Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [identified Wiki's "natural born citizen" page], 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 Wikipedia: 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.

On the effect of the shutdown http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-shutdowns-effects-ripple-out-to-more-than-the-federal-workforce/2013/10/10/b675c1b4-3048-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html

On how the failure to raise the debt ceiling is roiling financial markets http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-10/lew-says-debt-limit-debate-stressing-markets-threatens-payments.html

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 Wikipedia 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)

===Government Shutdown of 2013===

Paragraph as written by meScholarlyarticles (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Main article: United States federal government shutdown of 2013

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.[88][89] 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 [90] 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."[89] 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."[91]"

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)

I agree.//NazariyKaminski (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hagel?

How come there is nothing on this article about Cruz antagonism to Hagel? Cwobeel (talk)

Maybe you shouldn't be the editor to add it because you obviously have made up your mind with your use of the word "antagonism".--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

thanks, Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Horrors of the Shutdown

There is an article in Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [the threatened debt default] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia. In my view it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. 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)

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)

References

All the best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:08, 17 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)

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

http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/hutchison-obamacare-defund-‘wrong-approach

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)

Ted Cruz, citizen of the U.S.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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:IDHT WhiskeyJuvenile (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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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.[1]

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 ^talk 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)

Actually, they are called Illegal Aliens or Illegal Immigrants. That is a very poor analogy. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 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 Wikipedia 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)

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.

See Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

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.[12][36]

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)

That's a copyright violation, text lifted from http://web.archive.org/web/20100521123956/http://www.morganlewis.com/bios/tcruz Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 30 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)

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[s]" him in any way. That is old-fashioned left-wing hype. Editor SeamusCraic claims that Lubet has done "[S]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 Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Please see: WP:NOTNEWS.--NK (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"No, please see: WP:NOTNEWS" FTFY. SeamusCraic (talk) 20:37, 4 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)

Ted Cruz's father

 Fixed

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 Wikipedia.--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 Wikipedia's influence on politics. It is little or no influence but reading on screed above the reader would get the impression that Wikipedia's influence is make it or break it. Politicians should just hire people like you to write really nice Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia does have real world impacts. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BingNorton, you've commented as "ExclusiveAgent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ExclusiveAgent" on this Talk page (among many other edits to WP US political person BLP's), right? You should disclose--or would you like to deny? - 75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 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)