Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Sen. Ted Cruz represented the US Senate at the ], and was the only US Senator there.<ref> CBC Newsworld, "Nelson Mandela memorial", airdate 2013 December 10 circa 7:30am EST </ref> Should this be added in the article? -- ] (]) 13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Sen. Ted Cruz represented the US Senate at the ], and was the only US Senator there.<ref> CBC Newsworld, "Nelson Mandela memorial", airdate 2013 December 10 circa 7:30am EST </ref> Should this be added in the article? -- ] (]) 13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
== Same-sex opposition ==
The article already cites http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-talks-guns-same-sex-marriage-obamacare-with-jay-leno/, which says:
:Cruz also touched on a pair of hot-button social issues that have crowded the headlines throughout 2013, standing by his '''opposition to same-sex marriage''' and universal background checks for gun buyers.
This directly supports the statement that Cruz opposes same-sex marriage. There is absolutely no ] or ] issue here, and the is not only meritless but a violation of ] and other policies. Remember, even if my change was in some way bad (and it's not), vandalism requires intent to damage. ] (]) 09:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:10, 12 December 2013
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a campaign ad. Worse, in fact, it's a list of accomplishments and endorsements with some flavor text about his family, and an extensive description of his father's life in Cuba under the section headed "Personal Life". I don't really know what to do with this article, to be honest, but it seems as though this is an inappropriate use of a medium designed to minimize implicit bias. Perhaps my thought on this is wrong, but it seems as that at the VERY least the article needs some balancing.
98.249.0.113 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The article describes the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case as "his victory." Puffery. The Misplaced Pages page discussing that litigation, which includes a lot of information about the players involved in the lawsuit does not mention Cruz's name. 173.79.119.235 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is very laudatory, but that's because there is a lot to praise about Mr. Cruz. Apparently, some people don't like that Ted Cruz graduated Cum Laude from Princeton and Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Is there some envy here? His accomplishments are not "campaign ad" fluff, they are statements of fact. And if they seem to make Ted Cruz a brilliant and capable man, it's because that is what he is, regardless of how much you hate Republicans.98.170.198.158 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There are many soft biases in this article but I especially took note of one sentence under Ted Cruz's service as Texas Solicitor General. There's an apparent amount of inspirational language in the whole article but here it felt ostentatious:
'Cruz authored a U.S. Supreme Court brief for all 50 states successfully defending the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, winning 9-0 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.'
Reading the article down to there I believed Cruz essentially defended the Pledge; he did not. The wiki article on Elk Grove v. Newdow explains the outcome of the case:
'On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law, so it did not consider the constitutional question raised by the case.'
The wording in the Ted Cruz article (deliberate or not) gives any reasonable reader the impression Ted Cruz defended the right to maintain the Pledge in schools. It would be much more encyclopedic and in line with good ethics to stay simple:
"Cruz authored a U.S. Supreme Court brief in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, defending the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools."
Today's NYT article which starts on page A18 states he was born in Canada. That he is currently a Texas politician suggests that he is also American. The article also states that his father fought against Batista. Please someone dig up whther his father was also Canadian or is merely Cuban-American and had his son born in Canada merely to make his son Canadian? 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.70.163 (talk)
No one needs to dig up anything. The article clearly states that he was born in Calgary while his parents were there on business, and that his father is Cuban American. Arbor8 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that because his mom was an American at the time of Ted's birth, he would be a citizen at birth. However there has not been any national discussion of Cruz and the presidency yet. All that's been with Rubio who was born in America. I guess we should say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen. He hasn't renounced his Canadian citizenship ... yet. Lingust (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, we "should not say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen." That would be your opinion. Do you have a reliable source to support your probably incorrect opinion? Canada is not the U.S., in case you have not noticed, and they do not have the same laws. They do NOT give automatic citizenship to someone just because they are born in Canada. They do give automatic citizenship to a child born in Canada who has at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen. Neither of Cruz's parents were Canadian citizens. Please do not put your opinion in the article. I removed your opinion filled edit from a few minutes ago. Please only edit the article with facts that are supported by reliable sources.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you feel stupid now? or merely ignorant? Finally would you admit Canada claims people as citizens based on birth "Jus Soli"? Lingust (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a question not an argument: Is Cruz barred from becoming President by virtue of his birthplace? Either way it is probably worth mentioning in the article. Silent Billy (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
@revmqo is correct. You (ExclusiveAgent) are full of BS! You clearly haven't followed the thread. And based on your history of posts, it is entirely fair to say that you bully other editors! Time to get a life! 198.228.228.43 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The New Yorker website carries an article "The Party Next Time" (dated 19 November 2012) which says He might even run for President in 2016. Though he was born in Canada, he informed me that he was qualified to serve. “The Constitution requires that one be a natural-born citizen,” he said, “and my mother was a U.S. citizen when I was born.http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2C3fctYSY
That would likely need to be litigated. It is far from obvious that that statement is true. If it were, then there would have been ZERO controversy over Obama/Kenya since his mother was a U.S. citizen. Silicon retina (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No and No. Neither Cruz or Obama are disqualified from running for President--assuming that Obama was born outside of the U.S. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, which means even if Obama was born in Kenya (which did not happen, he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya) then Obama would still be eligible as a natural U.S. Citizen, just like Cruz. See: Law Professor Eugene Volokh on Natural-Born Citizen Law.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That link is shit, Agent. It's Volokh's clarification of "a conversation" with the Chicago Tribune regarding Ann Dunham's age at the time of President Obama's birth and how that might be applied to 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) if Obama had been born outside of the United States. I guess you could have muddled it more by linking to a blog archive that linked out to, what was at the time you offered it, some guy's dating and relationship blog. Oh, that's what you did ("You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude."). I think you meant to link Rumor calls Obama's birth certificate fake. "Any person born in the U.S. automatically is a 'natural born citizen,' said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh. . . . Even if a person is born outside the United States, courts have ruled any child born to at least one U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, Volokh said. Stanley Ann Dunham would have counted even if Obama's Kenyan father did not." Ukranian SSR-native Volokh elides the question of "natural-born citizen" in the latter part of that quote.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear 75.111.78.220: Your comments above make no sense. I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. Obama was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, is and all of the legal challenges to his service have gone no where--except in the mind's demented individuals. McCain was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, got the Republican nomination and there were zero effective legal challenges. And Cruz is eligible to serve, but he has not even stated that he is even planning on running so this debate is premature. However, if there was some truth of the rumor of him running then it is clear by reviewing the only definitive article written on the exact subject of Cruz's eligibility (not Obama's, not McCain's, not George Romney's, but Ted Cruz's eligibility) that Cruz is eligible. I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you about that subject, but what you provided above is mere unexplainable junk.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been a legal challenge for Cruz yet, since no one has standing to file. Also, there has been no definitive ruling to define what "natural born citizen" means. You seem to think this issue is already resolved, but it is far from resolved. Only time, and in this case a lawsuit filed by someone with standing, will put this issue to rest. Making unsupportable claims, which anything definitive in either extreme, at this point is not only unwarranted but is also absurd. Revmqo (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your comments above. Thank you for seeing my point exactly. I agree that you probably should not make definitive statements because the definitive statements that you have made in the past are absurd, for example, you stated previously, "In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate." That statement is, to quote you directly, absurd. Anyone can file lawsuits, but as we have seen on this issue, over decades, that most courts, no matter where they are in the system, treat the issue as a "political issue" and just look for reasons to dismiss the challenges for "lack of standing" and other not on-point rationales, just like they did in the McCain challenges and the Obama challenges. No, your statement is clearly absurd because you don't know that any challenge would go all the way to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no solid court case evidence to support that absurd wild speculation on your part, but you said it anyway, now that is the wild speculation for you. As a matter of fact, the few cases that we do have over the years indicate just the opposite of what you absurdly, wildly speculated, that most courts dismiss the eligibility challenges using collateral issues and never speaking directly to what is or isn't a "natural born citizen". There is zero support for your absurd wild speculation. But that did not stop you. I won't even waste time on your patently absurd, wild speculation that the lawsuits would be "impassable" because, once again, you only provided your own personal opinion. There is zero case support for such a conclusion. Ah, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Dang, dude. You proved my point again. First you express wild, absurd speculation (which by definition has no reliable support or sources) and then vandalize my talk page (without providing any reliable sources for your personal opinions), and finally you just flat our engage in a personal attack like you did here because, wait for it, you don't have anything to support your crazy opinions, not facts, just your incorrect personal opinions. Way to prove me right again!!! Thank you.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, clearly you never read any of my posts. From the beginning you confused me with an IP editor and have refused to have a discussion, even when i have raised valid question. I have made my attempt to converse with someone who cannot play well with others. Revmqo (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. I quoted your word for word and then I took apart your wild, absurd speculation word by word. Just come up with a reliable source to back up the wild speculation and then we will have something to talk about.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, under the Canadian nationality law Ted Cruz is a Canadian Citizen as he was born in Canada. Period. The only exception to this rule is the children of diplomatic staff, and since Cruz's parents were oil company employees, Cruz obtained Canadian Citizenship automatically at birth. This makes him a dual national of Canada and the United States. This is a notable fact. There is currently no evidence that Cruz has ever renounced his Canadian Citizenship. While there is also no evidence he has ever used a Canadian passport, he is a dual national. Why are you against having this fact noted? Dowew (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
(Cross posted from my talk): What you're referring to is Jus soli which means Cruz automatically qualifies for Canadian citizenship since he was born there, just as is law in the United States. I'm unaware of any legal precedent for the Canadian (or US) government forcing its citizenship on the child of foreign nationals who have no desire to give their child Canadian citizenship. If you can demonstrate the Canadian government ever issued, and his parents accepted, Canadian citizenship to Cruz then I'll be the first in line to put it in. Since they didn't, because he was given US citizenship upon birth, asserting that Cruz is a Canadian based on your understanding of Canadian law as it applies to Cruz is a violation of our policy on synthesis. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Its not a matter of forcing citizenship on anyone. Since he was born in Canada, he was issued an Albertan Birth Certificate. Anyone born in Canada other than to diplomatic staff is a Canadian. End of statement. Its not about forcing citizenship, its about Canada recognizing this individual as being a Canadian. He is the holder of a Canadian issued provincial birth certificate and should he desire to apply for a Canadian Citizenship Certificate or Canadian Passport, run for parliament in Canada etc. While I do not know if he has ever exercised these rights, he is a Canadian. Its perfectly legitimate to say that he was born a dual citizen of Canada and the United States under the laws of those countries. Furthermore, given the birtherism and the interest around his birth due to his potential presidential run, this bit of information is certainly notable, see when Michele Bachman registered for Swiss Citizenship, while she (temporarily as it turned out) held Swiss Citizenship, her article introduced her as a "Swiss-American" Politician Dowew (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Being issued a birth certificate in a jurisdiction does not immediately induct anyone to citizenship in that jurisdiction. A birth certificate simply declares a time and place of a person's birth, no more. That Cruz was born in Canada and was given a Canadian birth certificate is not contested. Do you have a reliable source showing he accepted Canadian citizenship? Do you have a reliable source which shows he was ever issued documentation declaring him a citizen? Do you have a reliable source asserting that he is enrolled on any Canadian database or record that he is, or ever was, a holder of Canadian citizenship? If so please present them. If you don't we're back to a synthesis of original research in which you take your non-expert interpretation of reliable source A (that all people born in Canada other that diplomats' children are automatically citizens) with an uncontested and sourced assertion of B (that Cruz was born in Canada) and creating a new assertion from A and B that is not backed by an existing source C (that Cruz is a Canadian citizen). See where this is a problem? TomPointTwo (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It's simple to follow, Agent. You offered a link to Volokh's blog archive. I noted that that archive now has the relevant link out to a dating/relationship blog. I tracked down the relevant link from the Chicago Tribune (that you could have offered in the first place). I noted that that link does not support your claim at all. Volokh says that non-US natives with a US citizen parent or parents are citizens. He does not say that they are natural born citizens eligible for the US Presidency. Simple. I only brought up anyone else's eligibility because I was trying to untangle your link. Try not to re-tangle it. Your favoured source (Volokh) is one of three legal experts cited in the Texas Tribune article that you presumably consider definitive. You seem to have missed the Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman, and Los Angeles Times articles linked to in the Tribune, as well as the other two legal experts cited therein, that express far more doubt about Cruz's eligibility than you will allow. It seems you missed the widely-read Politico piece and the transcript from the Sean Hannity Show below as well.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"Dang, dude." Well argued, counselor. Aren't you the one that insisted below that you have spent "almost three decades in a courtroom"? You're not fooling anyone, um, dude.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point to clear up, especially since so many republicans inferred that if Obama had been born in Kenya he would not have been qualified to be Prez; plus where is "natural born citizen" defined? Obviously, he got a lot of media today for his "attack dog" criticism of Chuck Hagel, so someone could start on section on "U.S. Senate - 2013". CarolMooreDC19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. There is way too much speculation on this issue on this talk page and very little actual support presented from reliable sources. The Misplaced Pages article that you referred to is good, but it is still a Misplaced Pages and we cannot refer back to a Misplaced Pages article to support a position in an article in Misplaced Pages. That is clear rule of Misplaced Pages, but it does give a broad understanding. On the other hand, since we need to look at reliable sources and not mere editor speculation I would suggest that everyone who is wanted to edit the article on this topic should read a fairly straight-forward article from the Texas Tribune, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative publication, and the article speaks directly to Cruz's situation and is already cited in this particular Misplaced Pages article. The citation for the article is as follows: Ferguson, John Wayne. Texplainer: Could Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Be President?, Texas Tribune, August 13, 2012. Please review it. It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No questions about his eligibility? The title of Ferguson's article is that very question. From the article: "The sticking point, says Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, comes from what the definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, and whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace is addressed by the law." From the article: " said it’s possible that a person could challenge that the laws granting citizenship at birth do not define what it is to be a natural-born citizen. In fact, the phrase 'natural-born citizen' is only used once in the U.S. Code — in Article 2 of the Constitution." For all your talk about reliable sources, you don't seem to be accurately representing their content. -197.136.42.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, you seem to the be one misrepresenting sources. The article raises questions, but then it concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. It is as simple as that. I have cited a reliable source that supports what I have stated. You have only your opinion. You are citing the article that I brought to the table and you are misrepresenting the material in the article. The article, the only detailed article directly on point, as far as I know, and it completely contradicts your POV. It is fine that you have a POV, but you must provide a reliable source to back it up. The reliable source that you are citing, the one I brought to the table, flat out concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. That is the conclusion and no amount of your picking and choosing quotes from earlier portions of the article can change that fact. Peter Spiro, the professor of constitutional law from Temple University, the professor that your quote out of context above, concludes quite clearly, "Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth." His clear conclusion does not square with your personal POV so you want to ignore that clear bright line rule that Professor Spiro has outlined. Please do not POV push. You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions, and are attempting to skip over the conclusion. You need to go find a reliable source that supports your POV pushing. My guess is that if there was any validity to these wild hair proposition then Cruz's political opponents would have pulled it out by now. But, so far, nothing, a just a few Wikipedian editors hoping that there was more there.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This hypothetical situation (Cruz running for POTUS) is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to suggest. While you may have some articles that suggest he may be eligible, there are plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States, not Jus Sanguinus, but Jus Solis. In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate. Revmqo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, as I have stated over and over again, this page is full of mere speculation. Revmqo, in your comments above, you state that there are "plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States" but you don't name any. Also, you did not name anyone that has stated that Cruz's particular situation makes him ineligible. It is all just your personal opinion. Thanks for the unsupported wild speculation though.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
So sorry. Since you know how to edit Wiki, I made the assumption that you would also know how to perform a Google search. My bad. Here's a place for you to start your research. As you can see, the question of "Natural Born Citizen" isn't as simple as you suggest. And as far as I am concerned, Georgetown Law doesn't represent POV or OR, it represents leading scholarship. Revmqo (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The quotes provided (and the nature of the Texplainer article itself) do not support what you have stated, i.e. "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." That is the sum of my POV and the only opinion I've expressed. In any case, I may push any POV I want on an article's Talk page, so long as I maintain WP:NPOV while editing. The Texplainer article does not "flat out conclude" that Cruz is eligible. It closes with, "Bottom line: Despite being born in Canada, Cruz can be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen because his mother was also a U.S. citizen who lived in the United States long enough for him to qualify, according to constitutional experts." Do you know what "can be considered" means? Spiro's conclusion squares perfectly with my personal POV, but you wouldn't know that because I had not expressed my personal POV on the matter of Cruz's eligibility. Your statements re the Texplainer article: "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." and "You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions." Which is it--no questions or rhetorical questions? -196.201.225.142 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks anon editor 196.201.225.142. You have made my point. Instead of providing another reliable source to support your POV pushing you just re-state what you have previously stated. You are still wrong. Based upon your strong opinion, if you have anything to support your opinion then you would have edited the main article by now, but you don't so you haven't.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It is rather odd to me that you accuse others of expressing POV when you so clearly do the same thing. I point this out not to sling mud, but to encourage you to watch what you accuse others of doing. You are entitled to your argument, but to suggest that this issue is clear-cut is simply wrong. If you think that the question wouldn't be litigated for years, then you are naive. Cruz may be eligible, but only the SCOTUS could conclusively determine this. In the interim, it appears to me, and to scholars that he MAY not be. Revmqo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's go over this again. I am not naive. After almost three decades in a courtroom I know the law. There is no support for your personal opinion. I am going to repeat, again, that you cannot put your own personal opinion in the article. You need to provide support for your opinion by providing a reliable source. After going back and forth over and over again, you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation. Wild speculation, such as you have outlined on this talk page, cannot be placed in a BLP. Items placed in the article must be supported by a reliable source. I have provided a reliable source for what I have stated. You have not. I have asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source and all I keep getting from you is: (1) misrepresentations of the Texplainer article, which I provided and which flat out supports my position AND (2) you have started to vandalize my talk page. I have asked you three times to stop vandalizing my talk page. Usually, the rule is quite simple, when an editor resorts to vandalizing the talk page of the editor with whom the first editor disagrees then the first editor does not any support for his/her position. In this situation it is quite clear that you don't have support for your wild speculation because you have not produced a reliable source after the several times that I have asked you to show me one. It is wild speculation because: (1) Cruz has not stated he is running for the Presidency, (2) there is no one on this planet, as of yet, who is suing him for lack of standing to run for the Presidency, and (3) all articles produced by law professors, so far, clearly state without a doubt that Cruz would be eligible. Cruz has only been in the U.S. Senate for about two months and he has not made one comment about running for the Presidency, but yet you are wildly stating--without the support of any reliable source--that there will be a court case and that Supreme Court justices are going to have to decide this matter. That is wild, unsupported, speculation and it cannot be placed in the article. It is as simple as that.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you take time to go back and read my comments? I provided you with a source in my response once you asked me to. I am not user:196.201.225.142 who you seem to have been in an argument with. I have never cited an article from "Texplainer" only from the Georgetown Law School. I am allowed to enter into conversations on this page and I should be given fair treatment and room to do so. I have not entered into a discussion of POV or changed the actual article to insert any. I have only raised the question that what you are arguing, and 196.201.225.142 too isn't clear-cut. My point is that there is no consensus. I fairly placed a warning on your page and you have attempted to hide it to hide your treatment of me. I am not worried about the history of my posts since anyone who reads the history will see your aggressiveness and bullying of other editors. Please take a deep breath and reenter the conversation without attacks. Revmqo (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked you. Please do not make things up. I have boldly told you over and over again that wild speculation is not appropriate for the article. Cruz has not even stated that he is going to run for the Presidency. Your comments about my "aggressiveness and bullying" is just a way to attempt to dominate and control the conversation on this talk page. I have read through your discussions on your talk page and it looks like you have the reputation for aggressive and bullying behavior. Those who live in glass houses. . . I will state again, please provide a reliable source for the wild speculation that you have outlined on this page. The questions about Obama's standing NEVER made it to the Supreme Court because there is really no question there or here. You have sent me to the Georgetown article that focuses on McCain, not Cruz. If that minority position was controlling then there would have been a successful legal challenge to McCain standing, but those claims went nowhere either, just like the crazy Obama legal claims. My reliable source talks about Cruz's specific situation and yours does not. And history, i.e., the 2011 and 2012 legal challenges to McCain's standing, has proven your reliable source to be incorrect.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, go read my initial comment and your response.... then you will see where you took this down a prickly path.... Revmqo (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no "prickly path." That is just untrue. You are upset because I called you out about providing a reliable source and you did not like that. I have not personally attacked you. I just called you on a basic Misplaced Pages rule and then you got upset. I don't see this "prickly path." That is a figment of your imagination. I can't control how you respond to facts. Fact is that your engaged in wild speculation and I called you out on it. I asked you to provide a reliable source back up your wild speculation. And of course since it is mere wild speculation you have not provided a reliable source. This seems to bother you, but I will continue to demand that a reliable sources be provided before wild, crazy, speculative comments are placed in the article. That is all. You can vandalize my talk page all you want. You can go to incident page and ask for admins all you want, but the requirement, that I will focus on, is clear, there will need to be a reliable source to back up edits to the article. There is no support for the claim that Cruz can't run for President. There is no reliable source that states that Cruz is not eligible for the Presidency. That's a fact. You have not provided anything to support your wild speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
@ExclusiveAgent you are full of BS! @Revmqo is exactly right. You seem to be lost in the discussion. How about actually following the thread? @Revmqo only raised a question and you have done nothing but bully him and other editors. Time for you to learn how to play well with others!! 198.228.228.44 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deep breath everyone. If you want to put something in the article make sure you have a reliable source. Make sure it's not a synthesis of various reliable sources. And please, keep in mind that the subject matter you are adding must be pertinent to the topic at hand not not idle speculation about a potential future event which may unbalance a biographical article. Also, you're just super duper sure what you want put in can and should be put in then go ahead and do it. Just don't be super duper surprised if you're then forced to defend the specific merits of that addition. The bold, reverse, discuss format usually beats yelling at each other on the talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
This is presented as a reliable source? I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that an organization aligned with the John Birch Society is reliable and free from POV. Just saying.... Revmqo (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Reliable and NPOV are not the same thing and so are not always mutually dependent. Much of it hinges on whether you want to use it as a primary or secondary source. If you want to use it to demonstrate that The New American believes "X" then fine, if you want to use it to demonstrate the veracity of an assertion made by the New American then you have to use a more rigorous criteria. Of course we don't know what the anon means because he dressed his comment up in pretentious snark. Maybe he'll let us know. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a Misplaced Pages search tool that checks the extent to which an external link is used? I'd guess that The New American is used as a source in some way in many other articles. It's a questionable source ("extremist") for Biographies of living persons articles, but it's certainly not out of bounds.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Pretentious snark? On my Misplaced Pages? I think I'll leave this here:
From The Sean Hannity Show, Mar. 6, 2013
Hannity: "Would you ever be eligible to run for president?"
Cruz: " Well . . ."
H: "C-can we end this for once and for all?"
C: "I-I'l leave that question t-to others to decide. I can tell you I've been in the Senate nine weeks, and my focus is one-hundred percent on the fight we have right here."
H: "No, meaning on the issue of natural born citizenship."
C: "Um-but-I-I will leave that to others to decide. M-M-My mother was a US citizen when I was born, but my focus i-i-is not on any such questions. I am one hundred percent focused--"
H: "Okay"
C: "--On the enormous--"
H: "Because you were born in Canada, but you're mother was a US citizen--"
C: "--Economic and fiscal--Correct. So I was a citizen the instant I was born by birth--by virtue of my mother
H: "Well, you're a natural born citizen, so you are eligible. Can I say it for you?
C: "I-I-I will leave that to others to decide."
H: "Alright, uh, amazing. Uh Thank--You're laughing. Why are you laughing?
C: .
H: "Alright, I'm not trying to bother you. I-I just wanted to get this cleared up once and for all, and you're making it harder. Now the blogs are gonna go nuts."
C: " Well I-I-I appreciate it."
H: "I'm just looking into your future. I have the Hannity crystal ball, and I can see you running one day, but Senator God bless you. Thanks for being with us."
XY is X. Wonderful self-referential demonstration, Tom. I am left wondering how the above is a "tired meme". I've verified it as an accurate transcript from a nationally broadcast interview (which is not from, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal source) with this article's subject addressing a question posed on this talk page. (MP3, registration required).--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for coming out of semi-retirement for that. We used to call that "NO U", right--to deflect from any substantive argument. Anything else? --75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the phrase "there have been questions about whether" a bit sloppy for BLP? As written it looks like Misplaced Pages is stating the question. Shouldn't we either identify the question makers or withdraw the question? Hcobb (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added reference to two early commentators that questioned Cruz's eligibility to be Prez and added links to their articles. I removed the phrase "there have been questions about whether" because it was rather sloppy. I hope my edit helps.--Bing Norton 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is even sloppier this way since it makes the sentence too long and unwieldy. There have been more than just those two papers talking about this, so it doesn't make sense to single them out just because they maybe talked about it first. Maybe saying something like "there has been discussion in the media about..." would be better. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It does not confuse things at all. Whether Cruz's children are Canadian or American does not matter because the article is not about them, but about Cruz only. Also, generally Misplaced Pages has rules about leaving out information about minority children as much as possible. There is no reason to discuss the nationality of his children from a notability point of view and there are no reliable sources that even speak on it. So there is no reasons to even mention this questionable suggestion/speculation.--Bing Norton 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
He's not Canadian. Whether he can claim to be if he wants to is a different question. This is the same tired argument used whether Obama is a British subject or Kenyan citizen through jus sanguinis. He has chosen to be American only and is not beholden to their laws and it is his right to do so. Whether he can make a claim for citizenship in those countries is laregely irrelevant. He hasn't and it's not really debateable. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The last poster, and whoever removed Canadian from the citizenship box, are dead wrong. Cruz was born in Canada and is a Canadian even if he does not believe he is or says he is not a Canadian. Just like people born in the USA are Americans at birth. (Diplomats excepted) There is a procedure to follow to request the Canadian Government accept a renounciation of citizenship, but that takes months. In addition, it seems Cruz is also a Cuban citizen via his father. 24.114.36.41 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And by similar laws, Obama is a citizen of both Kenya and Great Britain. Yet he identifies as an American has proof to claim that he is American, regardless of the laws of the countries that would grant him citizenship if he asked. He didn't renounce those citizenship's because it was unnecessary. The same is true for Cruz. If you have a source that says he tried to secure rights as a canadian citizen, the dual-citizebship might be an issue. Barring that, he is just as American as Obama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The people who are stating that Cruz is not a Canadian citizen are extremely uninformed! Just as in the United States, ANY person born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, with the sole exception of the children of foreign diplomats. Cruz' parents were not diplomats. Cruz also inherited U.S. citizenship through his mother, and possibly Cuban citizenship through his father. Since Cruz has not renounced his Canadian citizenship (there is a formal process taking months...you don't just say you don't want Canadian citizenship and have it disappear), he is still Canadian. As to Obama, he was also born with dual citizenship: U.S. by being born in Hawaii, and citizenship in the U.K. & Colonies (later Kenyan, when Kenya became independent)through his father, but that citizenship EXPIRED when Obama didn't renounce his U.S. citizenship...a requirement of the Kenyan citizenship act. Unlike Cruz, he didn't have to do anything to divest himself of his other citizenship. The Obama-haters (birthers) who claim that Obama was born in Kenya conveniently ignore the fact that even if that were true, he would still be a U.S. citizen through his mother. Want to tell if Cruz is Canadian? It's simple. Go to this Canadian government website, enter Cruz' year of birth (1970) and other info and get the answer: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you are exactly wrong. He has never excercised that privilege and as a minor his mother filed immediate paperwork with the U.S. Consulate. The Canadian governenment does not say he is a citizen and in 1970, when he was born, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. Just like Obama could claim both Kenyan and British citizenship, he has not done so. Cruz has not complied with Canadian law, is not beholden to canadian law and is a U.S. citizen by birth. It is a specious claim to say he is Canadian as the law was changed after he was born. Cruz does not consider himself a Canadian citizen and he is a U.S. citizen by birth. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Canadian government website for determining citizenship: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp When answering the questions, remember that RENOUNCED means going to a Canadian government office, filling out a 4-page form, paying $100, waiting around 8 months, and receiving an acknowledgement of renunciation from the Canadian government. If Cruz didn't do those things, he has not renounced.
Not. If Kenya passed a "Lost Kenyans" law as Canada did, no one would think that Obama had to renounce it. He doesn't because he never tried to be Kenyan. The same is true about Cruz. He has never asserted he is Canadian nor has he tried to secure the rights of canadians. A country can pass whateber laws they want but pretending they can influence a presidential race is ludicrous. If Iran passed a law granting Hillary Clinton a citizenship and demanded $10k fee for abdication she would rightly laugh at them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, the person stating that Cruz is not a Canadian citizen is very uninformed. Cruz has been a Canadian citizen FROM BIRTH, because he was born in Canada. Isn't EVERYONE born in the USA an American citizen...even the children of illegal aliens? Well, it's the same in Canada. DHeyward claims dual citizenship wasn't allowed in Canada in 1970. Not true! What wasn't allowed (until 1977) was NATURALIZING into another citizenship. In other words, if Cruz had become a naturalized U.S. citizen he would have ceased to be a Canadian citizen. Being BORN into multiple citizenships was not forbidden. (I should know...I was born in the U.S. before 1970 to a Canadian father and I have dual citizenship.) This has nothing to do with the 2009 law returning Canadian citizenship to those who lost it (by naturalizing into another citizenship before 1977), because Cruz never lost his Canadian citizenship...unless you're claiming Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Also, DHeyward seems very confused in saying that Cruz had to "claim" Canadian citizenship or make use of it in some way in order to be Canadian. That is certainly not a requirement for having Canadian citizenship; it's based on birth in Canada, not his affection for Canada. Perhaps DHeyward would read the Canadian Citizenship Act (1946) and point out where it says a person born in Canada must "like" Canada, or claim benefits from Canada, in order to be a citizen. What I read in the Act is: "A person, born after the commencement of the Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen if he is born in Canada..." I can't find anything saying "unless his mother is an American and registers his birth in the USA", or "unless he moves to the USA and doesn't want to be Canadian". But...if you can find those sections, please let us know. DHeyward seems to think that stating the obvious fact that Cruz is a dual citizen means that I (and others) are stating that Cruz isn't eligible to run for president of the United States. I'm not taking that position at all. He was born a Canadian AND U.S. citizen, and that makes him eligible as far as I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Canada has a citizenship paper. You have to apply for it and be determined to be a Canadian citizen. While there is no doubt the Cruz could do this, he hasn't. Canada will not, and has not, said he is a citizen. It is up to Cruz to claim it. He has not done so, nor has he paid heed to any Canadian laws. It is arguable that his Mother's action to register his birth at the consulate would make him a Lost Canadian, (or that his saying the pledge of allegiance in elementary school) that wasn't resolved until very recently. You are dancing on the head of a pin to make him a dual-citizen which he nor Canada has claimed he is. If he crosses the border from the U.S. to Canada he uses his U.S. passport. His birth certificate means diddly-squat until/unless he uses it to acquire a privilege (i.e. health care/voting/passport/citizenship doc/drivers license/etc). He has no documents from Canada that would allow him to claim any citizen benefits. His birth certificate would allow him to apply for documents that would establish his claim to citizenship, but again, he has not done so. Therefore he is NOT a citizen of Canada though he may be eligible to be one without having to go through the naturalization process. Just as Obama is NOT a British subject or Kenyan citizen, though he could claim both and could become one as he has been eligible since birth. Cruz may also be eligible to be a Cuban citizen as well. Without the steps to establish it though, he is not a citizen of those countries. Imagine Iran passing a law that Hillary Clinton is a citizen of Iran. Does that mean she is now Iranian simply because Iranian law makes her eligible? I don't think so. You are confusing the eligibility to be a citizen with actually being a citizen. He is certainly eligible to be a Canadian citizen. He is just as certainly NOT one until he takes the necessary establishment steps to claim it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, do you have documents to prove you are a Canadian citizen? What did you do to get those documents? My kids are eligible to be dual-citizens by birth, yet they are not because none of the establishment paperwork has been filed. We could file the paperwork, get a passport, etc, but until that happens, they are only American citizens and their claims to other citizenship would have to be approved before they could exercise the rights of the other countries. Ted Cruz can't walk into Canada and vote and get health care because he is not a citizen. He could become one if he wished and could bypass the naturalization process. He would need to establish his citizenship prior to doing anything Canadian. Same as you would have to do or have done. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. A person does not have to "claim" citizenship or "want" citizenship to be a citizen. You say Cruz has no Canadian documentation. He certainly does...it's called a Canadian birth certificate! As stated on the Canadian government website I directed you to earlier (the "Am I a Canadian Citizen" tool): "If you were born in Canada, a birth certificate issued by the province or territory where you were born is often enough to prove that you are a Canadian citizen." You say Cruz has no documentation that would allow him to claim benefits. Well, showing his Canadian birth certificate at the border would allow him to enter Canada without any time restriction...that's a benefit. (The U.S. requires a passport to enter Canada; Canada will accept a birth certificate and driver's license at the land border with the U.S.) He could work in Canada...that's a benefit. He can do anything in Canada that any other Canadian citizen can do. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a person born in Canada has to apply for a citizenship certificate to "claim" citizenship. That will be news to the millions of people born in Canada who do NOT have such a certificate. (I don't know if you know any Canadians born in Canada, but I know plenty. None have citizenship certificates, yet seem to be functioning quite well as Canadian citizens with just their birth certificates. How is this possible?) The only people who need to "prove" their right to Canadian citizenship, by acquiring a citizenship certificate, are people born outside of Canada, such as myself. There are countries in the world (U.K., France, Italy, etc.) where a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship. That is NOT the situation in the U.S. or Canada. Birth in either country makes one a citizen instantly and automatically, and the citizenship of the child's parents does not matter. This case is very simple: TED CRUZ WAS BORN IN CANADA! Therefore, he's a Canadian citizen. He doesn't have to apply for anything or prove anything. If, like myself, he was born in the U.S. of a Canadian parent, then, yes, he would have to make an affirmative claim of citizenship by applying for a citizenship certificate. That's not the case here. He was born IN CANADA! (If Cruz isn't a Canadian, despite being born in Canada, because he has an American mother, than how am I a U.S. citizen, having been born in the U.S. to a Canadian father? All I ever needed to show to be accepted as an American was my U.S. birth certificate.) You say Canada doesn't claim Cruz. Well, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington seems to: "Unless their parents were foreign diplomats ... they are automatically citizens at birth" under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, said Chris Plunkett, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Anyone who has not formally renounced their citizenship remains a Canadian citizen," he said. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/ted-cruz-canadian-american/278825/) Cruz says he plans to renounce his Canadian citizenship. If he follows through on this promise, I guess that will end your contention that he is not currently a Canadian citizen. Interesting that he says he went by the opinion of his mother as to whether he had Canadian citizenship: "...when I was a kid my mother told me, if I ever wanted, I could affirmatively choose to claim Canadian citizenship because I was born there." Considering that he's a Harvard-educated lawyer, his lack of knowledge is a bit worrisome. Also, President Obama could NOT currently claim any citizenship other than U.S. There was a time when he had dual citizenship (British (CUKC), then Kenyan, in addition to U.S.), but he would have had to have chosen Kenyan citizenship over U.S. citizenship upon reaching adulthood (according to Kenyan citizenship law). He did not, and therefore that option is forever gone. There is nothing in Canadian or U.S. citizenship law that required that Cruz make such a choice, and thus his dual citizenship continues to the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
So if Canada instituted a draft, he'd be subject to their laws? The fact is that he's never claimed to be a Canadian citizen, does not wish to be a Canadian citizen, doesn't believe he is a Canadia citizen, receives no benefits of a Canadian citizen and is clearly an American citizen (i.e. not "stateless"). Yet you seem to think he is beholden to this state of citizenship. It simply doesn't exist. He needs to renounce nothing. Canada has not made a statement that Cruz is a citizen, only that if he submitted his BC, they would recognize it. He has not done this. Cruz has not said he intended to renounce his Canadian citizenship, he has said he does not believe he is a citizen and would renounce it if he is claimed by Canada to be a citizen. That has not happened. Canada only broadly states that those born on Canadian soil can claim citizenship without having to be naturalized. Cruz has never done that. He can't be forced to be a dual-citizen and so far he has ignored Canada as his sovereign country. He is simply not a Canadian citizen. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
So if a Canadian woman in Manitoba goes to the nearest hospital, which happens to be in North Dakota, and has her baby, then immediately returns to Canada...and the child never has anything to do with the U.S. ever again, the child can ignore the IRS and never file U.S. taxes? After all, he doesn't want to be American, and it was only by accident that he was born in the U.S. "These 'accidental Americans' only recently learned the IRS expects them to file income tax returns each year: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/318061-nothing-against-the-united-states-until-now Why can the U.S. force Canadians to be dual-citizens, but Canada can't do the same? This demonstrates the fallacy of your argument, except in reverse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alphazip (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2013
Yes, they can ignore the IRS. No SSN and no establishment of citizenship and no ties to the U.S. If/when your fictional example ever happens, let us know. But it won't. As you read in the blog, Canada says they won't force canadians that don't consider themselves U.S. citizens and have no ties to the U.S. to pay U.S. taxes because they are not U.S. Citizens. Until they make a claim to the U.S. (i.e. get a SSN number, passport, etc) Canada doesn't consider them U.S. citizens that are subject to U.S. tax laws. --DHeyward (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess DHeyward knows better than Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section ("He's a Canadian."); France Houle, a law professor at the University of Montreal ("If a child was born in the territory, he is Canadian, period."), and Allison Christians, a law professor at McGill University ("He’s a Canadian citizen." "They can feel as American as they want. But the question of citizenship is determined by the law of the territory in which you were physically born," she said. "It’s not up to the Cruz family to decide whether they’re citizens.") All quoted at: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-dual-citizenship-may-pose-problem-if-ted-cruz-seeks-presidency.ece DHeyward, can you please supply your qualifications regarding matters of citizenship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alphazip (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2013
It's easy. Ted Cruz said he is not Canadian. He can't be forced to be canadian. He's an American and has said he is not a dual-citizen regardless of whether he can claim canadian citizenship or not. He hasn't claimed it. He hasn't and won't comply with Canadian law because he doesn't have to. --DHeyward (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not our job or position to decide how someone defines themselves. If President Obama wants to define himself as an American and not as a Kenyan then we need to honor that decision. It is a basic principal of self-identification. In all due respect, it is irrelevant what a lawyer in California (Orly Taitz) thinks about President Obama's nationality. The mere opinion of one attorney does not determine how we list someone's nationality.--Bing Norton 14:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My IRS example was not "fictional", and again reveals your lack of knowledge on this subject. Thousands of Canadians who happen to have a U.S-born parent or happened to be born in the U.S. are required by the IRS to file U.S. income tax returns (and other forms), despite having no further connection with the U.S. The fine for not filing one form alone, the FBAR, is $250,000 and five years imprisonment. I'll tell my Canadian friends who are in this predicament (and I know some personally) that DHeyward says they can just ignore the IRS. Info here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/americans-living-in-canada-face-looming-irs-tax-deadline/article12473920/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
AlphaZip: You are focusing upon a sitution that has nothing to do with Ted Cruz's situation. Ted Cruz lives in the U.S., not Canada, therefore, the situation that you are talking about just does not, in any way, apply to Ted Cruz's situation. This talk page is designed to discuss Curz's situation and you are bringing up an irrelevant point. Also, you are attempting to twist DHeyward's comments. He did not say the situation you are talking about is "fictional". He did call the opposite situation fictional and the opposite situation is fictional. Please explain why we should edit President Obama's article to indicate that Obama is a Kenyan.--Bing Norton 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) SineBot is out of control.--Bing Norton 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
So, he didn't say my example was fictional? Sure sounds like it. DHeyward: "If/when your fictional example ever happens, let us know. But it won't." You and DHeyward ignore what legal experts and scholars have to say, and claim it's Cruz' "self-identifaction" that matters. Using that theory, I guess a Mexican can show-up at the U.S. border, say he self-identifies as American, and they'll let him in. That's sure a lot better than having to swim the Rio Grande, but I'm afraid that's not how it works. Self-identification means zilch; it's CITIZENSHIP LAWS that matter. My examples are exactly on point. If the IRS taxes people who were born on the U.S. side of the Canada-U.S. border, people who self-identify as Canadian, why can't Canada claim as citizens people who are born on Canadian soil? It is pointless discussing this with someone who lives in a dreamworld where laws don't mean anything; reality is what you want it to be. Most likely, only when WorldNetDaily says Cruz is a Canadian will you believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's go over it again, since you are having a difficult time understanding. Obama is the son of Kenyan, which could make him a Kenyan. However, Obama has self-identified as an American. If you really believe your argument then I would encourage you to go over to Obama's article and attempt to edit that article and list Pres. Obama as a Kenyan. So far you have not done that even though the suggestion has been made to you several times.--Bing Norton 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
You, sir, are ignorant of citizenship laws. As I stated previously, President Obama WAS a dual citizen of the United States (by birth in Hawaii AND descent from an American mother) AND, through his father, the United Kingdom & Colonies (later Kenya, when that country became independent from Britain), BUT under Kenyan citizenship law, he had to choose at adulthood if he wanted to remain a Kenyan citizen. In other words, Kenya does not allow an adult to hold two citizenships. I refer you to a Kenyan government website (http://www.immigration.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=142), which has this: "The child holds dual citizenship up to the age of 21 years and will have to renounce his claim to the other nationality before he turns 23 years old in order for him to remain a Kenyan citizen." Since President Obama did NOT renounce his U.S. citizenship by age 23, he is NOT a Kenyan citizen, and lost the right to BECOME a Kenyan citizen. Therefore, there is nothing for me to edit on President Obama's Misplaced Pages article. Canada and the U.S. do not have laws restricting the number of citizenships a person may hold, which explains why Ted Cruz holds both. It's very simple to understand, even for a person such as yourself who doesn't understand laws (as opposed to feelings): Ted Cruz was born in Canada! ANYONE (except the child of a foreign diplomat) born in Canada is automatically and instantly a Canadian citizen. It doesn't matter what he wants, what he thinks, whether his parents came from China or Antarctica, he's Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And the same rules applied to Canada until at least 1974. And they changed their law. If Kenya changed their law, would Obama have to renounce? Nope. Second, your tax information is completely wrong. "accidental americans" are not subject to U.S. income tax if they left within 10 years of birth, have citizenship in another country and are compelled to pay that countries taxes by law. If you have concerned canadian friends, they need better tax advice. They owe nothing and they don't need to file anything unless they want to live in the U.S. or get a U.S. passport (and even then, they would not owe taxes). There are ex-patriation taxes for people that actively change nationalities for tax reasons or were previously subject to U.S. taxes. Minors, though, have no tax obligation at all. They ex-patriate when they leave and if they have never worked in the U.S., obtained a passport, etc, they will never owe U.S. taxes. In fact, minors can live in the U.S. for 10 years and move and never pay U.S. taxes. Only if they decide to move back to the U.S. as a citizen of the U.S. for a term exceeding a certain limit or use their citizen for employment reasons, they would have to file a form that states they were ex-patriates and met the ex-patriate conditions (i.e. natural citizen of another country, didn't leave U.S. for tax reasons). Read the form and section 877, 877A of IRS code. You are making a silly argument. Cruz is not Canadian. He doesn't owe Canadian taxes. He can't be compelled to serve in Canadian armed forces, he can't vote in Canadian elections, he can't travel as a Canadian, etc, etc. He is eligible to apply for citizenship and have a ruling made on it, but he has not done so because he doesn't believe he is. He does have a ruling that he is a U.S. citizen, though and that's what he identifies as. --22:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, in 2011, Kenya removed the "declaration by 23" requirement and it's retroactive. All persons born from a Kenyan parent can now be citizens of Kenya. Feel free to add that to the Obama page. He's not a Kenyan citizen though, just like Cruz isn't Canadian despite the law those countries passed. --22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
First you make clear that you're certainly not a lawyer...next you demonstate that you're definitely not an accountant! Perhaps you didn't read this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/americans-living-in-canada-face-looming-irs-tax-deadline/article12473920/ "Joe" was born in Pittsburgh in 1958 to Canadian parents and returned with them to Canada later that same year. He has never again lived or worked in the U.S.A. Yet, he is required to file a U.S. tax return (and various other forms) by the IRS, because he is an American citizen. ALL American citizens are required to file U.S. tax returns (if they earn more than the amount of their personal exemption), no matter what country they live in. There is no rule that American-born minors can live in the U.S. for 10 years, go to another country, and never have to pay U.S. taxes. What you quoted...877A...refers to a special EXPATRIATION TAX, which Congress passed as a punishment for high-income U.S. citizens (net worth of at least 2 million...THINK EDUARDO SAVERIN, one of the founders of Facebook) who renounce their U.S. citizenship. To explain the section referring to minors to you, it says that a U.S. citizen with a high net worth who LOSES HIS/HER U.S. CITIZENSHIP AS A MINOR, is, under certain conditions, excused from paying the expatriation tax. Expatriation tax and U.S. income tax are not the same thing. "Joe" in the example given by the Globe & Mail, simply moved with his parents as an infant from the U.S. to Canada. He did not renounce his U.S. citizenship (for which a fee, a lengthy wait, and a personal visit to a U.S. consulate is required), so the expatriation tax does not apply. "Joe" gets no free ride from the IRS because he only lived in the U.S. for a few months of his life. Back to Cruz...I don't know how anyone who can read English fails to understand these words from the Canadian Citizenship Act (1946): "A person, born after the commencement of the Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen if he is born in Canada..." Can we agree that Cruz is a "person"? Can we agree that Calgary is in "Canada"? I already know that we can't agree on the meaning of "citizen", which I regard as something defined in law, but you see more as a "state of mind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The IRS is pretty clear that "Joe" born in Pittsburgh in 1958 to Canadian parents and returned with them to Canada later that same year doens't need to file a damn thing unless he wishes to live in the U.S. That is very clear, unambiguous and supported by precedent and law. Readit. Learn it. Love it --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, this conversation has become a waste of time. You putting words in our mouths so that you can have a strawman to attack. I guess this discussion is finished until you provide some real support for your position.--Bing Norton 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
Article says Cruz was a top debater, "winning the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship . . ."
As best I can tell from the listings at the American Forensic Association, Princeton didn't send anyone to the 1992 National Debate Tournament. In the list of top speakers, Cruz is not among the top 20, nor was a Princeton team among the top 25. Top speaker in 1992 was Charles Smith of Iowa. See results here: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/NDT%20results%201987-1996%20%2841-50%29.pdf
Is the article referring to something other than the American Forensic Association's National Debate Tournament? That should be more clearly spelled out, if there is another contest referred to.Edarrell (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've made changes to reflect information in source provided. Almost everything in this article was a gross overstatement of information contained in sources, but I have removed the fluff. Folks are welcome to put it back, but only with legitimate sources. Revmqo (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hagel?
How come there is nothing on this article about Cruz antagonism to Hagel? Cwobeel (talk)
I have general questions about the provenance and reliability of this article. The single greatest contributor to this article (who shows no reverts of their edits as of this date), was ExclusiveAgent who was blocked for using multiple IP addresses
(From their page: The latest block log entry is provided below. 12:51, 31 July 2013 Alison (talk | contribs) blocked ExclusiveAgent (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please stick to one account only).
As we don't know if the apparent consensus about Cruz represented in the article was actually arrived at by one person imitating many, shouldn't their be a caveat associated with this site? (BTW I noticed that about a month after ExclusiveAgent was blocked another Cruz crusader, ostensibly new to Misplaced Pages but with an unusual Wikilawyering facility arrived on the site fast becoming among the highest ranking contributors, repeatedly removing information as uncontroversial as the fact that he was born in Canada (so what, btw?) and that he was widely viewed seen as largely responsible for the 2013 government shutdown. Given the sketchy history of the site shouldn't some sort of caveat be added to this Wiki page?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The history of this user using a sockpuppet on its own does not mean there needs to be a caveat. However, if there are specific issues that need to be discussed regarding the neutrality of the article as it is right now, then you can bring them up in the Talk page and they can be discussed. You could then add a POV tag to the page, indicating that its neutrality is disputed and an active discussion is ongoing. If you have evidence to support that there are sockpuppets (of ExclusiveAgent or otherwise) here, then you can request a Sockpuppet investigation. - Maximusveritas (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am adding him to that category. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Very good article, but when there is a reference to an "advocate" in the Misplaced Pages categories they mean someone whose main vocation is advocating for x. In this case, Ted Cruz would have to be advocating full time for gun rights, which is not what he does. His full time job is U.S. Senator. As a U.S. Senator he does advocate for gun rights, but it is not the ONLY issue that he advocates. He advocates for a balanced budget, for example, and he is pro-life, for example. He is not merely a gun rights Senator. Before he was a U.S. Senator his full time job was constitutional rights attorney, which involved working on gun rights issues, but was not the only constitutional issue that he advocated. He has handled tons of federalism case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that have nothing to do with gun rights. Now, Ted Nugent is a rock singer, but right now he has a job whose main point is advocating for gun rights (i.e., spokesman for the NRA), therefore, Nugent meets the criteria of the category.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The point for the policy is that any one that ever expressed a pro-gun rights position would be eligible for the category, essentially making the category unless.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Well you just admitted he advocated for gun rights, therefore he is a gun rights advocate. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, I did state without question that he does advocate for gun rights; however, that does not mean that he meets the criteria of the category. To meet the criteria of the category advocating for gun rights has to be a full time job where he gets paid to specifically advocate on the behalf of gun rights. You have not provided a reliable source that indicates that he works a full time job as a "gun rights advocate." Please provide one.----ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ted Cruz's Canadian birth
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so he is Canadian born.
Neosiber (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this true. The article mentions the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary in two places: (1) in the info box, and (2) in the "Early life and education" section. There is no logical reason to mention to say that he is "Canadian-born" a third time. That is overkill.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, for future editors, adding the phrase "Canadian-born" in the opening paragraph, not only is overkill, as I pointed out above, it also violates MOS (See here Misplaced Pages:OPENPARA), BLP, and NPOV.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, an article on whether or not Cruz is eligible to run for President doesn't end the discussion by any means. If it becomes a notable topic of discussion in the future, it's still suitable for his Misplaced Pages page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, as to the topic of whether or not he is eligible to run for president the topic is closed. The one and only thing that could potentially reopen it is if there is a reliable source that soundly backs up the claim that he is ineligible to run for president. You did not mention a reliable source to back up your comments so at this point the status quo as I outlined it above still applies. Now, that is not to say that it cannot be discussed on the Misplaced Pages page, but the notion that there is a credible other side to the argument, without any reliable sources, is a complete non-starter.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No offense, but absolutely not. You're confusing opinions with the purpose of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages isn't here to establish firmly that Cruz is or is not legally allowed to run for President. You're saying just because you have two editorials that say he can, that's the end of the matter. In Misplaced Pages terms, that's just one side of the story. It's not an issue so far because he's not running for the office, but if he does and it becomes an actual controversy, both sides of the matter will have to be reported. Right now, Misplaced Pages has no business reporting in absolute terms one way or the other whether he's eligible for the office. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is a settled matter. I'm saying that at this time there is no reliable source to back up a opposite point of view.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Not all English speaking North Americans care only about Cruz's US citizenship. Some think his Canadian citizenship is something we should be proud of. Some English speakers are Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.49.144 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Political positions edit
I made an edit to the political positions section of this page on June 17 which changed:
"Cruz is a gun rights supporter."
to
"Cruz is an advocate for not banning assault weapons and not requiring background checks to purchase firearms."
This was based on reading the article cited for the statement. Article link: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/29/ted-cruz-my-gop-senate-colleagues-yelled-at-me-for-wanting-to-filibuster-gun-control/ The article says that Cruz was critical in opposing an assault weapons ban and in preventing an amendment that would have expanded requirements for background checks. Since the article doesn't identify him as a supporter of gun rights by those actions, I thought that describing what the article says he did was more accurate.
My change was reverted as "incorrect characterization" by Galvan666. He left a note on my talk page (thanks!) and asked me to reply at Galvan666's talk page with any questions about the revert. I did.
From Galvan666's talk page history:
"Hey Galvan666, thanks for the heads up about the reversion. I read the cited source for that line and thought the article didn't explicitly state that Ted Cruz was a gun rights supporter, but did state that he was against creating laws that would ban assault weapons or require background checks. I thought it made more sense to say what the article said than to infer "gun rights supporter" from it, but you called it an "incorrect characterization" in your reversion. I don't think it's an incorrect characterization, but I have been wrong in the past so I am curious what you think is incorrect about that phrasing. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I went back and reread my version and the article. I think I see the problem. I wrote that he was "an advocate... for not requiring background checks to purchase firearms." which is far too broad for what the article said and almost certainly isn't true. It would have been more accurate to say that he is "an advocate... for not adding new requirements for background checks to purchase firearms." Would you find that characterization to be at least less incorrect if not correct? 198.204.141.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
He is a "gun rights supporter". This is true. It should not have been removed. We do not define the people in bios by what they are not, but by what they are.--Galvan666 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)"
I think there's room for leaving in "gun rights supporter" without reverting or removing more detailed descriptions of what *makes* Ted Cruz a gun rights supporter. I would certainly not advocate for leaving my original edit in since it was much too overbroad for me to say that he was "an advocate... for not requiring background checks to purchase firearms". I think that having the actions he takes as a Senator that make him a "gun rights supporter" (that particular line is what the citation is supposed to support) described makes for a better overall article. If "gun rights supporter" had its own page then that could be hyperlinked so that interested people could look up what makes a Senator a gun rights supporter. That phrase does appear in more than a few places so maybe there should be an article for it? Until that time though I think there's no reason to leave out what the cited article actually says in favor of something that doesn't appear in it.
198.204.141.208 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In the beginning of the page, it lists Ted Cruz as a junior Senator. His current term is his first term, which would make him a freshman senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt thecookie (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
He is a freshman senator in the sense that he's in his first term. He's also the junior senator from Texas because the other senator has more service in the Senate than him. In that regard, it makes more sense to describe him as just "the junior United States Senator from the State of Texas". —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Typo
There is a typo in the first sentence of the article: missing "is."
Thanks
It's worth noting that the "Early Life" section says that he was born in Canada, and then goes on to describe his parents' lives before he was born. There is nothing in that section that is actually about his life other than the location of his birth. The next section picks up with where he went to high school in Texas. What happened in between? How and why did he and his family move from Canada to Texas, and did they live anywhere in between? It would be more fitting to the "Early Life" title if there was actually something about his early life in there. Dannyburd (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please edit the article with this information if you have a reliable source for it and it is written in a NPOV manner. Go for it!--Bing Norton 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Upright
Ted Cruz giving a speech to the Montgomery County Republican Party meeting held in Conroe, Texas on August 19, 2013.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "Early Life" it says that Ted Cruz's father--Rafael Bienvenido Cruz--fled Cuba for the United States in 1957 with a $100 sewn into his underwear. This suggests that he left the island after Batista's overthrow by Fidel Castro's revolution and after the realized that Castro was a communist and after he (Cruz) had started speaking out against the Castro regime and was therefore in danger. I find this to be clearly inaccurate, since Bastista was not overthrown until 1959...two years after Cruz "fled" the island presumably "escaping" from the Castro regime that he was now opposing and speaking out against. It makes him look like he fled Cuba in the throes of "persecution" when in fact, if he indeed left Cuba in 1957, it was a full two years before the Castro take-over he could not have been fleeing Castro! It sounds so much more "noble" to have escaped the grasp of a communist Castro and his persecusion than just coming to the US in 1957 to attend university. It gives his son Ted a "heroic" family background and gives him credibility with the exiled Cuban community. I resent this and request that it be corrected. My family truly did escape with nothing in 1961 as a result of persecution. I don't think Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was persecuted by Castro in 1957...Castro was still in the mountains in 1957!
Mariadispenza (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Mariadispenza: What goes in the article is never based upon what you "resent". That is not relevant to the discussion in any manner. also, whether what is written sounds "noble" or "heroic" to you is not relevant either. None of the things that you have read into the article are actually written in the article. Also, the circumstances of your family members leaving Cuban have nothing to do with the article. The article is about Cruz and his family. You have not provided anything to work on and you have not provided any reliable sources to back up your comments/complaints. This talk page is not designed for people to complain about Cruz or his family. From your comments I don't see anything to fix.--Bing Norton 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Mariadispenza: I re-read your comments and I still believe that there is nothing to change based upon your comments. You state: "This suggests that he left the island after Batista's overthrow by Fidel Castro's revolution" which is flat out wrong. The article does not "suggest" anything of the like. It merely states that he left in 1957, which is fact. I don't see an issue.--Bing Norton 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Bing, you're missing the point. The article stated (I have fixed it) that he "fled", which the sources do not state. He "left" Cuba and immigrated to the USA. I have fixed it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I see your point if that was the case, but that is not the case. Robert Garrett of The Dallas Morning News's Austin Bureau specifically stated that the older Cruz "fled" Cuba because he had been imprisoned and beaten. You can read Garrett's article here: Senate candidate Ted Cruz aims to pick up mantle of Reagan.--Bing Norton 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Then that source should be used, and I see it has. That looks better. We just needed a good source for that wording. The part about his father not knowing Castro was a communist is likely an outright lie or something else. That's an impossibility. Castro didn't hide his allegiances. I suggest that wording be left out, unless you want Cruz (or more likely his father) to be left open to accusations of lying. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not my job or your job to decide what should be left in based upon what we believe to be lies or not lies. It is merely your opinion that what his father said was a lie. What my opinion is (and yours to) is not relevant. The question is whether it is notable and it is. It is discussed by his father constantly. That is the touchstone of whether it should be in the article, not whether you believe the statement to be a lie. Also, not that it matters, but you don't know if he is lying or not and until you provide a reliable source to back up your claim I would just drop that POV because POV pushing is not part of Misplaced Pages.--Bing Norton 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
It's actually VERY fine with me to leave it in, but that would be my political leanings speaking, which are not in the interests of Cruz. Since you appear to be an extreme newbie here (so drop the lecturing tone) and may not realize this..... we don't always include everything we find in a source. It's common for fans to leave it up to enemies to include the negative stuff or damaging information. In your case you wish to include it. Whatever. Editor discretion is often used, and in this case, since it seems like special pleading, I suggested it be left out, especially since including it exposes Cruz and his father to the risk of negative commentary, but it's no big deal to me. In fact, since I'm not a fan of Cruz, my suggestion is counterproductive to my own political interests and protective of him. That's where my role as an editor comes in. I bend over backward to help even those I don't agree with. So....if and when that commentary comes, it will be notable enough to include. It would be a scandal and damaging to Cruz, but who am I to seek to protect him?! I'll let him know you are responsible.... . I guess we're finished here. Adieu. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, let me point out that you have a not based in reality understanding of Misplaced Pages's influence on politics. It is little or no influence but reading on screed above the reader would get the impression that Misplaced Pages's influence is make it or break it. Politicians should just hire people like you to write really nice Misplaced Pages articles and then they would definitely would get elected. Next, let me congratulate for being so open in your editing decisions. You base your editing decisions on what political ramifications you think the article might have for or against politicians. I would love to have discussion with Jimbo about whether he believes that is the principal that should be the touchstone for deciding editing decisions or not. The ensuing conversation I think would be quite enlightening. You can have your "political influence" theory of editing, but I am going to stick to focusing on "notability", "BLP", "NPOV", and "reliable sources", ok?--Bing Norton 11:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
That's good. As far as my own editing style, it's far more complicated and nuanced than explained above, which is just some observations about how many types of editors do edit, and which I often do not agree with, but understand. I do tend to bend over backward to help editors whose edits conform to policies, but who are met with efforts to whitewash properly sourced information from articles. This often happens on political articles, but I don't edit them all that much. Misplaced Pages does have real world impacts. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
BullRangifer: In 1957, the US was an ally of Castro. To suggest that Castro did not hide his allegiances is to suggest that the US knew he was communist which is not true. Castro id not make that announcement or his true political leanings public until after 1959. Mr. Rafael Cruz's statements regarding his departure from Cuba are incorrect. It is an outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.165.155 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is true that Castro did not become a Communist until 1959. Although there was a Communist Party, Castro had no connection with it. Castro did not hide his alliances, he was just not allied with them, and did not adopt their ideology until after he came to power. However, the wording makes it seem that Cruz sr. fled in 1957 once he found out that Castro was a Communist. TFD (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
He was the first Hispanic elected U.S. Senator from Texas
The source provided does not support the assertion that he was the first Hispanic US Senator from Texas. He may very well be, but the source does not say that. Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The source says "Cruz, who becomes Texas' first ever Latino U.S. Senator". Unless I'm missing something, seems noncontroversial to me. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a filibuster and should absolutely stay. If you can fine other 'reliable' non political cites, add them and update the article. But, please leave alone. Kennvido (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a filibuster, as it is not designed to delay any action on the bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
That he started to give a speech doesn't merit inclusion until there's some reason to believe that this will have any lasting import. WP:RECENT WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what it is, he is still speaking and WP is NOT a newspaper. Wait until some historical perspective can be made. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The recent edits have muddied the cloture motion. If Cruz had gotten enough votes he would have extended debate in the hopes of preventing the striping of the ACA language from the bill. May I edit to restore that language? Hcobb (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
supporter v endorsed by
The fact that Cruz supports the Tea Party should not have been removed from the lead, especially with the implication that being endorsed by the Tea Party (later in the lead ) is the same thing. If anything, the article should be clear that Cruz is a member of the Tea Party. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I moved it to the appropriate section in the lead. He cannot be a member of the "Tea Party" as it is not an official party. He might be a member of a Tea Party group and he is mentioned as a member of the Tea Party Caucus. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
"....might be"?? It would be more accurate to say "He is a leader of the Tea Party Caucus". ```Buster Seven Talk 16:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
NPOV
This article has serious NPOV issues. Is this really written in a dispassionate, third party voice? During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises. No, that's not neutral. It may be true, but namedropping is not neutral nor informative. -174.62.68.53 (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right: the sentence is neutral but the emphasis is not. MilesMoney (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It is from the source. I am not seeing the problem. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is saying its false. The problem is one of balance. MilesMoney (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
"Is this really written in a dispassionate, third party voice?" No. Isn't it obvious?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
For my part, I have replaced the word "embarked" with "started", and put quotes around "national tour" in the Obamacare section, because 1) The use of the word "embarked" is the flowery and overblown prose used by politicians, campaigns, advertisers and other marketers and is not encyclopedic in this context. Cruz is not literally taking a cruise on a ship and so therefore cannot "embark" and 2) calling his political campaigning a "national tour" is also the same overblown marketer language and is not encyclopedic. Rock Stars and vacationers do "national tours" and politicians do campaigns. All of these salesy and metaphoric descriptions appear lifted from press releases and give the impression that wikipedia is being used to further someone's political agenda or (at least) it appears sloppy and "thrown together".Jonny Quick (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 5 October 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Canadian Birth Certificate released by Ted Cruz evidences his birth mother's maiden name was Eleanor Wilson. In all other previous reports his mother's maiden name was Eleanor Darragh. If Eleanor Wilson was not a US Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref>citizen then neither is Senator Ted Cruz.
TimInHonolulu (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done:. If there is a specific change you want made to the article, please state specifically what that change is, including reliable sources cited. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have seen zero RS with the full "Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh" she is either listed as "Eleanor Darragh" (in National Review, so a very low quality source indeed) or "Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson" on Ted's birth cert. Hcobb (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to get into a discussion about the common law and persons' names, but basically if you call yourself "John Doe", that is your name provided no deception is intended. Unless you have a source that explains the discrepancy, we should stay with the name she uses. TFD (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. Accepting her opinion of her own name is Original Research and does not meet Misplaced Pages standards. From Misplaced Pages's perspective, her name is what reliable sources say it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Cruz's status as a natural-born citizen unquestioned
There is no substantial question of fact regarding Ted Cruz's citizenship status. By settled law of the United States, he was a citizen of this country at birth and is thus a "natural-born citizen" by the terms of the Constitution and eligible to hold the office of the presidency. We do not need to go down the birther road here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
We have to go with our sources. This one says he is has dual American and Canadian citizenship and includes his pledge to renounce his Canadian citizenship. It also says that he most likely doesn't need to renounce it in order to serve as President. Those are the facts, and we should state them as well. We're not doing anyone any favors trying to bury the issue. Best to confront it with reality. MilesMoney (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Your edit went far beyond stating that he is a dual citizen, and questioned his qualifications for the presidency. Whether or not he is a dual citizen, there is no doubt that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to run for president. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Then correct it instead of removing it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It's already discussed appropriately in the body of the article and I don't think it warrants a mention in the lede, no matter how it is worded. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It's discussed, but not appropriately. We have plenty of sources confirming that he's got dual citizenship, even if he doesn't acknowledge it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I attempted to clarify it in the body of the article. -Maximusveritas (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There is confusion here between statutory "citizenship" versus "constitutional eligibility" to be president under U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1's "natural born citizen" clause. Ted Cruz no doubt has the *statutory* status of a U.S. citizen for purposes of voting, paying taxes, getting a passport and the like. But a very different question is his *eligibility* to be president under the Constitution, as neither the Supreme Court nor any lower federal has ever ruled on the meaning of Art. II, sec. 1. Moreover, according to academic research , foreign-born individuals of U.S. citizens have not always been viewed as U.S. citizens themselves. Respectfully, I think that distinction may be getting lost.Nevadausa16 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Nevadausa16
Again, there is no substantial question that Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the United States - that is, any citizen who is not naturalized, but was a citizen from the moment of birth by operation of law or the Constitution. We don't brook any birther nonsense on Barack Obama and we're not going to brook any of it here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's any confusion about it. The sources cited makes clear that the question is about whether he is a natural born US citizen eligible to run for President and that legal experts say he is. Then there is the separate issue of whether he is a dual citizen of US/Canada and legal experts say he is as well. The article seems to communicate both of these points to me. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Cruz's role in the Government Shutdown
Cruz's role in the government shutdown is well documented and clearly an important part of his legacy as are the consequences of the shutdown and fear of raising the debt ceiling. Mention of both these have been continually reverted by one editor which makes the page appear as if it is a promotional website for Cruz. The documentation of the effects of Cruz main accomplishment as a junior senator (shutting down the government and lobbying his colleagues to threaten default on the debt) is critical to this article. I object to the continual efforts by one editor to removing it as well as to his/her removal of 5 other editors contributions without discussion. I think it represents a POV problem and censorship of well-accepted and document ideas about this politicianScholarlyarticles (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The information has been edited. The phrase, "implied threat" was not in the NY Times article. The NY Times article only talked about the shutdown and Cruz role in its and its effect on the 2016 republican primary field. Also, there is nothing in those articles about "2013 financial crisis" because there is no "financial crisis". I edited down the whole topic. Cruz did have a role in forcing the shutdown and it has had an effect on his fellow Republican politicians but we need to stick to what is in the reliable sources only.NazariyKaminski (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I will find info on the threat of the failure to raise the debt ceiling which is certainly roiling the markets as well as the effect of the government shutdown and rewrite the paragraph. Please do not remove it. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to be argumentative. Please feel free to add information that is notable, backed by a reliable source, and written in neutral point of view. However, I reserve the right as an editor to remove the information if it does not meet this basic requirements of notability, reliability, and neutrality. I can't promise that I won't remove information that I have not read yet. No one person owns the article. It is open for all editors to edit and make contributions to. Please assume good faith.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add more sources if needed. But deleting is not an option given Cruz's role. Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thanks.Cwobee I agree. I worked on some more references that might respond to NazariyKaminski's points but the thing seems to be locked. It's okay with me as it stands, as I originally wrote, it but in case you need more cites to the pain the shutdown or the failure to pass a clean CR is causing, i have them and can incorporate. thanks. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is about Ted Cruz. It is not about the pain that the shutdown has caused. Also, stating that that is Congressional Republicans fault without citing a reliable source does not work. There are also reliable sources that blame Obama, but it is irrelevant because this article is about Ted Cruz, not the government shutdown. Also, once again, a reliable source needs to be cited.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Two editors have objected to your continual reverts. This article contains a section on the shutdown and how Cruz caused it and it was adequately referenced. I was in the process of adding more references when you reverted it. I have to ask you not to do so again. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The information about how the financial market will be affected the shutdown does not belong in this article. It is not notable. It is notable for the shutdown article. This article is about Ted Cruz. Please follow the three legs of Misplaced Pages: notability, reliability, neutrality. Also, adding scary information about what might happen if there is a shutdown, which has not happened yet, violates the basic idea behind biographies of living people.++NazariyKaminski (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes the article is about Ted Cruz and the section is about his legacy in these his first months as a junior senator. In contrast to your comments, there is very little doubt that he had a major role in the impasse that is preventing the debt ceiling from being raised and in causing the government shut down. Nevertheless, you blanked my paragraph on it. and continue to revert edits in which i am adding relevant articles to the show the effects of his actions, despite the objection of me and another editor. I will cite the references you took out here.
Adding how Cruz's actions as a Senator affect the United States is not only not defamatory (does not violate our policies on living persons) it is a crucial aspect of his history. I don't think we should try to rewrite this chapter of his performance in his short tenure as a US senator because it is among its most salient aspects.
You are changing my contributions faster than I can insert the citations you asked for. Finally, I must add that my approach here is neutral and I am not employed by Congress and am not affiliated the Cruz campaign or any other campaigns. My POV is neutral in contrast to your allegations, that is to the extent that any citizen who is affected by his actions can be neutral. Since you've blanked the contributions of 5 editors on this topic, I hope you won't mind me responding in kind as I am curious as to what your interest is in this topic and whether you have any professional affiliation with Cruz or the Republican party as this would be a conflict of interest. I am not challenging you. I'm just trying to understand the situation. I look forward to your response. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
A great part of what you wrote about the shutdown was your opinion not supported by any reliable source. You cited many reliable sources and none of them said what you stated and none it has to do with Ted Cruz. This article is about Ted Cruz. Please follow the basic rule of Misplaced Pages about notability and relevance. If you want to write an essay on the effect of the shutdown on "ordinary people" then go over to the article on the shutdown and work it out over there. This article is about Ted Cruz.**NazariyKaminski (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You need to slow down on the opinion that you are including into that section. This is a fluid situation, simply state the facts and try not to use WP as a newspaper. Additionally, your hyperbole about the impacts smack of NPOV and imply that Cruz is directly responsible for these acts. Additionally, you seem to have jumped the shark on some aspects as well, namely the Stock Market. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, Arzel. However I believe you err in various facts. First the phrase "standing to the left," that you objected to in your edit comment was not only not justified by article I cited but it was, if fact, a direct quote from that article. I'm not using WP as newspaper and i have ample cites in my paragraph. Rather Nk and you have removed paragraphs that I have authored without discussion, and in some cases after others have reverted back to my original paragraph without discussion. It is convention to talk before doing this. Finally it seems that the Bloomberg article referring to roiled markets and threat to retirees has to do with the looming threat of a failure to raise the debt ceiling which has been relieved to a certain extent in the last few days because of the talks. Here again, Cruz's renewed demands may quash this rally. I do bring to this some understanding of behavioral economics but these are not my theories. Bloomberg is not a liberal newspaper. Yes, It is a fluid situation and this is a living encyclopedia which can be changed as things proceed. I will provide a copy of paragraph below so people can see what you have deleted and make their own decision. It's not my own synthesis. It's fairly straightforward review of the situation as it stands. Perhaps other people would like to chance to read, discuss and to comment. By the way, I'd appreciate an answer to my question above. All the best to youScholarlyarticles (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Cruz is believed to a major force behind the U.S. government shutdown in 2013. The shutdown is having a massive effect on the economy and ordinary American citizens which are being felt beyond the Federal government. Lawmakers are also dealing with a looming October 17th deadline to raise the debt ceiling. The threat of stalemate has been cited as a factor roiling the International markets. Although Republicans have tried of late to come to some sort of resolution, Ted Cruz delivered a stern message on October 11, 2013 to fellow Republicans against anything less than failing to dismantle the Affordable Care Act in their compromise Some Republicans in the emerging political field are desperate to avoid being seen as standing to the left of Mr. Cruz and his Tea Party supporters. Republican strategist Mike Murphy has stated: "Cruz is trying to start a wave of Salem witch trials in the G.O.P. on the shutdown and Obamacare, and that fear is impacting some people’s calculations on 2016."Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the paragrah as rewritten by :NazariyKaminski:
"Cruz is believed to be a major force behind the U.S. government shutdown in 2013. Although Republicans have tried of late to come to some sort of resolution, Ted Cruz delivered a stern message on October 11, 2013 to fellow Republicans against anything less than failing to dismantle the Affordable Care Act in their compromise The shutdown may have some impact on the 2016 presidential election. Republican strategist Mike Murphy has stated: "Cruz is trying to start a wave of Salem witch trials in the G.O.P. on the shutdown and Obamacare, and that fear is impacting some people’s calculations on 2016." Cruz's stand on the shutdown received wide support in the American heartland according to CNN's Ruben Navarrette: "As unpopular as he is within the Beltway, he is keenly aware that -- in the heartland and across the country -- his stance in defiance of Obamacare, and his willingness to rock the political boat, have transformed him into a rock star. He has lost the support of many, if not all, his Senate colleagues. But, judging from what you hear on talk radio and right-wing blogs, he is winning the loyalty and respect of many average Americans.""
I thought I'd put both paragraphs here rather than having the continual back and forth in which NazariyKaminsk continually reverts my and others edits (and had not responded to my question concerning conflicts of interest.) Note that in his/her paragraph s/he refers to Cruz as a "rock star" who "judging from what you hear on talk radio and right-wing blogs" is "winning the loyalty and respect of many average Americans" (tee hee) The author of the paragraph supra criticizes ME for POV. There it is. I report. You decide. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No need to make it a personal battle. In my opinion, the ACA and Shutdown sections should be combined since they are basically connected. Also, I don't think either of the quotes from Murphy or Navarrette should be included since they simply introduce POV and neither are particularly notable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Affordable Care Act and U.S. government shutdown of 2013
The article needs some of the GOPs critique of Cruz related to this. As it stands now this article reads as if all is OK in Gotham city, which is not the case. Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
We also need a few tidbits on the Senator's accomplishments, including his role during the Chuck Hagel confirmation. Cwobeel (talk)
I'm happy with what you added, and disappointed that Arzel tried to remove it without even talking to you about it here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you both read the section above in which there was no consensus for much of that. Perhaps if what was added was not so blatantly POVish it would not be a problem. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're concerned about balance, then try to improve the material. Removing it doesn't really fix anything. MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree... Improving is better that deleting. And there is a lot to improve in this article. A lot. Cwobeel (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You are not improving anything. All you are doing is adding a bunch of POV to the article, without any concensus as well. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What about adding something about Cruz's criticism from the GOP establishment? That is notable and worthy of inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
@NazariyKaminski:, I'm working to address some of your concerns and correct problems with this new material, but a blanket wipe isn't any sort of solution. Join me in fixing what was added. MilesMoney (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
In a BIO there cannot be false statements. The NY Times article does not state that the Koch Bros gave money to Cruz. We can't say what's not in the reliable sources. Also, one editor keeps putting in that the shutdown "roiled" the markets and there is no RS to support that. All of the sources cited talked about what might happen if the issues were not addressed before the debt ceiling was hit. Also, this article is about Ted Cruz. It is not about the shutdown. Undue weight needs to be addressed. Arzel is right. There is no place for false statements. If the RS does not say it then don't put it in. Info added that is false in relation to a living person must be removed immediately. You are stating that we can put in false information and then fix it. No, fix it (meaning it is supported by a RS and is not presented in POV matter) and then put it in the article. It does not work the other way around.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you are more interested in false statements and political hyperbole than an actual balanced article. I am not suprised. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a personal attack. It's also false. Balance is achieved by what I'm doing right now: editing. It's not achieved by wholesale deletion. MilesMoney (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No, you are putting in false info and then you want others to fix it. You need to fix it first and then put the info in. The markets were not "roiled". The RS does not say that it only says that the markets might have been "roiled." This is a critical difference. False info in a BIO must be removed immediately.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If you believe "roiled" is not supported well by the source, offer an improvement. Tags don't fix articles; only editing does. MilesMoney (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to fix false statements, we can simply delete false statements. If you don't want your false statements to be deleted then don't put them into the article in the first place. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually, you do. Also, try to WP:AGF by recognizing that nobody is intentionally trying to insert false statements. Everyone's just doing their best to get the true ones in, though sometimes they need a little help with the details. MilesMoney (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No actually I don't. You could have tried to fix it when you re-inserted it after it was already noted that the statements were false. You did not, so it is hard to assume good faith on your re-adding of the material. Arzel (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPOV doesn't say what you think it does, and while it was claimed that the statements were false, these claims showed a misunderstanding of the statements. Bottom line: don't rubbish it, fix it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Miles money and Cwobeel. (I just noticed this prior to my soliloquy under the government shutdown below.) Too much scrubbing going on with pseudo-Wiki arguments to bolster a weak case for censorship (see WP:Censorship.) I'm concerned about the speed with which thoughtful contributions and citations are being erased without discussion. Also, as I've outlined below, neutrality seems to have a demonstrable disadvantage on this page. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Koch
@NazariyKaminski:, you just removed an entire paragraph, saying "The article does not say that Cruz got money from the Koch Brothers". Unfortunately, this comment is wrong.
The material you removed actually said that "With funds from ... activists worked with Ted Cruz and other ...". This is saying that activists got funds, which our sources confirm. It is not saying that Cruz directly received funding, which is what your edit comment is complaining about.
In case you didn't read the entire cited source, the key part is:
The current budget brinkmanship is just the latest development in a well-financed, broad-based assault on the health law, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative initiative. Groups like Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are all immersed in the fight, as is Club for Growth, a business-backed nonprofit organization. Some, like Generation Opportunity and Young Americans for Liberty, both aimed at young adults, are upstarts. Heritage Action is new, too, founded in 2010 to advance the policy prescriptions of its sister group, the Heritage Foundation.
The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been deeply involved with financing the overall effort. A group linked to the Kochs, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, disbursed more than $200 million last year to nonprofit organizations involved in the fight. Included was $5 million to Generation Opportunity, which created a buzz last month with an Internet advertisement showing a menacing Uncle Sam figure popping up between a woman’s legs during a gynecological exam.
These quotes show that there is no original research going on here, either, as the article is making all of these connections. MilesMoney (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't say that Cruz recieved money from the Koch's. WP is not the place to pursue conspriosy theories. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct; it doesn't say any such thing, and neither does the deleted material. That's why we'll be restoring it. MilesMoney (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article does not state that Koch gave money to Cruz. You are connecting the two. That is original research. The info will work perfectly in the Shutdown article, which is linked.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned to Arzel, just above, the material you deleted does not contain what you think it contains. It does not state that Koch gave money to Cruz. You misread it. Arzel misread it. Please read more carefully. MilesMoney (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why are you adding it to this article? Arzel (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It was added on its own merits, without relation to these misinterpretations. MilesMoney (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that I've corrected your misunderstanding, are there any further objections to restoring this material? MilesMoney (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
All you have done is tell us that we are wrong that is not seeking consensus. There is no consensus to put the Koch information in the article. Please provide a RS that specifically states that Koch gave money directly to Cruz.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've explained a few times already that nobody ever claimed the Koch brothers gave this money directly to Cruz. It's not in the article, it's not in the sources, and I have no idea why you keep talking about it. Let's instead talk about what the material you removed actually said, ok? MilesMoney (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
FUD
@Arzel:, your changes added "dubious" to statements that are supported by the citations that immediately follow. How is this any sort of improvement? MilesMoney (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Becuase the tone is not supported by the citation, hence it is dubious. Arzel (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a dubious use of "dubious" and not at all helpful. It would be more useful if you correct the tone so that it matched the sources. Then we could all see what you really mean. MilesMoney (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you didn't reinsert highly biased and false information in the first place. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's neither biased nor false, but if you think it is, you should try to fix it, not deface it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MilesMoney wholeheartedly.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Horrors of the Shutdown
There is an article in Misplaced Pages that covers most aspects of the Govt Shutdown. All of the information that does not reference Cruz directly but is good information about the Shutdown should be placed in that article. Adding information to this article that simply outlines the pain caused by the shutdown does not belong in this article. President Obama was part of the shutdown also. Should we clutter up that article with all of the shutdown articles? It would be overkill, undue weight, and BIO all apply. Please move that information to the Shutdown article.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Government shutdown/ Threatened Default on debt
One editor removed the following two citations and associated phrases without discussion:
1. Warren Buffett and his Republican business partner Charlie Munger described as financial weapons of mass destruction
2. As a result of dysfunction in the Congress galvanized by Cruz, the government shutdown, and threatened default on the debt, Fitch put the US on rating credit watch negative.
In deleting the phrases without discussion NazariyKaminski wrote
"19:15, 17 October 2013 NazariyKaminski (talk | contribs) . . (65,662 bytes) (-911) . . (This article is about Ted Cruz. It is not about the shutdown. there is an article about the shutdown. please add this information there. There is already undue weight placed on the shutdown. Buffet & other comments do not mention Cruz.) (undo | thank)"
With respect to NazariyKaminski, I think you might be confusing the government shutdown with the threatened debt ceiling breach. Phrases 1 and 2 are not about the shutdown but about the threat of breaching the debt ceiling - an important effect of Cruz' mission not adequately referenced here. Just the threat of it, as we have seen, had a negative impact on US credit. (see AP reference to US negative credit watch. There are are also developments in China resulting from Cruz' actions which may affect our debt rating that I haven't yet included.)
The Buffet Munger cite (which links to a video of Buffett and Munger discussing the effects of the threat of breaching the debt limit) is also not about the shut down but about the threatened debt limit breach.
I don't think one could find a credible economist to agree that the threatened debt limit breach is irrelevant. If you do, however, it would seem appropriate to add another perspective with a citation to the effect that there are debt default deniers and who they are and which economists support them rather than to simply remove a reference to the Fitch credit change. There is little controversy that Cruz' actions led to the stalemate that threatened a debt default and led to a change in the US credit rating. The threatened debt default unfortunately is not mentioned once in this section although it was a main reason I added the section in the first place.
I have conceded many times that the debt ceiling debt and the shutdown are important events. However, the two RS that you refer to do not specifically tied Cruz to these potential events. They only talk about the debt ceiling potentiality in the abstract, if they were to happen. Once again, the two RS do not tie to Cruz. This article is about Cruz, not the shutdown, not the debt ceiling debate in general. Cruz was not the only politician involved in these events. All 535 members of Congress and the President also had roles in these two important events. We need to be careful that we follow the basic premise of BIO. If you can provide a RS that ties these two events to Cruz and only to Cruz then there is case to be made for a large inclusion in the article. But as it now stands you have two RS that discuss the debt ceiling debate and they are appropriate RS for an article on that topic. But this article is about Cruz. It is not about the potential things that might have happened if Congress and the President did not meet the deadline for debt ceiling. Also, you must remember that debt ceiling was not breached so the speculation is a bit much. To include this information is misleading and goes way beyond the parameters of BIO.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The removal of the Buffett/Munger cite as well as the Associated Press cite to the Fitch credit change (as many of your reversions of contributions of other editors of well-documented facts about Cruz including the fact that he was born in Canada ) seems to qualify as Censorship under Misplaced Pages guidelines. I don't think you should continually revert the work of other editors and myself without discussion on the talk page as this is an area of dispute.
Most of that is political hyperbole and "what-if's" opinion. WP is not a tabloid and should not be treated as such. You appear to be wanting to write a section to sensationalize as much as possible the situation and paint Cruz in the most negative light possible, much like the talking heads on MSNBC. The US credit rating did not change because of Cruz, so there is little point in trying to imply that it might have had we gone into default. I think you give Cruz too much credit. Arzel (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arzel: I assume you meant to comment under the reference section below. You err in your appraisal that the economy is unchanged by the political brinksmanship we've seen. Fitch put us on credit watch negative citing political brinksmanship among other factors related to Cruz.The debate over the debt ceiling has just been pushed back and we will likely remain on negative credit watch until that time. If and when this changes it's fine to add that fact. It's instructive to note that there has also been a spike in short term borrowing rates as of Tuesday and Fidelity dumped US short-term treasuries from their funds which also adversely affects the economy. Buffett/Munger's comments are not sensationalistic but realistic - Anyone with a casual understanding of economics would be concerned.
I'm not sure I understand the import of your comment concerning "tabloid" so I won't respond. The intent here in the WP is to make this article reflect the reality of Cruz contributions in these his first months as a senator. This cannot happen if editors persistently scrub important information concerning his legacy simply because it might reflect poorly on him. The narrative needs to reflect reality, and the emphasis needs to be consistent with the import and impact of his actions. The fact that the government shutdown effects and the threatened debt ceiling default effects occur on other pages in WP does not make them irrelevant here. Ted Cruz and the govt shutdown/debt default threat are as intertwined as Einstein and gravity or Tupac and Biggie. And as with these pairs, I'm sure you will find substantial cross-referencing in Misplaced Pages. I'd be interested in the response of the person who removed the phrases who also previously removed the entire section on the govt shutdown that has fortunately been reinstated, that is assuming you aren't that person. I'd also be interested in the thoughts of Wikipedians, especially economists. Best Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Scholarlyarticles, I share your concerns. I see a lot of scrubbing going on. MilesMoney (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney- Thanks, MilesMoney - One problem with this article, as you can see from the history of contributions, is that the main contributor, none of whose edits were reverted, was using multiple iP addresses. Therefore you can't know whether consensus was achieved by one person pretending to be many people. Following the ban of ExclusiveAgent for sockpuppeting, a new editor came on the scene who seems to be monitoring this article full time, removing important references within seconds of their appearance. If another editor reverts, the ostensibly new editor re-reverts. Although ostensibly a new editor, this person is very sophisticated with Wikilawyering and has expunged relevant, accurate and neutral information with sophistical arguments. I've seen this in many areas. However, I'll address mostly the shutdown and stalemate on the debt ceiling, a topic in which I have some expertise. It is uncontroversial that 1) Cruz was a major force behind the shutdown and stalemate concerning the debt ceiling, that Buffett/Munger and others called the threats raised by Cruz akin to financial weapons of mass destruction. The Buffett comment is relevant because it shows the gravity of Cruz tactics and threats and how they harm the economy. This cite was removed with the specious logic that Buffett/Munger did not mention Cruz in their statements. Certainly, they didn't have to. The shutdown cost to the US was about 24 billion dollars. The US debt ceiling stalemate had other associated costs such as placing the US economy on credit watch negative by Fitch, the dumping of short-term treasuries by Fidelity as well as other funds and probably intangible loss of credibility in our currency. Fitch cited Congressional malfunction as a reason for the credit watch negative. My citation of the Fitch change in credit watch was also removed immediately as was any reference to the effects of Cruz tactics on the economy or the country. There is little controversy that each these negative effects relate to Cruz. I've provided ample references to this fact. Moreover since discussion of raising the debt ceiling was postponed not resolved we are still in this more precarious financial situation that stemmed from Cruz. The addition of references to these are wiped out the moment they are added.
NK's logic is that the government shutdown is covered elsewhere. This is clearly specious logic, fallacious as it would be to uncouple relativity and Einstein or Tupac and Biggie from each other's articles. In addition, the Houston Chronicle's revocation of its endorsement of Cruz was also white-washed. The statement was changed to suggest that the Chronicle simply missed Kay Bailey Hutchinson when in fact the gist of the article was to revoke the Chronicle's prior endorsement of Cruz. As this Misplaced Pages article now stands, there are a few references to some in the GOP criticizing Cruz' tactics, not for the effect they had on the country but for their political ineffectiveness. This to me seems like a whitewash. Even the notion that Cruz was born in Canada was continually erased by NK. It's no crime to have dual citizenship unless one is a raging xenophobe as can be the case among the far right to which Cruz speaks. In reviewing the history of this article it seems many editors have left. Most of us aren't here full-time and aren't paid. There are some articles in Wiki about the proliferation of paid staffers or Wiki consultants with expertise in political areas who are hired guns. My understanding is that there is no good way of ferreting them out. So when an effort to add even the most uncontroversial facts are assaulted, and it seems as though the cards might be stacked in this way particularly when the page has had such inauspicious provenance, we give up. This isn't a good state of affairs for Misplaced Pages.
And what we seem to be left with here on the Ted Cruz page, particularly in the area in which I have some expertise - the effects of Cruz and the Government Shutdown/Debt Ceiling stalemate is a laughably misleading few paragraphs on Ted Cruz. On Misplaced Pages. In my view it reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages. I believe there is a general problem with this article and its provenance (demonstrably) and I suspect it's ongoing process. I don't have the sophistication or frankly the time to know how to try to resolve it. I hope for the sake of the community it will be addressed. This the last I'll have to say on this topic. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Your use of a reference section really kind of messes up the talk page, I was tempted to take it out. You seem to be confused about historical context and current events. Yes some of this stuff "might" have some effect, but it is impossible to know right now what that effect is. You seem to be taking the tabloid headings and emphasizing the sensationalistic aspect. You claim that this is scrubbing of his legacy, yet there is no history behind these events yet to say what the legacy may be. I suggest you wait until there is some historical aspect before including the headline of the day. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel. The section on Obamacare and the shutdown is starting to read like a newspaper article. It does not sound like an encyclopedia article. Also, it is not scrubbing to remove comments by Warren Buffett, for example, where Buffett doesn't even mention Cruz's name in the comments at all. The article is about Ted Cruz's life, not about potential effects of a debt ceiling default and it is not about what Ted Cruz has done in the last 60 days. More additional at this point is clearly undue weight.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski - Please see response under MilesMoney above Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. For now, that data it is relevant and in context. As time passes, the section can be tighten accordingly. Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
" "not a smart play" and a "tactical error" - That's all? Guys, this seems a bit of a whitewash. Cwobeel (talk)
Emigrant status
It appears that an edit war has started over sysop Viviano's addition of the category for his emigrant status. Please verify this matter with reliable sources. He was born in Canada. That's a fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He was about four years old when he moved to the USA with his parents, so they apparently emigrated with him in tow. Is there another meaning to the word? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine any possible counterargument. Contrary to Arzel's implication, we don't need to find a source that uses this exact word. MilesMoney (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no edit war. There is a need to support claims with reliable sources. So far: Editor Jesse Viviano provided no reliable source or comment to support addition of category, WhiskeyJuvenile provided no RS and the observation that emigration is residence, not nationality, BullRangifer provided no RS and the statement It's a fact. Keep this accurate, and MilesMoney provided no RS and bull's right; he was 4 when he came to America, so he's obviously an immigrant. No where is there a RS just four different editors who decided that he is. It does not work that way. Please provide a RS and no original research.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that you're conceding he's an immigrant, he's an emigrant. There's not even a dispute other than you don't know what words mean. WP:IDHTWhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't concede he's an immigrant. And your insults are unnecessary. Usually folks insult when they don't have RS to support their claims.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
His parents never immigrated to Canada. They were US citizens working in Canada. Cruz was then born and moved back to the US with his parents. Why don't we just cut through the crap and acknowledge what this is really about, and that is trying to stir up Birther nonsense. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not about his parents. It's about him. He is the one who emigrated from Canada (immigrated into the USA). -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
He was 4 years old, I don't think he was actively doing anything, other than probably playing. Furthermore, it makes no sense to imply that he immigrated without his parents. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse. I see either poor reading comprehension or a deliberate misreading. No one is saying that his parents emigrated. They were US citizens returning back to the USA, whereas he was a natural born Canadian citizen being moved to the USA by his parents. That's called emigration. They were returning, while he was emigrating. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Obtuse, huh? Please put a plug in that. Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth and also when he came to the U.S. at 4. What immigration papers did he fill out? Where is your reliable source to support your claim? Did Ernest Hemingway immigrate when he returned to the U.S. from Cuba, or Spain, or Italy, etc? What immigration papers did Hemingway fill out to return to his country?--NazariyKaminski (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't accuse others of being obtuse while simultaneously cherry picking you facts. Your argument ignores the fact that, due to his mother being a U.S. citizen, Cruz has held U.S. citizenship since birth (I will defer arguments about his being a natural born U.S. citizen as there is insufficient case law to make a conclusive determination). This oversight leads to a problem similar to that seen with the term "myth". The statement that Cruz emigrated is technically correct in a rigidly formal sense, but creates a false impression by ignoring common usage of the term. --Allen3 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No need for the personal attacks, we disagree. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. Since his parents did not emigrate to Canada with the intention of being permanent residents Cruz cannot be said to have been an emigrant from Canada. Cruz was a US citizen from birth, it makes no sense to say that he, as a US citizen, imigrated to the US. The only difference is that I didn't call you stupid for thinking you are wrong. There is a simple solution. Find some sources that say he emigrated or imigrated and there is no dispute. Arzel (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Arzel, don't you understand? Cruz was 4 and therefore he was already plotting his takeover of the world. Everything that has happened in his life since his birth was plotted out by him, a part of his grand scheme. (Not true).--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"...moved back to the US with his parents." That's what emigration means. As far as "birther nonsense" goes, no one is claiming that he was not born in Canada, which is the pattern of the meme. THAT would be birther nonsense. It is already stated that he was born in Canada, and that is undisputed fact. Agreed? So, he was born there and "moved back to the US with his parents." Ergo, he emigrated to the USA. Note that this isn't being added to the article. It's only a category. What I see here is denialism, not birther nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is denialism here: You are in denial that you need a RS to support your claim.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:RS says we need the exact word to be used. It's enough that we have many sources confirming that Cruz was born in Canada and moved to America at age 4. We call that an immigrant. For example, Sergey Brin's parents relocated him to America when he was 6, and we consider that immigration.
Brin is not a valid example. Brin's parents were born in Russia and were citizens of Russia. They moved Brin to the U.S. as a child and Brin was a Russian citizen when he moved the U.S. Brin was not a U.S. citizen when he was moved to the U.S. by his parents. That is not Cruz's situation at all. Neither of Cruz's parents were Canadians and Cruz was already a U.S. citizen when he parents moved him to the U.S. The situation is clearly closer to McCain than Brin. You can't immigrate to the country of which you are already a citizen--that's just daft. Brin had to go through the naturalization process. Cruz did not have to do such a thing. Brin is a completely false analogy. McCain is the better example of those two choices.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
English must be a daft language, because nothing about immigration requires a change of citizenship. Look it up:
one that immigrates: as
a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
Cruz was a citizen of both countries, but if he decided today to move to Canada with the intention of staying, that would likewise count as immigration. McCain is irrelevant, because he was born on American soil; the PCZ. At best, you can argue that an immigrant is typically not native to their destination, but as the above definition shows, that's a connotation, not a denotation. MilesMoney (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Did Cruz have to apply for the immigration papers to move back to the U.S.? No. Did Hemingway have to apply for immigration papers to return to the U.S. from Cuba, Spain, etc? No.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Does it say anywhere in that dictionary definition that you need to apply for papers to become an immigrant? Can you ask some questions which are relevant? Can you make statements as well as ask incorrect questions? Let's find out! MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney: Please do not insult. I'm trying to talk. I believe my questions are quite relevant. If you don't find them relevant explain with substance--insults do not support your point of view.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is there an insult in my questions? Why won't you stick to the subject? What possible reason do you offer for denying that Cruz is an immigrant, given that the dictionary disagrees with you? Still waiting to hear an answer. MilesMoney (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
He was already a U.S. citizen. As I asked above, did Hemingway immigrate to the U.S. from Cuba? You refuse to answer the question. You just say it is an irrelevant question. That's not an answer. Of course, it is a relevant question and that's exactly why you will not answer it.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Where in the definition of immigrant does it say anything about citizenship? You're making this stuff up as you go along. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, since your refuse to answer the question about Hemingway, let me ask you what INS (now known as CIS) immigration paperwork do you believe that Cruz filled out when he moved to Houston from Calgary? An immigrant to the U.S., according to U.S. law, must have the proper immigration paperwork in hand. What was that paperwork that Cruz had to fill out and present to an immigration official? Also, please explain how the definition of "citizen" and the definition of "alien" under the U.S. immigration laws applied to Cruz. If Cruz was not a "citizen" then he was an "alien" or "immigrant". You want to characterize him as an "immigrant". Another name for that designation is "alien". I believe most people find him to be a U.S. citizen and not an alien or immigrant, but you claim that the category for immigrants applies so I need to understand your logic. Please advise. I will help you out by providing you with the applicable definitions (since you like definitions so much) under the U.S. law:
Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. Permanent Resident Alien Definition
Citizenship: The country in which a person is born (and has not renounced or lost citizenship) or naturalized and to which that person owes allegiance and by which he or she is entitled to be protected.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 18:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, and I won't pretend to be one. The word "immigrant" has a plain meaning that is not decided by the law, and Cruz' migration away to America fits squarely within that definition. As I pointed out a few times now, that definition does not mention citizenship. MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not about sources, it's about you admitting to all of the requirements for immigrant status while refusing to accept the term for reasons that are rather obvious, but are not supportable by Misplaced Pages policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not use an example that is actually like this situation. John McCain was born in Panama and then moved to the US, but he was not considered an emigrate. Cruz's parents never immigrated to Canada, they were US nationals working in Canada for a US firm. Simple answer, find some RS that call Cruz an immigrant. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, why not? Unfortunately, McCain isn't parallel because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under US control, not in Panama. In his case, the US Senate had to get involved, voting that he counts as a natural-born citizen. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to get this back on track, the argument for calling him an immigrant is pretty straightforward: he unambiguously and uncontroversially qualifies for the dictionary definition. We all agree that he was born in one country and moved permanently to another. That's immigration, full stop.
We don't need a source to apply that word directly to him, and regardless, we have plenty of sources that speak of the views of immigration attorneys being consulted. If Cruz isn't an immigrant, why are we asking immigration attorneys? Why does he need to see one to arrange renouncing his Canadian citizenship?
There's no shame in being Canadian or being an immigrant. It's not a WP:BLP violation in any way. It's just that it doesn't necessarily work well with his all-American, anti-immigration image. While this offers a convincing explanation of the motivation of those who refuse to allow the article to state this plain fact, it's not something policy supports. MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone ever said there was shame in being from Canada. He renouced any Canadian citizenship he may have because you cannot have dual citizenship to be president, which would be the logical conclusion of his statement. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that's correct. He said he was willing to renounce Canadian citizenship, but he hasn't yet done so. It's not a quick process, so even if he started, it would not be completed yet. Also, I don't believe there's anything in your Constitution about dual-citizenship for the President. It's certainly a political liability, but it doesn't appear to be a legal one. This is what our sources say.
In any case, there doesn't seem to be any policy that stands in the way of describing him as an emigrant from Canada. He was born in Canada, then permanently relocated to America. That's immigration by the dictionary definition.
For some reason, editors keep raising completely irrelevant points. His age when he left the country of his birth is irrelevant, as even a newborn would qualify as an immigrant. His parents immigrating or not is also irrelevant, as they're not the ones we're identifying as immigrants. His American citizenship is irrelevant, as nothing in the definition speaks of citizenship. The facts are clear. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just full protected due to the edit warring. Please settle the matter here instead. Note that semi-protection will need to be manually re-added when full protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That's probably unnecessary. MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was definitely on the cautious side, but there were 7 reverts in 48 hours, which is about enough to justify protection, in my mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really complaining, as it wasn't unreasonable. The reason I say it was probably unnecessary is that, at least now, there seems to be some attempt to discuss it, with little interest in warring over it. MilesMoney (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protection has been restored following the expiration of the full protection. --Allen3 21:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The idea that Cruz immigrated to the U.S. when his U.S. citizen parents moved back to the U.S. is strange. The category should not be readded. If proponents for thsi category are so sure of themselves they can find a reliable source for their position, one that states that Cruz immigrated to the United States when he was 4. Good luck with that silliness. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to start an edit war. I believed that since he was born in Canada and then moved to the USA, that he is an emigrant from Canada to the USA. I was not thinking of anything regarding the birther nonsense. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it your position that the children of American citizens living abroad have to immigrate when their families move back to the U.S.? What sources support this argument? What sources discuss Cruz as an immigrant to the U.S.? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought that immigration was moving from one country to another permanently and getting citizenship of the destination country. I was unaware of any laws that allow anyone to be born outside of the US and still be considered a natural-born citizen when I made the change, so I believed that he must have gained US citizenship somehow. Nobody has asked for reliable sources in categories before when I added them as long as the text supported the category. I believed that the text supported the category. Jesse Viviano (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That is, categories would stand if they are supported by reliably sourced texts. I felt that since he was born in Canada and that he moved to the US and is now a US citizen that it would be a simple matter to call him a Canadian emigrant to the US. I honestly did not want any controversy on the article over this. Jesse Viviano (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cruz was born in Calgary. However, his mother was a U.S. citizen. This seems to qualify him as a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and hence eligible to serve as President of the United States. However, he has not even run for President yet, let alone been elected President, so we really don't know how a court would react if someone challenged his eligibility. His birthplace is poiitically relevant only because of the recent controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility to be President. Obama's mother was also a U.S. citizen, but there are lingering (albeit grossly improbable) rumors that he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I hasten to add, there is no evidence that Cruz was born in Kenya rather than Calgary. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
A citizen of Mexico who comes to the Unites States illegally and never obtains citizenship is called an immigrant. Immigration does not require changing your citizenship. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
All immigration requires is transferring residence from one jurisdiction to another. This distinguishes someone who was born to parents living in Canada who later moves to America from someone who was born to parents vacationing in Canada but who live in America returning to America. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The use of the category has a specific intent which is not held true by such a basic interpretation. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Where does intent enter into anything? WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why is there controversy about identifying Cruz as an emigrant from Canada? He was born there, and he subsequently went (was taken) to live in the USA. Some seem to be saying that he can't be an immigrant in the US because he was a US citizen already -- but that's not a criterion, there were many immigrants in the UK in the 1950s who came to Britain holding UK citizenship but who nonetheless were immigrants per any reasonable understanding of the term. What's the big deal? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there shouldn't be any controversy about this fact, but it's not hard to see why some editors resist its inclusion. Turns out there's reason to fear that this fact is politically damaging. There are reliable sources which point out the irony between Cruz' anti-immigrant stance and his foreign birth, though others fail to see anything odd about it. There are others which question the Constitutionality of Cruz being President, though most agree it's just a minor impediment.
While this explains the resistance, it doesn't justify it. Lots of facts have political consequences, but we include them because they're facts. Nothing about WP:BLP says we need to lie to further the careers of politicians. MilesMoney (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That's just hogwash. You have repeatedly chosen to ignore the fact that under U.S. law, Cruz was a citizen, a native if you will, was not an immigrant. I have opened this discussion above in this section and you ignored it. I raised the topic on your talk page and you ignored it. I have created its own section on this talk page below and you have ignored it. You are choosing to ignore these facts because these facts do not fit with your version of reality. Respond to the question at hand. If Cruz was a U.S. citizen, a native of the U.S., how can he be an immigrant. You initially attempted to swat away these facts by pointing to Brin of Google, but I pointed out that Brin was not a U.S. citizen when his parents brought him to the U.S. Cruz was a U.S. citizen. Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen. Neither of Brin's parents were U.S. citizens. You are attempting to ignore these facts. Please speak to these facts.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not at all productive for you to repeat arguments which have been defeated. Immigration does not require changing citizenship, as the "illegal" immigrants from Mexico to America show. Remember?
As for my speculation about motives, it was in direct response to an honest question and I believe it has some merit. We all have our reasons for being here, and I'm open about mine. I've noticed how certain editors treat the notion of being Canadian as some deathly insult, and as a Canadian, I find that insulting. This, along with an interest in article accuracy, is my motivation. Where we differ is that facts and policy support my conclusion. MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That is more hogwash. You have not "defeated" my arguments. You are just one editor who is standing on an anthill pounding his chest saying that he has climbed Mount Everest. You haven't defeated anything. What you have done is run from the facts of the situation. Cruz is a native of the U.S. and he is a native of Canada. You can't immigrate to a country of which you are a citizen/native. I have found definition after definition of immigration that does not align with the outcome that you want and now the discussion has devolved into you pounding your chest like Leonid Brezhnev pounding his shoe on the table yelling we will defeat you. Calm down, come back to this world and explain why we have to ignore the facts, specifically the definition provided by U.S. law, the definition in the Free Dictionary, the definition in the Misplaced Pages article, the definition is the Open Dictionary of the English language and only focus on the Webster's definition? Please explain why you are the only editor who can decide what definition to follow. Please explain why your definition is superior to the vast majority of other definitions that do not agree with you.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
If there's anything more counterproductive than repeating what's been refuted, it's posturing and borderline personal attacks. MilesMoney (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh by the way, do not assume you know that I consider "being Canadian as a deathly insult". That is just more total hogwash. You can be "insulted" all you want. I can't control your feelings. Only you can control you feelings. But I do know that whether you are "insulted" or not has nothing to do about whether an edit should be done to the article. No one ever said that "being Canadian" is a "deathly insult" other than you. So what we have here is another attempt to ignore the facts. Make up an insult, pretend to be highly "instulted" and then spend time dealing with MilesMoney's feelings. (See Feelings (song).) The focus here is facts and the facts are that the majority of definitions of "immigration" require that a person move to a county of which they are not a native or a citizen. Cruz was native to both Canada and the U.S. so the vast majority of definitions of immigration do not apply to him. You want to talk about your feelings ("Feelings, Wo-o-o feelings, Wo-o-o feelings, Again in my heart.") Focus on the definitions that do not agree with your position.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to be open, I explained my motives. I don't see how your hostile response here is at all relevant. I also don't see you being as open about your own motives. MilesMoney (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Motives are not relevant--neither my motives or your motives. We don't need to discuss it. Also, you should not speculate on my motives and you should not say you know what my motives are because you don't know.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If this is related to the above discussion, I can't find the word "immigrant" or "immigration"" noted anywhere in the very first cite you've listed. Do any of these sources refer to Cruz as an immigrant or discuss his supposed immigration? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It is related to one of the above discussions. SA added it as a seperate section, I should have just fixed it then. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
IQ
There is nothing in this article about his extremely high IQ. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
If we mention his IQ, we'll also need to mention this. MilesMoney (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 22 October 2013
I would like to print the information on Ted Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Conejo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hutchison: Obamacare defunding ‘wrong approach’ by Cruz
Since the media has already compared the two on this issue, I think that her comments are notable. Hcobb (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Death Threats as a result of the shutdown
Because of Cruz' involvement in the government shutdown, there have been a significant number of death threats against him.
I believe there should be a mention in his biography.
ProudGamecock (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of references to support and not just the opinion of undue weight. ProudGamecock (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, people in public office get threatened all the time with this kind of crap, but I don't think it warrants inclusion on their Bio. I could see possibly this kind of information being included on the article talking about the shutdown as this is a direct result of the shutdown. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
As long as there is a section titled, Affordable Care Act and U.S. government shutdown of 2013 on Senator Cruz's bio article then part of the story is the aftermath which UNFORTUNATELY includes death threats. ProudGamecock (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Gotta agree here. The death threats are very relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Arzel. To be worthy of inclusion, there must be something particularly noteworthy about the death threats. To ProudGamecock's point I might agree, but only if the sources show a causal connection between Cruz's political position and the death threats AND that those death threats are somehow more significant and noteworthy than the natural "background noise" level of death threats that are a natural part of the political process. Failing to include a special standard for the death threats inclusion that differentiates between these (alleged) death threats and the standard, "run of the mill" death threats is biased, as it uses wikipedia to further the political opinion that the Government Shut-down was so "bad" that it provoked death threats, which would then require Misplaced Pages to include the opposing view that the Government Shut-down was a "good" thing in that it proved to the American People that they could survive without the American Government supporting them as if they were helpless parasites incapable of surviving on their own, furthering the left's political agenda of encouraging dependence upon the government and excluding the Producers from the political process while enslaving them to the Parasites.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
What INS (now known as CIS) immigration paperwork do you believe that Cruz filled out (or his parent's) when he moved to Houston from Calgary? An immigrant to the U.S., according to U.S. law, must have the proper immigration paperwork in hand. What was that paperwork that Cruz had to fill out and present to an immigration official? Also, please explain how the definition of "citizen" and the definition of "alien" under the U.S. immigration laws applied to Cruz. If Cruz was not a "citizen" then he was an "alien" or "immigrant". You want to characterize him as an "immigrant". Another name for that designation is "alien". I believe most people find him to be a U.S. citizen and not an alien or immigrant, but you claim that the category for immigrants applies so I need to understand your logic. Please advise. I will help you out by providing you with the applicable definitions (since you like definitions so much) under the U.S. law:
Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. Permanent Resident Alien Definition
Citizenship: The country in which a person is born (and has not renounced or lost citizenship) or naturalized and to which that person owes allegiance and by which he or she is entitled to be protected.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 18:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear that definition vary. The U.S. laws are very clear on who is an immigrant and who isn't. According to U.S. law, Ted Cruz was not/is not an immigrant to the U.S. He is a citizen. Now, Sergey Brin and Mila Kunis were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents, but they were not U.S. citizens when they arrived. They were immigrants. Their parents were not U.S. citizens. Their parents were immigrants. Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen. Ted Cruz was a U.S. citizen. They were not immigrants they were citizens.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, the Webster's Dictionary definition of immigration that you have been using to support your view is not the only definition of immigration and it is not the majority view. Immigration has been defined by every sovereign country of the world and the vast majority of them do not use the Webster's definition, which is a very broad definition. The TheFreeDictionary.com, which Misplaced Pages quotes in its article on immigration, has a more narrow definition, which is as follows: "To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native." Cruz was a citizen of both Canada and the U.S. and therefore in either country he was a native and not an immigrant.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
If you shop around to enough dictionaries, I'm sure you can find one with a more narrow definition. I don't see how this is even interesting, much less persuasive. I also have no idea where you get the notion that you can judge what the majority view is. Is your middle name "Pew"? MilesMoney (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me just point out that MilesMoney did sign his personal attack on me in the first place. I then edited the comment with a signature and MilesMoney removed the signature twice. After I told him to stop removing the signature that indicated that the comment was his he then modified the signature and removed the notations that someone else had to add his signature. Let's be clear that comment was not signed, he attempted remove the signature that other put on it, and then finally removed the notation that others signed the comment for him.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. There is no personal attack. Regardless, I fixed the signature. His speculation to the contrary is a violation of WP:AGF. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. There is no speculation. I reported facts. You refused to sign and then later after your signature was added you removed the signature. All of the links are there to support these facts.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me point out that there is no standard in Misplaced Pages where we decide if an edit is appropriate based upon whether you, MilesMoney, find it "interesting." Thankfully that is not a standard. Also, you don't find it persuasive because it does not align with your what find to be important facts. You want to use your definition because it is the definition that fits what you want to do. You want to ignore the definition that flat out dispute what you want the definition of "immigrant" to be. It is as simple as that. Your response here is still just a non-response because you chosen to ignore facts that don't agree with your view of the world.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The existence of more restrictive definitions does not affect the more common, broad one. This is the same thing you tried and failed when you played lawyer earlier. MilesMoney (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source that Cruz is normally described as an immigrant? If not, then neither should we. While the term could be broadly interpreted, as in George H.W. Bush was a Texas immigrant, that is not how it is normally understood. TFD (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Steven Lubet's Salon.com Biased article on Cruz
Some research was done by Steven Lubet writing in Salon regarding Cruz's US citizenship. Although he may be, he has not produced the documentation required by Canada to renounce his Canadian citizenship. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/20/ted_cruzs_origins_continue_to_haunt_him/. Should there be any reference made to this? SeamusCraic (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what we can add to our article about Ted Cruz that is notable from the Steven Lubet Salon.com article. I read the article your pointed out and I have read his other rants on Cruz's citizenship status and as far as I can tell he has some very strong opinions but that is all they are. He does not provide new information that other sources have not already provided. Yes, he is a professor of law, but that does not make him an expert on what "natural born" means. He doesn't have any new information that the twenty other sources have not already pointed out--sources that I might add that are not as obviously partisan as him. The article is in Salon.com, clearly a left-wing opinion publication. He entitled the article, "Ted Cruz’s origins continue to haunt him"--which is clearly biased because nothing about his citizenship situation "haunt" him in any way. That is old-fashioned left-wing hype. Editor SeamusCraic claims that Lubet has done "ome research" which shows that Cruz has not "produced the documentation required by Canada." Wow. If that is all Lubet's got then he has nothing at all. What Lubet claims that he has is that he made some phone calls and searched the Internet. Let's just point out that what Lubet has done is no big deal. Cruz was just recently interviewed by Jorge Ramos, Univision news anchor, and Ramos asked Cruz directly about Cruz's Canadian citizenship renouncement process and Cruz explained that he is working on it. America with Jorge Ramos on Fusion So what is claimed by Salon.com and Lubet is a big, fat zero. If anyone has any kind of new information on Cruz's citizenship status it is Jorge Ramos, who is much more well-known than Lubet and he is much less partisan and biased than Lubet. Lubet's article is not notable. SeamusCraic, I would ask where the notability is in the article? Where's the beef? And if there is a shred of beef in the article, please remember that the Ted Cruz article is subject to the proposition that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Please see: WP:NOTNEWS.--NK (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Your response makes no sense. You did not fix anything. I repeat Lubet's article has no meat. It is a nothing burger.--NK (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Correction:Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
The article on Ted Cruz incorrectly states that as an attorney, he successfully defended the pledge of allegiance before the United States Supreme Court. This is incorrect. In this case, before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff-father was found to lack legal standing and the case was dismissed. The way the article reads, it sounds like Ted Cruz caused the United States Supreme Court to approve of the mandatory pledge off allegiance in classrooms. The Supreme Court never made such a ruling.
Others have pointed out this error.
How does it get corrected.
Cruz authored a U.S. Supreme Court brief for all 50 states successfully defending the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, winning 9-0 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.
Cited above is the language from the Ted Cruz article. Note that the footnoted article do not support the language in the main article.Carlos4179 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No. The article is correct. Cruz wrote a brief in support of the proposition that the non-custodial parent does not have standing to challenge the pledge of allegiance. Cruz's team won the case and therefore successfully defended the pledge of allegiance. Also, the court's opinion was 9-0, no dissent. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the concurring majority opinion where he specifically upholds the pledge of allegiance and rules that the non-custodial parent had standing. Rehnquist, who Cruz used to work for, agreed with Cruz's brief that the pledge of allegiance does not violate the Constitution. It was not "corrected" before because it does not need to be corrected. There is no error to correct.--NK (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I re-wrote the information and re-inserted it. You could have (and should have) re-wrote the information to fix the suspected copyright violation.--NK (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the article on Ted Cruz it says "Cruz also supports a federal definition of marriage and opposes same-sex marriage." However in an interview with Jay Leno Cruz clearly states that he thinks gay marriage should be left to the states. Thanks for your attention to the matter. http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/senator-ted-cruz-on-gay-marriage/n43013108.192.44.110 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sen. Ted Cruz represented the US Senate at the Funeral of Nelson Mandela, and was the only US Senator there. Should this be added in the article? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Cruz also touched on a pair of hot-button social issues that have crowded the headlines throughout 2013, standing by his opposition to same-sex marriage and universal background checks for gun buyers.
This directly supports the statement that Cruz opposes same-sex marriage. There is absolutely no WP:OR or WP:BLP issue here, and the accusation of vandalism is not only meritless but a violation of WP:AGF and other policies. Remember, even if my change was in some way bad (and it's not), vandalism requires intent to damage. MilesMoney (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Already done -Ryan 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed
. I guess we're finished here. Adieu. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not done:. If there is a specific change you want made to the article, please state specifically what that change is, including reliable sources cited. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
