Talk:Ted Cruz: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:25, 3 November 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ted Cruz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 60 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism B‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Hispanic and Latino / Texas B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Hispanic and Latino Americans portal This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force (assessed as High-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law B‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress B‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American B‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Merrill, Jeremy B. (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". The New York Times.
Garofalo, Michael (March 4, 2016). ""Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer": Senator "confirmed" as notorious murderer on Wikipedia as campaign gets new life". Salon.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[1][2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.[[4]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ::::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? [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.79|46.97.170.79]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.79|46.97.170.79]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.79|talk]]) 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)