Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Presidential election 2020.

It is necessary to cover how Ted Cruz- as well as a majority of other Republican senators - has handled the 2020 Presidential election. As interesting as it is to read about semifinals in debating competitions during education time, principle issues regarding democracy, and connected to the senators actual work and character must be deemed more important. I have no intention on writing that section, but urge those who contributes to articles about senators to do so. Now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronerik (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Ronerik (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with Heidi Cruz, his spouse, being in the last sentence of the lead?

Someone with common sense, please point me in the direction of where it is now wrong to put in the lede that a married man is married and a father (a biographical fact which is par for the course of almost all BLP articles when the other person has their own article and notability) without giving the inference that one measly sentence makes the entire article about said spouse—a relationship that attracts a significant amount of political attention to him because of it’s ties to a bank. Should Hillary Clinton be removed from Bill Clinton because it makes his article seem to be about her? Why do Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio belong there but his own family doesn’t.... Does WP:LEAD not say that these paragraphs are to sum out the article’s important points, making it categorically irrelevant if it is a redundancy? I’ll wait for CharlesShirley to explain since he knows everything. Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of people with biographies have a spouse and children, not all, of course, but the vast majority do. It is not something that makes Cruz unique or what he is know for. The lede section should focus on what makes the person unique or well-know for. If you review the biographies of people that have Wikipedia articles then you will see that very few, almost none have the fact that they have a spouse and children listed in the lede section. This addition goes against MOS and it goes against how the vast majority of biography articles are written. You have not provided any reason why there should be an exception for Heidi Cruz. Comparing Ms. Cruz and Hillary Clinton is like comparing apples to oranges. Ms. Clinton has many, many accomplishments that make her eligible for an article of her own, and of course there is. Heidi Cruz barely got an article. You can see that discussion here: Debate to delete HC, Result: Keep. (By the way, I think the discussion to delete her article was hogwash. I never saw the reason to delete her article.) There was many, many people that objected to her article and it was almost deleted after being made. This did not happen to Clinton. Clinton was First Lady, U.S. Senator from NY, and Democratic Presidential candidate twice. Ms. Cruz does not have these accomplishments. The body of the Ted Cruz article mentions her in the Personal life section and her children, as is the practice on most biographies. If the mention of Cruz's fellow Cuban colleagues in the Senate is your real concern, then maybe that sentence should be removed from the lede section. But adding the name of a spouse and the number of children, when we do not do that for other biographies is not acceptable. It does not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and it is not notable enough and it does not follow standard Wikipedia practice--especially since having a spouse and children is not a unique aspect of anyone's life and it is not the reason Ted Cruz is well-known in the first place. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs should generally be followed, and the opening paragraph of a biographical article should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context.'' The opening paragraph should usually state:

1. 1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
   2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
   3. Context (location or nationality);
   4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;
   5. Why the person is notable.''

Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable person, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of their relationships. Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Whataboutism or what about Gates, Clooney, Beckham, and Clinton

The editor who is demanding that Ted Cruz's wife and children be mentioned in the opening paragraph has a serious case of Whataboutism. Even though, there is really zero reasons to respond to this illogical argument (one might say, fantastical), I will attempt to fight the illogical with logic. Wish me Good Luck! So the editor–—who is obsessed with putting Heidi Cruz and Heidi's and Ted's children in the opening section–—provided a lecture with zero facts about how, in that editor's mind, Wikipedia editors put spouses and children in the opening section all the time and the names provided for this false claim were: (1) Bill Gates, (2) George Clooney, (3) David Beckham, and (4) Bill Clinton.

Now, this is a matter of comparing apples to oranges, but let's go down this rathole anyway, shall we?:

(1) Gates. In Gates article opening section, Melinda Gates is not mentioned once. However, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is mentioned, but not Melinda Gates personally. But if it is so important to have the spouse and the children mentioned in the opening section then why isn't the probably the wealthiest woman in the world not mentioned in the opening section or the Gates children? Ms. Gates has her own article. The Gates's have three children, but you have to dig long and hard to find that in Wikipedia. It is mentioned in Melinda Gates article.

(2) Clooney. In the Clooney article opening section, Amal Clooney is mentioned in the last sentence. The children of the Clooney power couple are not mentioned at all in the opening section. Nor should they be.

(3) Beckham. In Becks article opening section, Victoria Beckham is not mentioned, nor are their children (nor should they be). The article did mention Posh Spice in the Personal life section since that is where it belongs.

(4) Clinton. In the Clinton article opening section, Hillary Clinton is mentioned as Bill's spouse, but as we discussed before she deserves to be there based upon her life as First Lady, U.S. Senator from NY, Democratic Prez candidate twice, and Secretary of State and because of her life long working relationship with her spouse. The one spawn of their union, Chelsea Clinton, was not mentioned in the opening section at all. As it should be.

So this covers all of the whataboutism that a certain editor threw out willy-nilly. This review makes it clear that Heidi Cruz should be mentioned in the Personal life section and not in the opening section, to be consistent with Wikipedia MOS and standard practice, as these examples prove. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: See this is how I’m sure you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about. You linked to Pirates of Silicon Valley, a tv movie.... Yet Bill Gates’s actual article mentions on multiple occasions in the lead that he and his wife Melinda Gates do tons of charity work together. You linked to a random George Clooney film instead of just going to his article, called George Clooney, where the last sentence of the lead is that he is married to human rights lawyer Amal Clooney. You linked to Bend It Like Beckham, which is a movie about teenage girls... Yet in his own article which wasn’t hard to find by typing his actual name in the search bar, the lead section says clear as day He has been married to Victoria Beckham since 1999 and they have four children. Have you lost the plot? Maybe you just went out of your way for a straw man because the evidence was irrefutable and you had to scramble to make something up by piping. With that said I have no choice but to reinstate and if it goes to the noticeboard, oh well, I have all year. I raise your whataboutism for I-don’t-like-it-ism. I was simply giving random examples of a common standard for popular Biographies of Living Persons when the partner is blue-linked. I’ll put it past you as you apparently only have a very narrow editorial interest and have only have been here what, a year? yet, strangely, want to behave as if you have rollback rights. Donald Trump’s article’s lead section mentions none of his wives or children and one of them is the current First Lady of the United States, one of them is currently a Senior Advisor to the President. It removes a large chunk of his life and public image, especially as president. Hillary Rodham was only used as an example of a political spouse, irrespective of feminism and political equality. I could’ve pulled lower hanging fruit but obviously my point got across. One deletion discussion had nothing to do with the other—oh wait, isn’t that whataboutism?! As an article, Hillary Clinton was created 19 years ago. It’s one of the oldest biographical articles on here. In what version of reality does ONE sentence of ~100 characters, not even a tweet of length, make an entire article about someone else or make it too long? You are the only person who thinks this drivel. Who died and made you the bard? What makes you think you decide what is “acceptable” when you don’t even know what’s what? You don’t even know what the de facto is. So Heidi Cruz doesn’t so-called contribute enough to notability yet was making headline after headline for fundraising her husband’s presidential campaign. How’s that work? On International Women’s Day, she was especially chosen for the Did You Know feature for the fact that she outearns her husband several times over. That isn’t notable? Nothing I wrote was out of line. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. You are hilarious and delusional. I had a great time linking to both the main article for each of your examples that proved my point AND movies about them. You just keep attacking me about lack of authority. I don't have any authority. I don't claim to have any authority. That's why I pointed to the Wikipedia rules, tons of them. Your edit does not follow the basic principal of Wikipedia that the opening section is not about spouse and children and each of the examples you gave proves it, on top of the Wikipedia rules, of course. The length of my response (and the length of your response) proves nothing. Also, all of your strange comments saying things about me, when you don't know me, don't prove anything. (You talk about those made up things about me because you have no valid argument in relation to Wikipedia's rules.) The opening paragraph is not about Heidi Cruz or their children. It is as simple as that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What in the world do movies about these people and or movies they acted in have anything to do with the subject of family? Let alone acting as if a movie is their name. The delusional one here is someone who did those mental sommersaults only to fall flat. You have once again lost grasp on logic and reality. Bordering on pure stupidity. What you’re saying is not making any damn sense. And it doesn’t change the fact that their lead sections said exactly what I said they said (and still do), which I put in verbatim quote. Try to use common sense. One doesn’t have to go to Just Friends to see that Ryan Reynolds is married to Blake Lively with whom he has three daughters. in his own article. No one does that! Loud and wrong, you are. On top of the fact that one standard sentence does not, by any stretch of the English language, completely reorient an article about someone else when the entire rest of the article says otherwise. It’s simply the fact that if a family member is notable, they are allowed to be in the lead. It’s not ABOUT those people. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. You get upset about absolutely nothing. The rules of Wikipedia do not support your addition. I find it funny how upset you get. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Once again, the rules say nothing about specifically excluding a notable family member with an article, being as it's literally in countless biographies of living persons all over this website. Your argument against me is that it should be excluded because his marriage is not what makes him notable, when I never said it did. There's no inherited notability going on here as Heidi Cruz is already independently notable as a businessperson. It simply follows the standard of completing (or giving context to) the lead. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley said in an edit summary that Trillfendi has "not gathered the appropriate consensus to make this edit". I agree with that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And you chose your edit summary to be my headline, what else is new. Consensus didn’t need to be gathered for something uncontroversial (unlike the hidden note in the lead) that there was never consensus against. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi:As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again!". You are misstating (or ignoring) Wikipedia rules. Of course, you must get consensus to add information with which others disagree. And your addition goes against Wikipedia rules because Ted Cruz's spouse and children are not what made him well-known. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: And you're misstating me. The same way you resorted to random, irrelevant-to-the-topic movies. Yet when I provided numerous examples to the contrary you're the one saying I'm using whataboutism (for a fact that exists in spite of your cognitive dissonance) then resorting to calling me "upset". You still never provided a policy-backed rule excluding something so common and pervasive throughout the encyclopedia. Absolutely nothing [[here or here remotely says anything about the sort. Just because it's your interpretation, doesn't make it an edict. If you went and did that on other biographies of living persons, let alone those with a more positive reputation, you'd be swiftly reverted. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There you go again! Talking about other biographies. You got nothing. The more you talk the clearer that gets. And your jumping up and down and pounding your feet makes you argument even less persuasive, if possible. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: I’m talking about BLP itself, clearly. It’s sad that something as routine as just getting around to responding to a disagreement (3 weeks later, no less) is depicted in your mind as some sexist, woman-scorned tirade, instead of what is supposed to be an all but civilized conversation. Maybe you get a cheap thrill out of hallucinating the idea of me jumping up and down and pounding [my] feet—sorry to disappoint, but I’m anticlimatically sitting here as one does to type. Not that I have to difnify that absurd idea anyway. On top of it being quite ironic that someone who apparently is banned from editing on certain topics wants to accuse me of breaking the rules™. Thankfully, I have no issue with turning to higher methods of content dispute resoution. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. You are hilarious. You claim to be retired, but yet you go on raging rants! There is nothing to talk about. Ms. Cruz should not be mentioned in the opening section. It doesn't follow the Wikipedia rules. It is not necessary. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: I’ve neither claimed to be "retired" (I literally created a page yesterday, how active is that), raged, nor ranted. Seems to be you doing that instead. Since you believe that, go ahead and join the Request for Comment and let others speak their mind on it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to clarify "false claims" of fraud and an attempt to overturn the 2020 election

Currently, the article contains flimsy text that muddies the waters. The text must state that Biden won the 2020 election, the claims of fraud in the election are "false", Cruz is seeking to overturn the results of the election, and the he leads to effort to refuse certification of the Electoral College vote. In other words, the text that was reverted here[1] should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead figure in far-right conspiracy theory, yet absent from article

Given that Cruz is actively propagating the far-right 'Stop the steal' conspiracy theory, the absence of this information from the article is surprising. A prominent US senator adopting overt fascist rhetoric in a coup attempt to try to overturn the US elections is highly notable and should be mentioned both in the lead and (prominently) in the article. Presenting Cruz as "just a normal politician" is not consistent with WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Ted Cruz Hispanic?

His mother is white American (Irish/Italian), his father is from the Canary Islands, though he was born in Cuba. That doesn't appear to be "Hispanic" by any definition of the word. Thalia42 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Irrefutably. Trillfendi (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is the argument that he is not Hispanic? His surname is Spanish and his dad was from Cuba. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment: Ted Cruz lead paragraph

Should the lead section conclude with one sentence about his family (being that two of his family members meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability itself by having articles), just like most large biographies of living persons typically do, in a neutral manner and without giving an inference of perceived "inherited notability" and / or granting notability to the subject? Or is it really against a policy and does the one sentence make the article about them? I’m here to get consensus as I allegedly didn’t do that by including something I assumed to be a non-issue in its ubiquity. And that I’ve seen nothing in the Manual of Style explicitly against it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment-- Why exactly is this DUE for the lead? Has his wife been a major contributor to his notability? If not, then shouldn't this just remain in the Personal Life section? That kinda seems like the whole point of having a Personal Life section. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RfC See WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, not appropriate to include in the lead. Keep it focused on his notability. Glendoremus (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of 3rd paragraph needs a year reference

This: "Cruz faced a strong backlash after filing objections to the certification of Electoral College votes following the storming of the Capitol, with numerous calls for his resignation.", should be preceded by this. "In Janaury 2021...". Also, perhaps we should omit the word "strong" or possibly, state from whom the "backlash" has emanated. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Place of birth

In my 14 odd years on this website, have never seen an inline warning quite like...<-- DO NOT add the birth place of Ted Cruz in the lead section other than in the infobox; it violates MOS (see MOS:BLPLEAD) and consensus is against it. --> Makes no sense as it is mentioned in the article body; we are always told the lead should surmise the later text. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS seems to only discourage "Rafael Edward Cruz (/kruːz/; born December 22, 1970, somewhere in Canada)". We may be confusing our guidelines here. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're looking at hidden text from a 12 July 2016 edit by FreeMediaKid!, who seems to be saying that adding the place of birth would be against consensus. I think that's correct, for example I see this discussion in the archives. But see also the guideline about Inappropriate uses for hidden text. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. The arguments from that discussion make sense; ok now with retaining the inline comment. Apologies Trillfendi for the revert. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should cover Cruz's shift from a Trump critic to staunch Trump ally, culminating in Cruz's anti-democratic maneuver to overturn the 2020 election over Trump's false and baseless claims of fraud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This shift has been prominently discussed in RS for at least two years now. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The article doesn't contain a lot of information on his relationship with Trump. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the most important part of Cruz' political role and legacy, and what he is known for globally. --Tataral (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a classic case of recentism. Also, the sentence that was added was clearly not neutral in nature--just take a look of the comments of editor above who started this topic. The comments are written with an agenda in mind. Also, the Trump info is a small, fraction of Cruz's life and career. It does not merit being in the opening lead. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. As is what he will be primarily remember for. Speaking as a detached non US citizen, although married to an American ex-pat and thus possibly biased, it's mostly why he has ever received coverage in Europe or Britain. I dont agree with the recentism argument, as he has now supported Trump for a significant proportion of his career. Further his position became increasingly extreme, especially and obviously so in last 2 months, and also he was a leading figure in inciting the 6 January riot.Irish times...Those who threw in their lot with Donald Trump are now tied to his mob. This is how he is seen internationally...In his speech, Cruz said the fact that so many Americans believed the election was a fraud posed “a profound threat to our country”. Here was a classic case of the arsonist posing as a firefighter. Domestically see the Washington Post lead..Ted Cruz’s electoral vote speech will live in infamy. History books are being written. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Snooganssnoogans, Tataral, and Ceoil. Cruz came to national prominence winning his election to the Senate in 2012, nine years ago. His roller-coaster relationship with Donald Trump has occupied more than half of that span, with the two easily having the most contentious relationship of all candidates during the 2016 primary campaign. In fact, it is surprising that the article makes no mention of Trump accusing Cruz's father of involvement in the assassination of JFK, or threatening to "spill the beans" on Cruz's wife (though Cruz's general response to these attacks is noted in the "after candidacy" section, no context is provided). The substantial focus of Cruz's political career since then has been on his relationship with Trump. BD2412 T 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just let's be clear. Objecting to a state's electoral votes is allowed, in this situation. The problem is the basis for the objection. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Point taken GoodDay, but it was the grounds, manner and tone. At the of risk repeat myself, in case you didn't bother read, see coverage in EU press already covered above....In his speech, Cruz said the fact that so many Americans believed the election was a fraud posed “a profound threat to our country”. Here was a classic case of the arsonist posing as a firefighter. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree and Cruz's role in a historically singular insurrection against a democratically elected administration should probably be in the first *sentence* or paragraph, not the third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.30.101 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits by User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08

I reverted two edits, which this user reverted back. See this diff. I believe the previous wording was more neutral and appropriate. The updated wording may be from reliable sources, but is politically slanted. I'm sure the wording is a lot different from a conservative news outlet such as WSJ or Fox to CNN. All are reliable. I'd opt for the neutral wording and allow readers to come to their own conclusion.

Thanks ~RAM (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, your revert of my edit claiming there is sources supporting the language you added does not check out. The source you cited in that paragraph doesn't contain ANY reference to 'conspiracy'. It refers to President Trump's claims. The wording that was there before was more appropriate. ~RAM (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ram1055 made the right call in this instance. Support the reverts. Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated claims" is far too weak in this case. They are not "unsubstantiated," they are false and baseless, and widely rejected by reliable sources and courts around the country. Something stronger than those words is necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, they are unsubstantiated, that is the proper wording. That is the wording used by the guardian, which is a predominantly left-leaning news source. Not sure what sources you have ~RAM (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ram1055 The Associated Press should suffice: Drawing on baseless conspiracies, Trump unleashed a torrent of misinformation to supporters already convinced that his defeat was unfair, unswayed by the sweeping verdict of election officials, judges and justices and Trump’s own officials in the departments of Justice and Homeland Security that the Nov. 3 election was cleanly run and fairly counted. ... Trump has been telling wildly false tales about the election outcome for two months in a flailing effort to upend Biden’s win.. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, and depending on which version of the AP article and who wrote it, you get different language. Using the more neutral tone is going to benefit the article the most.

• NBC
• NBC - another recent article using the term 'baseless' which is more in line with unsubstantiated.
• WSJ - uses the term 'false' not politically charged language.

We could go back and forth for days. At the end of the day WP:NPOV should prevail and neutral language should be used. There are reliable sources to support everything, but there's a ton of politically charged language. ~RAM (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, The Guardian source cited in the lede describes Donald Trump’s spurious claims of voter fraud - the dictionary definition of "spurious" is, indeed, false and not what it appears to be. So the cited source surely supports wording far stronger than merely "unsubstantiated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We are not a daily, commercial, newspaper. History will be born by facts, not adjectives. In other words, for the lead, prefer "unsubstantiated". Would not be so sparing in the article body section, but via facts, again not adjectives. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sponsor of domestic terrorism

Earlier, a user added a bit that labeled Cruz as a "domestic terror motivator." I think the term that should be added in is one coined by Ted Cruz himself: A sponsor of [domestic] terrorism. We strive for accuracy, right? --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:A021:4CB6:4FEE:9EBC (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Legitimize"

I am somewhat concerned about the use of the word "legitimize" in the lead in reference to the Stop the Steal conspiracy theory, which is stated as baseless in the article, and which we know to be WP:FRINGE. My concern comes from the double connotation of "legitimize": in one sense, to popularize, as Cruz did, but in another sense, to verify or confirm, which he most certainly did not. As it stands, I would recommend removing legitimize, leaving the sentence like this: "Because Cruz helped popularize the conspiracy theory that motivated the rioters, many figures from across the political spectrum argued that he bore a degree of responsibility for the riot and the five deaths it caused, and called for his resignation or expulsion from the Senate." However, I am willing to discuss this further. (I initially started this discussion at Josh Hawley, which has a near-identical sentence in the lead.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You'd be reverting this edit by LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Stevelandish (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In February 2021, as millions of Texans were without power and safe drinking water due to a series of winter storms, Cruz traveled to Cancun Mexico with his family. The trip was widely criticized and created new calls for his resignation.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We are not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Words such as "Baseless" Are Not Accurate

One need be a conspiracy theorist to have questions about the 2020 election. It only requires a room temperature IQ to realize that Michigan disqualified more votes in January 2021 than Biden's margin of victory there. In the situation of Pennsylvania, Act 77 specified a deadline of 8pm Election Day and said that otherwise mail voting was "void." The PA Supreme Court, dominated by elected Democrats, gave a 3-day extension to count votes but such power is given under the US Constitution only to the state legislature. So there were, and are, very serious questions about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election that are fact-based and in no way, shape, or form mere conspiratorial fantasy. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility at all, it can't simply adopt the Democrat talking points and brush aside the facts. There were very serious problems in vote-counting in Georgia, Arizona, and elsewhere which can't be blithely ignored by saying all such concerns are "baseless." Democrats should want a full, fair discussion and analysis of these matters in order to show Biden's legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead is UNDUE

The last paragraph of the lead about the 2020 election gives WP:UNDUE weight to Cruz's response to the election. I think this whole paragraph needs to be reduced to about 2 sentences and tucked at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've shortened the last paragraph to two sentences, though I think that it should remain its own paragraph due to Cruz's prominent role in the matter. Lyrim (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in the article about that ? (The Guardian, Politico, Bloomberg...)

• http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-11-12/is-the-republican-party-s-killer-data-app-for-real-
• https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-donor-for-data-119813
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/senator-ted-cruz-president-campaign-facebook-user-data

Sorry I don't speak or write English well enough to complete the article, but here are some sources that I think would be useful to have an encyclopedic more complete view...--Lamiot (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Please say what you would like to add or be removed in a "change X to Y" format. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"its irrelevant if they are baseless or not"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=1023179503&oldid=1023120664

it most certainly is relevant, Nerguy. soibangla (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cancun Trip

Should be added chronologically below the Capitol Attack section. via Houston Chronicle: Sen. Ted Cruz pins controversial Cancún flight on 'wanting to be a good dad' amid calls to resign https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Did-Sen-Ted-Cruz-fly-to-Canc-n-amid-the-Texas-15959773.php

via Vox: How Ted Cruz’s ill-fated trip to Cancun blew up from Twitter rumor to major scandal https://www.vox.com/2021/2/18/22289273/ted-cruz-cancun-scandal?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_medium=social

Or both could be folded into a "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.234.133 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A controversies section is unlikely per WP:CSECTION. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

These additions are not necessary at all. There's nothing noteworthy about a man taking a vacation. Innican Soufou (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's noteworthy if reliable sources are covering it, which they are. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's just a man going on vacation. It's not noteworthy. Innican Soufou (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Take that up with the news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok buddy. Innican Soufou (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion , news coverage doesnt "always" make something noteworthy. That is why we have guidelines like WP:NOTABLOG , so that an encyclopedia doesn't become overwhelmed with fluff pieces/clickbait articles, as there are many of these articles written about contentious figures such as politicians ( this in case it's Ted Cruz). I'm honestly on the fence if this particular instance does pass the WP:10YT, which I find is the best way to see if something is noteworthy. So I think it should remain (unless a consensus builds to remove it), but it honestly could be written a little more neutrally/factually.Eruditess (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cruz for Senate vs. FEC

There should be a mention in this article about the constitutional court case, TED CRUZ FOR SENATE, et al., Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 19-cv-908 (NJR) (APM) (TJK), United States District Court, District of Columbia, June 3, 2021. The Federal court ruled that the FEC cannot limit the amount of money raised and used by a federal candidate to pay back loans to an election campaign, loans from the candidate to the campaign. A copy of the court's decision is here: Cruz v FEC. An article about the case is here: Ted Cruz wins FEC lawsuit over $10K campaign loan. -- --2601:2C6:C080:4070:2967:CC16:1843:4782 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

add Category:Law clerks of J. Michael Luttig 204.80.86.96 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed format of this request so it is a little clearer. Not sure if category does not exist or is misspelled. RudolfRed (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Category does not exist. Per MOS:CATORDER, articles should not be left with redlink categories. Once the category page has been created, please feel free to reopen this request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ted Cruz's elementary school

This Dallas Morning News article stated Cruz attended a "West Briar School"

• "Senate candidate Ted Cruz aims to pick up mantle of Reagan". The Dallas Morning News. 2012-04-29. Retrieved 2021-09-18.

And in Houstonia Magazine it was stated Cruz identified it as a private elementary school. However Scott Vogel of Houstonia could not determine which "West Briar School" it was, and the only school with a similar name is a public middle school in Houston ISD, West Briar Middle School (since it opened in 2002 it is not possible for Ted Cruz to have gone there, as Cruz was born in 1970).

• Vogel, Scott (2015-09-01). "Vetting Ted Cruz's Presidential Resumé". Houstonia Magazine. Retrieved 2021-09-18.

Due to concerns with WP:UNDUE I omitted the elementary school question entirely as it's relatively insignificant related to Cruz's biography, but I have a note here for editors who want to identify where Cruz went to school before Awty. (There seems to be no dispute at all that Cruz went to Awty, and both Houstonia and DMN stated he went to Awty, with the former stating it was for junior high specifically) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ted Cruz comment on Donald Trump’s extensive tweeting

Reverted quote:

He said of Donald Trump: "I wake up every day and laugh at the latest thing Donald has tweeted, because he’s losing it. We need a commander in chief, not a Twitterer in chief. We need someone with judgment and the temperament to keep this country safe."

My revision was reverted for the following reason : « Significant POV issue, because his comment from February 2016 does not show how he fell in line behind Trump after losing the nomination »

The quote has its place to help define the relationship he once had with Donald Trump and just needs to be pushed back in its chronological place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madouvit (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking one comment that he made in February 2016 is not neutral because of all that it omits. It does not "define the relationship" that they've had. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Defending the Nazi salute

Ted Cruz has been under fire recently for coming out in defense of certain individuals doing the Nazi salute at the right wing rallies in Loudoun county. Is this notable, or is it too recent? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Per this Mr Cruz merely asked a question and the reply was yes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source for political news, as you can see from their headline defending Cruz. This coverage is out of line with how other outlets covered his remarks.[2][3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I pointed to Fox and that's okay, you pointed to two opinion columns and a headline and that's okay, Mr Cruz merely asked a question and the reply was yes and that's okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Peter GulutzanThat's your interpretation. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources. If three reliable sources say Ted Cruz defended the use of the Nazi salute, while Fox News says he did not, then he was defending the nazi salute. This is not up for debate. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Got 3 RSs and a policy saying debate's not allowed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Three reliable sources, and a policy saying we go by reliable sources. Nobody says debate is not allowed. Find a reliable source that says your interpretation is the correct one, and we'll have something to debate. Right now though, there's nothing to debate because there's only one position. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Fox News is listed as no consensus, use with caution with respect to political reporting. It this case it is very clear that Cruz is defending freedom of speech/expression and the freedom of parents to, in effect, accuse their school board of acting like preverbal Nazis.[[5]]. So why would this be in his BLP? Is the intent to show he supports free speech/expression? I suspect we can do that without this example. Is it to show parts of the media misrepresented or are unable to understand the question? Well that's not really about Cruz at that point. It seems UNDUE either way. Springee (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why there would be no consensus on the reliability of Fox News, especially on political topics and science, but it's safe to say that if Fox News says one thing and all reliable sources contradict it, then the Fox version is not the incorrect one. Same for Reason. While it's listed as reliable on WP:RSP the three noticeboard discussions on it paint a completely different picture. I personally trust user:JzG's judgement on reliability, over a majority vote anyway. Hyper-partisan sources are not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. This includes the likes of The Intercept, Mother Jones, HuffPos, Slate, National Review, Reason, Weekly Standard. These sources are always open to challenge and should be removed if challenged and only reintroduced if there is consensus. The nazi salute being a statement comparing the school board to nazis is a claim Ted Cruz made. Him defending freedom of expression is how Fox and Reason report the incident. Two sources that are known to be ideologically biased in Ted Cruz's favor. Is this what reliable sources like CNN say?

So why would this be in his BLP? Is the intent to show he supports free speech/expression? I suspect we can do that without this example. Positive contentious claims that aren't supported by reliable sources aren't any more in line with WP:BLP than negative ones. This is not a neutral statement about a BLP subject. Is it to show parts of the media misrepresented or are unable to understand the question? Misrepresented? That's not on wikipedia to decide? If reliable sources say Ted Cruz defended the nazi salute, it takes something better than Fox, Reason or original research to overrule that.

This is what Shopes has to say on the topic. https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/10/28/ted-cruz-defend-nazi-salutes/ It's obvious that even if Cruz wasn't defending nazism itself, just the use of the nazi salute to draw equivalence between a school requiring people to wear masks for health reasons and Nazi Germany trivializes the holocaust, and this wouldn't be the first time he defended inappropriate nazi comparisons made by right-wingers. He also defended Gina Carano. There seems to be a pattern of behavior, defending statements and gestures that have been condemned as trivializing the holocaust. Is mentioning that undue? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

All the other sources don't contradict it. All it takes is watching the video and understanding the parents were delivering commentary on the schoolboard to see what is going on here. Look at the original incident. Are the parents actually Neo-Nazis or are they parents who are expressing frustration with their school board? It wasn't Cruz who said this was parents expressing their dislike of the school board. Cruz simply asked if such expressions are protected by the 1stA. The answer was yes. Regardless of how some wish to cast this it ultimately isn't DUE in the Cruz article and the easy solution here is to leave this out. Side note, IP editor, your vendetta against Gina Carano is not relevant here. Springee (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any supposed vendettas I may or may not have though. I brought it up because if Ted Cruz's interpretation of what the parents were doing is correct, then this is a similar case. What we have here is Ted Cruz once again jumping to the defense of someone on the right who makes an inappropriate comparison to Nazi Germany and getting condemned for trivializing the holocaust (which is odd, because these are the same folks who usually oppose nazi comparisons that are somewhat more grounded in reality than this one). The Snopes article I linked to covered the criticism of Ted Cruz for this by members of the jewish community. I don't believe this is something that can just be ignored. But that's just me. Maybe we could ask for a second opinion, or wait for further development? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Challenge of knowing

How is it possible for a man of Mr Cruz's accomplishments to make such poor choices/decisions and remarks. Case in point, his recent comments believed to be about the State of Washington and no dancing. Why make silly comments or assumptions without thinking? He surely knows the difference between a thought and thinking. He seems to operate more on thought content versus thinking. Some people start operating this way when struggling emotionally. Are there any concerns by those who know Mr Cruz the best that he is having any cognitive issues? John Rislove 71.34.249.233 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Electoral history

I've had an issue with how much space in so many articles about American politicians is taken up by multiple tables containing electoral history so I went ahead and tested out a new table that condenses the information to only what its strictly vital. The table below is the result. However, I wanted a second opinion on potentially shortening the table further. I reduced the list of opponents to only the one who they either beat or were beaten by, but is that strictly necessary? It could probably be removed. Is it necessary to include the party they ran as a member of? For individuals like Richard Shelby, who changed from Democrat to Republican, or Chuck Schumer, who runs as a member of multiple parties, I'd say include parties. But for people like Cruz, who has only ever run as a Republican, perhaps it should just be omitted entirely. What do other people think? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Year	Office	Type	Party		Main opponent	Party		Votes for Cruz				Result	Ref.
								Total	%	P.	±%
2012	Senator	Primary		Republican	David Dewhurst		Republican	480,558	34.16%	2nd	N/A	Won
		Runoff						631,812	56.82%	1st	N/A	Won
		General			Paul Sadler		Democratic	4,440,137	56.46%	1st	-5.23%	Won
2016	President	Primary		Republican	Donald Trump		Republican	7,822,100	25.08%	2nd	N/A	Lost
		Convention						551	22.3%	2nd	N/A
2018	Senator	Primary		Republican	Mary Miller		Republican	1,322,724	85.36%	1st	+51.2%	Won
		General			Beto O'Rourke		Democratic	4,260,553	50.89%	1st	-5.57%	Won

Here's what removing those modifiers (and adding swing) would look like:

Year	Office	Type	Votes				Result	Swing
			Total	%	P.	±%
2012	Senator	Primary	480,558	34.16%	2nd	N/A	Won	N/A
		Runoff	631,812	56.82%	1st	N/A	Won	N/A
		General	4,440,137	56.46%	1st	-5.23%	Won		Hold
2016	President	Primary	7,822,100	25.08%	2nd	N/A	Lost	N/A
		Convention	551	22.3%	2nd	N/A		N/A
2018	Senator	Primary	1,322,724	85.36%	1st	+51.2%	Won	N/A
		General	4,260,553	50.89%	1st	-5.57%	Won		Hold

References

Ted Cruz Birthplace.

I thought Ted Cruz was born in Canada? 100.36.232.175 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the article says so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A question about Ted Cruz running for president

I thought a person running for president of the USA had to be born in the country, my question is as Ted Cruz was born in Canada how could he run in the election? 24.68.87.19 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As noted in this article, he would have claimed that since he was born to an American citizen, and had citizenship since birth, that he met this clause. Presumably that would have been tested in courts extensively. Kuru (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

His fight against human rights

The US senator for Texas has demonstrated his opposition towards the equal protection under the law protecting love and the right for marriage for the LGBTQ+ community. 2603:7081:443F:BE00:B0C5:B5DA:D857:172E (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an opinion. Do you have suggestions for factual improvements to the article? If not, see WP:NOTFORUM. General Ization ^Talk 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Ted"

User @Mathglot reverted User @Trillfendi edit, with the following edit summary:

First, please raise this at the Talk page; second, please don't add hidden text to the WP:LEADSENTENCE. third: you are right that Ted is short for Edward, but without quotes it reads: 'Rafael Edward Ted Cruz', as if he had two middle names, 'Edward', followed by 'Ted'; clearly wrong. Check if the MOS: has something to say about this.)

The problem from my perspective is that Trillfendi's edit did _not_ render the name in article space as "Rafael Edward Ted Cruz", it only did so in edit space, due to the way the diff presented it. His nickname of Ted does not belong in the formal name opening however, per MOS:NICKNAME, as it is now, however. Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe:, thanks; can you explain what you mean about edit space? If NICKNAME is the governing principle here, then it should be removed. I checked Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, and they both agree with you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you go back to Trillfendi's edit, the actual article text displayed to readers was Rafael Edward Cruz - not Rafael Edward Ted Cruz. Only within the wiki editor diff display did it appear to display Rafael Edward Ted Cruz. Anastrophe (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like it should be removed, then. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ted Cruz page

old: After the January 2021 Capitol attack, Cruz received widespread political and popular backlash for objecting to the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election and giving credence to the false claim that the election was stolen from Trump.

new: After the January 2021 Capitol attack, Cruz received widespread political and popular backlash for objecting to the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election and giving credence to the claim that the election was stolen from Trump.

their is no solid evidence that the election wasn't stolen, to say otherwise is just democratic propaganda. whomever is writing this stuff needs to be unbiased, facts only, no opinions, appreciate it, thank you. 69.136.250.124 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See argument from ignorance. There needs to be solid evidence that the election was stolen. The unfortunate reality (for you, anyways) is that there's actually proof to the contrary. —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparent suicide attempt of 14-year old at home

Just a heads up to the people who maintain this page, things are about to get busy.

https://abc13.com/ted-cruz-home-ella-lee-houston-river-oaks-police-activity-hpd-responds-to-neighborhood/12535892/

Frohike14 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A suicide attempt at Cruz's residence may have no long term effects on his own life. Lets wait to see whether the media takes an interest in the story. Dimadick (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That it is described as an "apparent" suicide attempt means it's speculative, and about one of his children. As a BLP, this section - even on talk - should be removed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)