentioned here.

Note that West Briar School no longer exists. It closed down sometime in the mid to late 80s. It was located a block or so north of Westheimer on Fountain View Dr.

Mbb70 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources or it didn't happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source - http://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/i_was_really_hungover_salon_read_ted_cruzs_new_memoir_so_you_dont_have_to/ . I don't appreciate Muboshgu's reply to Mbb70 as I remember quite well that his childhood nickname used to be in the article. Obviously, someone removed it. I don't want to edit the article but I will leave this link so someone else can. 81.191.117.172 (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu is right. Unless it is supported by a reliable source then it did not happen. Also, the Felito thing was in the article at one time and the editors agreed that it was irrelevant and undue weight. There is nothing here that should be in the article. We don't point out ever single elementary school that a subject of a biography might have attended. Obviously, those days are important to you but to most folks really just aren't interested, which makes most of this information irrelevant and undue weight.--ML (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mbb70

Unsourced claims which possibly violated WP:BLP, but which the author themself tried to remove, have been redacted and there's no point to continue discussion without reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Originally closed by User:MaverickLittle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The second federal case against Ted Cruz's eligibility to be US President, Sebastian Green et. al. v. Cruz, Case 5:16-cv-00207-HGD, was filed Feb 3, 2016 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama and is also in process. Ted Cruz will have these two and possibly other federal lawsuits against his eligibility to be U.S. President hanging over his head at the upcoming July 2016 contested Republican Convention. Emb225 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2016 References The Texas lawsuit was dismissed; the Alabama lawsuit will end the same (if it hasn't already been dismissed). --Weazie (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) I agree that it's misleading. There are in fact active lawsuits arguing that Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen". The Plaintiff in the Texas case, Newton Schwartz, stated in that same article that he's awaiting Judge Miller to sign off on the dismissal so that he can file the case with the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans as soon as possible. So, that matter is merely moving up to the higher court. As far as your prediction to the outcome of the Alabama lawsuit, I appreciate your clairvoyant abilities but perhaps it's best to wait and see what happens before announcing any conclusions. Jtpaladin (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) @Jtpaladin: I agree. I believe that any attempts to put "Cruz is ineligible" language in the article should wait until there is a judge in a court, somewhere, anywhere, rules that Cruz in fact not a natural born citizen. But as it stands right now, there has NEVER been a court to rule that he is not eligible. As it stands right now, Mr. Schwartz and that the rest of the birthers have NOT been successful. So I agree let's just hold off until at least one birther wins a court case, which so far has been total failure by all of the birther lawsuits. There is no reason to add any birther language to the article until a birther wins and all of the birthers have been tremendously failures, so far. So I think we can agree, just like you suggested, that we just don't add anything, right?ML (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Recent edits I'm somewhat concerned by MaverickLittle's edits to this article, particularly about the government shutdown of 2013. His edits are misleading and are not consistent with the RS that are being used as citations. It seems that this editor is seeking to downplay Cruz’s role in the shutdown, something a number of RS have referred to as Cruz’s “defining moment.” These edits for example [[1]] 2 are misleading in two ways. First, the term "the right." The reliable source cited for that section says "As he won support on the right and among several dozen House conservatives, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) agreed to include the Obamacare defunding provision in a bill to keep the government running past Tuesday." ML has changed the text to no longer agree with the source. The article explicitly says that Cruz had the support of "the right" while ML removed it saying the term was not in the reliable source in his edit summary, though it is. He has also claimed that this means that "Boehner agreed with the tactic and so did a majority of the House--not just conservatives." However, this is not the case. The article explicitly says it was "several dozen" representatives, all Republicans, elsewhere described as 35 representatives. Even if ML is using the 80 representatives who co-signed Mike Meadows letter (not mentioned in this article), all Republicans, that still isn't even close to "a majority of the house." I was told not to bend facts when I stated it was conservatives, not the whole House, that supported him. I believe the facts are on my side. He’s also downplaying the role Cruz played and the way in which his colleagues saw his role in the shutdown. Here he removed the word “shameless” used to describe Cruz’s role. This is consistent with the RS and other sources which make it clear his colleagues though the government shutdown was more about his image than the government. The same Politico quote cited above includes quotes from other senators stating “It’s pretty evident it’s never been about a strategy – it’s been about him. That’s unfortunate. I think he’s done our country a major disservice. I think he’s done Republicans a major disservice.” Limiting the reactions to just calling his role “ineffective” changes the tone such that it makes it seems his colleagues saw it as just something that didn’t work. I haven't gone through the rest, but these are some issues I found. Ayzmo (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I just read your comments above Ayzmo and it is clear from your comments that you have a point of view to push. The comments above outline in great detail what your POV is. The article must be written in neutral point of view. You want to push the POV that the shutdown was Cruz's "defining moment" and the phrase is only used once in a headline. I also removed a ton of redundant comments. Once something is said that is enough. It doesn't have to be repeated over and over in the article. You also want to push the POV that only the "right" in the House agreed with Cruz. Unfortunately the facts do not support your POV. The reliable source quoted states: "Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) agreed to include the Obamacare defunding provision in a bill", which means it was included in the bill. That bill passed the House. Those are facts. It is that bill that passed the house that was the target of the filibuster in the Senate. That is a fact. And no matter of POV pushing can change those facts. Now, you might not like the way that Cruz got the House to approve the Obamacare defunding provision, but it is not your job to jam your POV into the article. I don't have time to response to the rest of Ayzmo's POV pushing comments but these are just a few of the issues that I have found.ML (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Ayzmo, from your well-thought out post and descriptions of what you've observed, I tend to agree with you that the edits are problematic. Especially along the lines of changing the content to no longer agree with the cited reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC) But you are wrong. The bill passed the House. That is a fact. Neither you (WV) or Ayzmo are going to change that fact. The bill passed the House and was filibustered in the Senate. Facts are facts. WV and Ayzmo, please provide and reliable source that supports your claim that the bill did not pass the House.--ML (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) You do know that it wasn't a stand-alone bill right? It was a rider attached to a much larger bill. Even then, that bill only passed by a slim majority (53%). That is beside the point though since we have to go with what the RS says, which is literally "the right and among several dozen House conservatives," not "the whole house." Not a single source says that. By your argument the "whole house" supported the passing of ACA, but we all know that isn't true. Ayzmo (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC) You do know that even though it wasn't a stand-alone bill is not relevant at all. It was attached to a larger bill that passed the House by a majority. So nothing that you have stated makes my wording or what I said any less true. You just have a POV that you want to push and the facts are getting in the way of what you want to push. The only edit that I can think of, based upon your comments above, is that we should change phrase "the whole house" to simply "the House". I will make that edit, but the POV is still not appropriate.--ML (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC) I just reviewed the section again and there is no language that says "the whole house". There was nothing to edit. The section is fine, just as it is. The rider was attached to the larger bill and the larger bill passed the House. We could add that the House passed the measure with a 53% majority. That would be stating facts.--ML (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)