Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RfC: Should the campaign section be reduced to avoid undue weight?

The consensus is that the presidential campaign section should be reduced to avoid undue weight. Detailed material about the campaign belongs in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016. There is no consensus on what specifically in the section should be trimmed or removed. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding the Presidential campaign section in the article, should the section be pared down to avoid WP:UNDUE or stay as it is currently (per this version)? The top of the section already has two redirect links (Main article: Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 and Further information: United States presidential election, 2016) for readers who want more in depth information on the campaign. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Support - current version gives too much weight on the results of each specific primary. That being said, some mention of the results as a whole should remain. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Way too much detail (especially the graph), violates WP:UNDUE. Redirects to the articles where the majority of the content in the section should be (rather than in this article) already exist at the top of the section. Readers can go to those articles if more information is desired. The size of the section and extreme amount of detail is an invitation for other editors to just keep adding. At what point do we say enough content in the section if that happens? This RfC is needed to establish a true consensus rather than status quo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - All of the detail should be left out, and it should not be updated each time a state has a primary. A one or two sentence summary that will still be relevant in ten years is all that is needed. 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 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As the originator of all of this, I stand by at a minimum paring it down by removing the table and at least trimming the prose down. I'm not sure what could be kept, since the campaign is an event in motion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support but trim down to bare bones, but do not complete eliminate it. I support trimming it down, as I have stated before. There really is no question about that issue. The issue is how much should be thrown out. The wholesale removal of all it seems to be overkill. It is a false impression of the topic to state that the section should have absolutely no reference to any of the primary or caucus outcomes. The section is entitled "Presidential campaign". It should have some information about actual outcomes. No, you are all right, it should not have the huge graph but it should provide the reader with some idea of how things are progressing. Leaving every single reference to either significant wins or loses seems to be to error on the side throwing the baby out with the bath water. Of course the campaign is an event in motion just like tons of things that are covered in Wikipedia. The trick is to cover those items without going over the top in too much detail. But the other trick is to refuse to cover anything at all until it done or completed entirely. Under that theory we should not cover Ted Cruz until he is dead. His life story is an event in motion. But we agree there are things we can and do cover while individuals are still alive. It is the same with the campaign.--ML (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: we have a separate article Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 where most of this can go. It's way too much detail here. Jonathunder (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Most articles about individuals running for Potus are constantly bombarded with attempts to add the most trivial occurrences and "facts". It is completely understandable that an editor wants to be a part of the editing process. But some details just add confusion, and "litter" the article with unnecessary and unneeded prose. Buster Seven Talk 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Buster7: - Glancing at the content in question, I'd agree that if someone wasn't following or well-informed about the primary, the material might seem trivial. That said, the content is going to be interesting for people following the news at the moment (though perhaps this counts as WP:RECENTISM). All this said, I'm still a little confused where the WP:UNDUE contention comes from, b/c the majority of RS available for this subject covers him in the context of the election bid. Doesn't that mean this section should be large? NickCT (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that undue applies based on the fact that there are not one, not two, but three see other article links at the top of the section where the reader can get more information on the campaign. The section simply doesn't need to be as detailed or as long as it is for a BLP - and that's where the undue weight comes into play. And yes, recentism is also a factor that adds to the undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WV makes a good point. Most readers will be familiar with the fact that the blue links will take them to more information about the threads subject. Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7 and Winkelvi: - Apologies. My understanding of WP:DUE is limited. Could you show me where in WP:DUE it says we shouldn't mention notable information about a subject if that information is available elsewhere? NickCT (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - There is too much detail, which in my opinion violates WP:UNDUE. The article should definitely be trimmed down, but the information should not be completely eliminated like an above user has already stated. "The trick is to cover those items without going over the top in too much detail" (by MaverickLittle) seems to explain my opinion very well. Cheers & good luck. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Too much detail for each specific primary. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

One person does not make a "Consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersk (talk • contribs) 23:17, April 6, 2016

So far, I see six people saying "support". That is consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm a little confused where the WP:UNDUE contention is coming from. Certainly Cruz's 2016 Presidential Campaign is one of the more notable aspects of the subject. So it seems to make sense that a large portion of the article is dedicated to it. Additionally, the number of words is similar to the number in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (granted this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). So what's the issue here? NickCT (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. The Primary results subsection is just terribly written, with nothing but percentages. The entire section as a whole could even be said to be too small, considering the depth of coverage about his presidential run. A few things could be trimmed, I grant you, such as "Cruz did speaking events in mid-2013 across Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, early primary states, leading to speculation that he was laying the groundwork for a run for President in 2016"; "legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin described Cruz as the first potential presidential candidate to emphasize originalism as a major national issue"; "during the primary campaign, his base of support has been mainly among social conservatives, though he has had crossover appeal to other factions within his party, including in particular libertarian conservatives"; and the whole bit about Fiorina is irrelevant at this stage. I do hold, however, that claiming the section is in any way undue sounds a bit whacky. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I lean towards the idea of deleting the section entirely, still linking to the same main pages, and wait until the end of the primary season for when journalists and political scientists cover Cruz's entire performance and then mention his performance with those sorts of sources. We should revisit in July. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia search for "Ted Cruz" yields this page first. Anyone searching for quick information concerning his status and wins and how he'll do in the convention is not going to know to go to a Ted Cruz 2016 wiki. A quick summary to answer false assumptions is required. I can tell you that in the short term this needs to stay up until at least the State Delegations are complete. There is a lot of misinformation that is being spread and information needs to be readily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersk (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If we've got a link right at the start of the section to the results, I think we can assume that any reader who wants to know the results will go there. We shouldn't expect our readers to be unable to click a link to another article. The problem with a false summary is you dive into the region of WP:SYNTH, as there will be no reliable sources trying to work out why Ted Cruz has failed/succeeded until he has failed/succeeded. SamWilson989 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

Wyatt7009 (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Criticisms and accolades

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article have a section for just "Accolades", be comprehensive and have a section named "Accolades and criticisms", or leave such a section out entirely? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Accolades and criticisms"

• Support I can't see how or why it is NPOV to have one without the other. If this is the consensus, the duplicated "criticisms" content found at Ted_Cruz#Relationship with Republican members of Congress should be removed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• If there's one, there has to be both That being said, Cruz's entire article seems to be a list of his accolades. There's a massive list of cases he's won (none he's lost) and "negative" information has been removed from many sections. Ayzmo (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It's a short section, well sourced, and relevant to this bio. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Accolades" only

 

Neither option

• Leave out entirely. This would be a magnet for any partisan thing anyone has ever said for or against him. Just integrate the most biographically notable things into the rest of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely, per Anythingyouwant. Writegeist (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely. Changed from my previous position; just incorporate the material into the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely, now that Cruz has dropped out of the Republican presidential nomination race. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Neither Bot summoned. Integrate into rest of the article, per WP:CRITS. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• In case you missed, Boehner's and Graham's kind words were incorporated in this diff. Hence we currently have two sections which include the same content: first in Ted_Cruz#Relationship with Republican members of Congress and second time in Ted_Cruz#Accolades and criticisms. I can wholeheartedly endorse User:Jayron32's edit, and I thank them for that, but if someone asserts that we have to include this criticism twice, you lost me. Politrukki (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The content never should have been moved. I saw when it was moved and wholly disagreed with said move at the time it occurred. I still disagree with it. That said, I was not going to be involved in an edit war and let it stand. When reverting the content back in today, I should have removed the duplication from the other section. That was my error. But, because this RfC and quest for consensus is already happening, it wouldn't be right to remove it at this time. I will, however, make a note of the duplicated content in my !vote above. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Huh? Do politicians regularly have sections of accolades? Does Putin? —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• It would be best to incorporate this information chronologically into his biography where they belong. Somewhere in 2013. --Jayron32 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zodiac Killer

Why does this article make zero mention about the pervasive association with Cruz and the Zodiac Killer across the internet? Taric25 (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about that kind of childishness and it wasn't pervasive anyway. 108.16.82.233 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, there are several sources that corroborate that this is indeed widespread. Taric25 (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Repeating politically motivated lies (It is impossible for Cruz, who was born in December 1970, to have committed a series of murders in the 1960s) clearly fails to meet the policy's requirements. The only way this content will ever be added and remain in the article is if it can be shown to have a significant impact on Cruz's professional or political career. Small groups of people who are unlikely to ever support Cruz snickering at their computer screens does not qualify as significant impact. --Allen3 ^talk 12:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you people joking? We already have an article on the subject: Ted Cruz–Zodiac meme. It is notable, but there is no reason to duplicate content here. Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

...but we have no article on the Ted Cruz-Stryper meme...[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[9] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[10] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[11] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[12] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[13] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[14] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[15] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[16] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[17] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[18] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked the article for indication that this subject is notable because of his religion, and didn't see any. His religion is covered in the article, but the extra highlighting has been removed per WP:BLPCAT. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Xenophrenic, Cruz is a devout Christian who has self-identified as Southern Baptist, which can even be seen in a quote in this article. His religious beliefs are often considered to have a considerable affect on his religious [political] views. I therefore propose re-adding the designation to the infobox. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

His religious beliefs are often considered to have a considerable affect on his religious views.

That rather goes without saying, doesn't it? All that aside, the question isn't whether Cruz is religious, or even very religious. That's not what the field in the infobox is used for. That field would only be used if the article subject is famous for being a Southern Baptist. In other words, do reliable sources consistently refer to him as "Baptist Cruz" or do they refer to him as "Senator Cruz"? That should help clarify how he is identified in the infobox. Now if he decides to give up politics and become a minister at his church, we may have to revisit this issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the second version of the word "religious" was meant to be "political." Cruz cites his Christian faith frequently and it is noted to have a significant influence on his political views. I see no reason why his religious affiliation should not be included. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

All that aside, the question isn't whether Cruz is religious, or even very religious, or whether informs his political views. That's not what the field in the infobox is used for. That field would only be used if the article subject is famous for being a Southern Baptist. In other words, do reliable sources consistently refer to him as "Baptist Cruz" or do they refer to him as "Senator Cruz"? That should help clarify how he is identified in the infobox. Now if he decides to give up politics and become a minister at his church, and becomes notable for that, we may have to revisit this issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You may find WP:NONDEF helpful in determining whether Cruz's notability is because of his religion. Also, reliable sources would be needed which explain not just that he is religious, and what his beliefs are (I'm sure there are plenty of those sources), but more importantly, how he is famous for his religion. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, religious affiliation is an important piece of basic information for people. That is why it has been included in infoboxes on Wikipedia for so many years. I think that the changes that have been made in the last couple of weeks are hasty and imprudent and altogether decrease the quality of the infobox. Its negative effects are particularly obvious in this case due to the role that religion plays in the life of this subject, which is well-documented. It's not really less important than information on how many children he has or when he was born. In other words, do reliable sources consistently refer to him as "Father Cruz of 2" or "Ted Cruz of 1970" or "Houstonian Cruz", or do they refer to him as "Senator Cruz"? The point is that the infobox is meant to provide a summary of basic information about the subject. Religion fits that category. Display name 99 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No one said that religious affiliation isn't important basic information. Of course it should be in our articles. But we're talking specifically about religion in Category and Infobox fields, which is completely different. Please educate yourself on the very important difference between the |religion= field and the |birthdate= field, as explained at WP:CATGRS. (Note: there are 5 "sensitive" Cats/Fields which require special handling, and "Date of Birth" and "Children" are not part of those 5.) Then educate yourself on the top three reasons why the community decided in its not-at-all-hasty-decision to begin enforcing longstanding Wikipedia policy. After you have a good understanding of those two key parts (why the religion field/cat is sensitive, and what major reasons prompted this enforcement) of this discussion, please ping me and we can continue this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I have read over what you posted. I understand why religion is much more sensitive than a birth date. However, if religious affiliation has been verified by many reliable sources, as it is in the case of Ted Cruz, I don't see why it can't go in. In addition, the "Village pump" archive which you linked to proposed including religion "if directly tied to the person's notability, per consensus at the article". I would say that Cruz's Southern Baptist faith is very much tied to his notability. He is popular amongst devout Evangelical conservative Christians, even though he lost the "evangelical" vote in the 2016 presidential primaries. Cruz is known for his conservative positions which are very much influenced by his faith. The proposal allows for inclusion in the infobox to be decided on a case-by-case basis for each article, I think that in for this particular article it is noteworthy enough to be included. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

if religious affiliation has been verified ... I don't see why it can't go in

Because verification of religious affiliation (by mandatory self-identification) is just one of several requirements to also activate the reserved |religion= field. It also has to be a defining characteristic of his public notability. I thought you read what I posted. Please re-read WP:NONDEF; then provide here for review one or more reliable sources explaining why he's famous for being a Baptist (and not, instead, famous for being a politician who happens to be very religious). Then we can activate the religion field, and also add his Southern Baptist religion to the lead sentence of this article, with the appropriate sourcing provided by you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

provide here for review one or more reliable sources explaining why he's famous for being a Baptist

Xenophrenic, one example is found among the sources of the article about his father: "Cruz defies the stereotype of the Texas Hispanic as one of Catholic Mexican ancestry. He was born in Canada, raised Baptist and speaks "lousy" Spanish, by his own admission"[19] which is typical of articles describing the subject. As a second example, consider the fact that when he was about to announce his candidacy, the Washington Post dedicated an article almost entirely to his faith; where he is quoted saying "I’m Cuban, Irish and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist."[20] I think these examples establish the fact that his Southern Baptist faith is a defining characteristic of his public notability as described in WP:NONDEF. I think it's safe to activate the religion field, and also add this to the lead sentence of the article. EynGym (talk)

I don't see any evidence that his faith is a characteristic that "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" as required by WP:NONDEF. In fact, the vast majority of sources that talk about Cruz define him as being a politician and/or candidate without any mention of religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Guy Macon. While his denominational choice may not be the most common of knowledge about Cruz, his identification as Christian certainly is. Take most recently, for instance, the fact that he chose to announce his candidacy for president at the ultra-Conservative Christian college, Liberty University -- the school was the birthplace of the Moral Majority at the leadership of Jerry Falwell. As well, the fact that he tried to make the jail release of Kim Davis last year into a major issue during his campaigning (even though he was thwarted in that attempt by Mike Huckabee who hijacked the event and didn't even allow Cruz to take the stage to speak). Cruz' religious beliefs have always been a part of his political life -- they've undeniably gone hand-in-hand. While I haven't taken the time to look at the sources online to verify, I'm willing to bet if you look at his interviews, he will have been asked about or he will have mentioned something that is based on his Christian faith in relation to his political stands and platform. Further, his supporters are really more like followers as they tout his religious beliefs as the reason why he needed to be the GOP nominee and then president. I really don't think his religious faith can be separated from the man in his bio after the theme and tone of his 2016 presidential campaign (which is still ongoing in the minds of so many of his supporters based on religious fervor and urgency). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong. Certainly neither opinion is obviously wrong. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this so we can get a rough consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the fact that "religious beliefs have always been a part of his political life", or the rest of his life, for that matter - and as such, there should be some coverage of that in the body of the article. To additionally activate the restricted Category and Religion fields, however, requires that his religion be such a significant defining characteristic that reliable sources consistently express it whenever they mention his name, just as they do with "Senator" or "Presidential candidate". I'm not seeing in the sources where his religion or religious beliefs is more elevated or exceptional than those of other prominent politicians who are considered solidly in the demographic of "evangelical Christians", "religious-right", etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Convention speech

Wow.[21][22] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Under domestic affairs "Cruz opposes net neutrality, arguing that ..." this should be changed to either "Cruz opposes the proposed changes to net neutrality" or " Cruz is a supporter of net neutrality" Currently the statement and the source contradict each other

86.154.109.208 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The source doesn't match the requested change. It covers the Republican opposition to NN in general, and a bill introduced by Cruz abut NN in particular. According to the source, "If passed, Cruz’s bill would strip the FCC of its Section 706 authority, leaving the agency unable to enforce" net neutrality. That's neither supporting NN nor opposing changing it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition of info about 2016 RNC Convention

I removed a ton of information about the response to Cruz's speech at the 2016 RNC Convention. This is an encyclopedia and we don't need to know if Cruz was let into Shelden Alderson's suite at the RNC or not. The addition violates the principle of undue weight. Please discuss here on the talk page before adding such obscure information again. Also, this information is appropriate for the 2016 RNC Convention article and that particular editor has already added it there, so that is good enough.ML (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2016

Other names: Zodiac Killer

Billy Flingr (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Meme already discussed in article. Not an actual alias. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Porn gaffe

Are we going to comment at all on the notable porn gaffe? We have coverage in Time, the NYT, The Washington Post, Fox, as well as pretty much everybody else. Pretty sure somebody could write a whole article about this event. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And that article would be promptly deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, it easily satisfies WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE portions of WP:NEVENT. Also this event has created the most viewed porn video in history, according to some reliable sources. As for WP:NOTNEWS, the effect on Ted Cruz's credibility is enduring, especially given how outspoken he was about sex toys, pornography, and masturbation in the past (see the sources above for an analysis of this). In any case, I am not arguing for a new article, where notability would need to be established, I am suggesting inclusion in this article, which doesn't require establishing notability, just in depth coverage in reliable sources (of which there is plenty). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

INDEPTH and DIVERSE are met, but I doubt CONTINUINGCOVERAGE or LASTING are. You're making it sound like this incident derails the credibility of a guy we know as "Lyin' Ted". His supporters will still support him, his detractors will still detract. The story is more of a WP:SENSATION, and I oppose including it in this article until such time as it actually manifests as something more than, "Did Ted do it or was it an intern with access to the Twitter account?". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, LASTING is a bit hard to establish as I don't have a crystal ball, perhaps you should offer me yours? In any case, the argument about whether it was him or an intern is a reasonable argument to not include it in this article. Perhaps it is better as a standalone after all; for inclusion in this article it does kind of matter if it was him or not (though one could argue that it still merits inclusion because it was his account), for the event coverage it doesn't really matter if it was him or not, as the event still created the effects that I mentioned above, and regardless of who was at fault it will be remembered as one of the worst social media faux pas ever made by a politician. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The coverage appears to be "Twitter gossip". There's no evidence that this will have any long-term impact, and in fact evidence that it will have none. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence that it will have no long-term impact? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the wrong question. What's the evidence there will be a long-term impact? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My point was that they specified there is "in fact evidence that it will have none" which is a much stronger statement than the lack of evidence either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. I'm not attempting to address the relevant policies directly (which is the right question as both you and InsertCleverPhreseHere mentioned above), I'm simply addressing the support another editor has alleged for their position. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Cruz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_WYOMING_WYOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

incorrect name title of this article

"Ted" is the persons's nickname. His legal name is "Rafeal Cruz". The title should be changed to his legal name, or possibly something like "Rafeal 'Ted' Cruz". I know of no other person who gets the nickname only in the article title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyofvegas (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Page titles are designed to be useful. As such, a person with several names will be titled by that which they are most often referred to. In this case, Rafael Cruz is most often referred to as Ted Cruz. Spintendo      20:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Government shutdown

This is a bad edit, because the phrase "In January 2018, Cruz denied any involvement in the 2013 government shutdown..." makes it sounds like he had, previous to January 2018, not denied involvement. The source is very clear that Cruz has always denied involvement, instead blaming Democrats and GOP leadership. Per the source, Cruz "has always denied responsibility for the shutdown, even in the run-up, at its height, and in the days afterward..." The way it is currently written inaccurately makes it appear that Cruz changed positions when in fact the source is clear that he has always denied any blame for the shutdown. This could be fixed by reinstating this edit, or by amending current content to say "Cruz has consistently denied any involvement..." or something to that effect. But the current sentence structure is misleading. Marquardtika (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We can mention that Cruz denied his involvement in the shutdown, but we can't deny the facts that are his role in the shutdown. Using only his quote and not mentioning his "filibuster" (or whatever it technically was) is a lie by omission that violates WP:NPOV. Had he denied his involvement before January 2018? We can include that somehow so that it's clear that he didn't all of a sudden deny it for the first time this year. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited the page again to reflect that Cruz has consistently maintained that he played no role while noting in Wiki voice that he was a driving force behind the shutdown[23]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, this makes it clear that nothing "new" happened in January 2018. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018

"Republican Senator John McCain is reported to have particularly disliked Cruz" = "Republican Senator John McCain was reported to particularly disliked Cruz"

tense is incorrect; he can continue to dislike someone but once it has been reported it is past tense. 2605:E000:9149:A600:803C:B302:3874:B989 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Cruz Campaign mailer

I had the below passage to the 2018 senate election section reverted saying it was a "poor reflection of source, which says such mailers are legal." Nowhere in the below passage do I suggest that it was illegal. The article clearly states that this is controversial and caused criticisms. I would be fine with adding in the addition of saying that the mailings were legal.

The Cruz campaign has faced criticism for sending voters a fund-raising letter misleading made to look like an official legal summons.

References

-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. What sort of WP:LASTING impact are we expecting a campaign tactic to have on his biography? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cruz's Birthplace

In the first sentence under category head Early Life and Family it says Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada. That would disqualify him from the US presidency as not native born. How then could he have run for president in 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD50:CF00:58F3:FE5E:C0EF:BE0D (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

He WAS born in Canada. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Because he was born to an American parent, he has American citizenship. Whether he meets the definition of 'natural-born' citizen as required in the US Constitution has yet to be formally settled in a legal sense, as British common-law defined natural born as being born to a British father and foreign mother on foreign soil. In this case, his father was foreign born so based on how the framers likely understood it he would not be eligible. It won't be definitively established until the courts rule on it.--67.181.20.23 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See also the legal wranglings over John McCain, who was born in Panama.--Muzilon (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz

We should have discussion rather than edit war. @SNUGGUMS:, where does it say that "MOS on nicknames doesn't apply to a middle name"? I know of no such rule. MOS:NICKNAME says "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common[d] English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Given name" means first name. You evidently overlooked that. It therefore would only be appropriate to cite that page when removing something derived from one's first name. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Delegate count

This article says Ted Cruz won the support of 559 delegates in the 2016 presidential race, citing Politico. The Wall Street Journal agrees. The NYT says he won 551, and the RNC says he won 544. Perplexing. Does anyone have a clue which one is correct? SunCrow (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Trent Reznor Controversy

At a recent Nine Inch Nails concert in Dallas, founding member Trent Reznor stated that it was possible Ted Cruz was in attendance. He then disclosed to the audience that several years ago, Ted Cruz was placed on the guest list. It was then that Senator Cruz had consumed all of the alcohol provided by the band, a claim made by Trent himself. Reznor alleged that "he drank all the beer and was a pain in the ass to be around."

Senator Cruz has denied these allegations, suggesting that Reznor was "clearly joking." He went even further, saying that he was not a fan of NIN and stated that he "didn't 'drink all his beer' the last time... but would have!"

One theory would suggest that Ted Cruz attended the concert with the intention of getting on the guest list and depleting all of the alcohol before other guests were able to acquire said alcohol. This is supported by Senator Cruz's claim that he is not a fan of the band but he would have consumed all of the alcohol, although, Reznor disputes this, suggesting he did in fact succeed in the consumption. It is unclear which statement is factual. Rogue Waste (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see the merit to including this in Cruz's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:UNDUE. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Correction Suggested

In the "Early Family and Life" Error reads: "Cruz's father, Senator Michael Bennet, was born and raised in Colorado." Senator Michael Bennet is NOT related to Ted Cruz. This statement should be removed. 97.122.212.11 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC) submitted by Duane Angell, Denver, Colorado

It's been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why are we using a cropped version of Cruz's official portrait? Shouldn't we be using the full version like every other U.S. Senator? --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the official photo used by Senator Cruz, after adopting his beard. Stemgal92 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi protect edit still required?

Senator Ted Cruz is my Junior Senator and is not running for office. I've reviewed the page, updates are required but they cannot be made. Nothing will be added without credible sources. Semi protect was requested & given after his Senate race. As of 14 Sep 2019 he's not a Presidential Candidate. Thank you. Stemgal92 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cowboy boots

At the Heritage Foundation on December 17, 2019, the subject was interviewed in regard to the impeachment of the Pres. Trump in which I became aware of his boots which appeared to have a U.S. Senate seal. That is remarkable that he carries the official Senate seal on footwear. Is it trivial that he sports cowboy boots in the halls of Washington? Political reporting carries it. The national news manager for NPR.org considered it noteworthy in the source I cited. She noted his boots in his official duties as the Solicitor General of Texas before the Supreme Court. In addition, see Time Magazine and Denver Post. I submit it is significant in the section I place it. Church of the Rain (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of WP:PROPORTION, which directs: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject … discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." There is nothing special about a Texas male politician who wears cowboy boots. Indeed, if we could find one who doesn't, that might be noteworthy. NedFausa (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Texans wear cowboy boots frequently. Even monogrammed with the seal of the Senate, it seems trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2?

My edit on Cruz' self-quarantine has been reverted. I corrected the original post which called the virus COVID-19 which is actually the name of the disease the virus causes, and named it properly SARS-CoV-2. Revert was done on the basis that the original source calls it COVID-19 which is true, but the source is incorrect then. What is the policy on citing a source that gets something wrong? Specifically when it comes to this confusion between COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, I've seen many, many otherwise reputable outlets get it wrong. Doesn't seem right to leave it in its uncorrected form without even mentioning that it is incorrect. Chris-schannes (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the flaw of Wikipedia is that if its a reliable , verifiable source that cites an error, it is very very very, and I mean VERY hard to get the community to side with you, even if you're correct. But I will look into it and if I see you're right I'll approve.EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo in the intro section

The last part of the intro section currently reads “Along with Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio. As of 2020 Cruz is one of three current U.S. Senators of Cuban descent.“

It should be corrected to read “As of 2020 Cruz is one of three current U.S. Senators of Cuban descent, along with Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio.” OTiltLS (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Illinois Board of Elections ruling

Ted_Cruz#Citizenship mentions:

in February 2016, the Illinois Board of Elections ruled in Cruz's favor, stating, "The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth."

The reference linked is https://web.archive.org/web/20160204093102/http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2541002/ted-cruz-illinois-natural-born-citizen/

Chad Merda's February 3rd article in Sun Times says this:

The board determined that Cruz, who was born in Canada to his American mother and Cuban father, is eligible to become president. “The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said.

The words "the board said" in that article are a hyperlink to here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160215150223/http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf

When I click it, the page was not able to load completely for a long time (very laggy) which nearly led me to think it was dead. This could lead to a lot of people giving up after clicking it. It did eventually, on my second try, but a complete hassle. This could be due to it being a 57MB file.

The agenda from February 1st's original location at https://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf is still an active link, so I was thinking it could be useful to cite it separately directly after Merda's article (couple the secondary with the primary it is derived from) allowing us to list the page number, since it is 190 pages long. Perhaps we could also communicate the file size so people would know to expect a long load time if they want to check it?

Part of why this is such a horribly large file for so few pages is that it doesn't appear that OCR was used to convert the scanned image into text, which also means it is sadly not searchable, so I can't just type in "Canada" to try and find the quote. LUCKILY this appears to be the very first thing discussed, as page 2 mentions Joyce v Cruz / 16 GOEB G 526

The "basis of objection" addresses "having been born in Canada" as the reason of dispute (which is obviously wrong, two US citizens married to one another confer citizenship to their child even if neither parent has ever been to the United States, for example) but didn't touch upon the added requirements for out-of-wedlock parents at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html

Strangely the requirements called INA 301(g) for a US citizen married to an alien ("physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for 10 years prior to the person’s birth, at least five of which were after the age of 14") are actually LONGER than the requirements (Section 309(c) of the INA) a child born abroad out of wedlock to a US citizen mother ("physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.")

One notable difference though is that 309c uses the phrase "continuous period" in respect to "one year" while 301g just says "10 years" which might be interpreted as non-continuous (for example: spending 6 months a year in the United States annually for 10 years would total 20 years). So while 309c requires a shorter period of time, it might possibly be a STRICTER period.

This 'one year is fine' policy apparently does not apply to MARRIED mothers (only unmarried ones) so I don't think it would apply to Cruz's parents since they were married in 1969 a year before he was born. If Rafael and Eleanor had waited until 1971 to be wed (after Ted was born) then all that would be at issue is if Eleanor had spent a continuous year in the US prior to that. But since they were married, she must have spent a total of (possibly non-continuous) ten years, and at least 50% of that (summed?) time would have to be after fourteen.

Note: upon doing some digging, although it appears that Eleanor Darragh (born Nov 1934) after marrying Alan Wilson in 1956, worked in London from 1960 to 1966 (during which she and Alan apparently divorced ~1963 but she kept his surname) when she would've been 26-32 years old during her six-year stay in Europe. AFAIK that means she would've resided in the United States the first twenty-six years of her life, which would fulfill both the "ten years" and "five after fourteen" requirements.

It just seems regretful that the Illinois Board didn't address that potential for disqualification in the language of their decision, as they seem to imply "one American parent" is all you need, completely ignoring the residency requirements (which I think she fulfilled, there's no evidence of her ever leaving Delaware prior to 1960) which could disqualify certain individuals (just not Ted) from birthright citizenship when born abroad. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Cuba law

I was trying to understand how this might apply here http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/cuba/constitution/constitution03.php

There appear to be five "by birth" conditions. Ted doesn't fit the first since he was not born in the national territory. 2 and 3 refer to "born abroad" to a Cuban parent, but require either "on an official mission" or "complied with the formalities stipulated by law". Otherwise it's not automatic and per condition 4 only applies if you apply for it.

I'm guessing Rafael was not on an "official mission" (just going to school and working) so I don't think 2 applies, but 3 is very confusing. What are the formalities and how do we know whether or not Rafael complied with them? It's very vague. WakandaQT (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Father's nationality

The article avoids mentioning that Ted Cruz's father's nationality is (or was, in case he is dead) Spanish. Being the son of a Canarian Islander, he is a Spaniard, a citizen of Spain. The mother's ancestry is mentioned with the relevant country names. However, the father's is hidden. Why? Please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.21.159 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If you have a reliable source indicating that Cruz's father was Spanish, the article can be updated to reflect that. --Weazie (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)