Talk:Ted Cruz

no mention of nationalities in intro

Why not? 174.19.169.92 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states that he is a United States Senator. Doesn't that make his nationality clear? Maproom (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No. He's also Canadian. 174.19.169.92 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cruz's dual nationality is not mentioned in the article intro because it does not meet WP:LEAD. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part? 174.19.169.92 (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not important enough to put in the lead, unless there is a lot of birtherism. TFD (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It says Canadian-born for Jennifer Granholm. Why there and not here? 174.19.166.126 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this topic has been covered. Why do feel that we need to go over exactly the same information just for you. Neither of Granholm's parents were Americans by birth. Cruz's mother was an American by birth and that makes Cruz an American by birth. Granholm is not an American by birth. That is a fact. Granholm and Cruz are apples and oranges. Just a simple as that. If you would go to the original discussion you would have seen that this question has been asked and answered. Granholm in no way justifies putting the information in the lede that you want to put in. It does not meet standards of being put in the lead. Please review the previous discussion. Please review the previous discussion.--NK (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth. Granholm did not become a U.S. citizen until she was 21 years old, via naturalization. "Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Granholm's family moved to the U.S. when she was four years old. She grew up in California and became a naturalized U.S. citizen at the age of 21." (Jennifer McFadyen. About.com, Immigrant Spotlight: Gov. Jennifer Granholm January 14, 2009.) There is absolutely no comparison.--NK (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so Anon IP from Tempe, Arizona aka 174.19.166.126 aka 174.19.169.92, who apparently only edits the Ted Cruz article and no other, now that I have conclusively answered your question, please provide me reasons that the Ted Cruz article should be edited just like Jennifer Granholm article. It was your suggestion I assume you have some thoughts on this topic, right?--NK (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting this amount of aggression here. To somebody without an agenda, your reaction appears extremely hostile. What are you insinuating? 174.19.166.126 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being aggressive. You want to add information that I find to be redundant and unnecessary. You want to add information that goes against consensus. You want to add information that has been discussed on this page many, many times. You have also broached the position that since the Granholm article uses the phrase "Canadian-born" then the Cruz article must also. I asked you to provide your reasoning for your proposal. I'm not insinuating anything. I want you to provide reasons for this proposal other than point to the Granholm article, which is an article about a politician who was born a Canadian and became an American at 21, and explain why Granholm's situation should be the guiding principal behind the Cruz article, which is an article about a politician who was an American and a Canadian at birth, not when he turned 21 years old? I ask again, what are your reasons for this proposal?--NK (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NK, using the phrase "Canadian-born American" clarifies the fact that Cruz was born an American in Canada and held dual citizenship at birth. Your so-called "consensus" seems to be you guarding this article with, as the previous user mentioned, a sense of hostility and protectionism. PM (talk)

There is nothing to clarify. There are at least three places in the article that points out that Cruz was born in Canada. There is a whole section in the article that discusses his dual citizenship. As I pointed out to the anon IP, whatever you might correctly or incorrectly think about my comments has nothing to do with the issue that should be discussed here. You need to provide a reason why the article should be edited in the manner that you advocate and you need to stop being "aggressive" in your attacks on my editing. Please focus your comments on the article and how to improve it and why your edit will improve the article, if it will. So far I have not heard substantive reasons put forth by your to support the edit you want to make. The Granholm analogy has been put forward previously and it was correctly pointed out that Granholm was born in Canada as natural born Canadian and she became a naturalized U.S. citizen at 21 years of age. Granholm's situation in not Ted Cruz's situation and it does not apply. Please focus on the article, not me, and provide reasons for the edit that you want. So far all that you have proposed is a failed analogy to Granholm. I apologize for the redundancy, but I made this point several times previously and there has been no response.--NK (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

PM, the phrase "Canadian-born American", while technically ambiguous in its detailed meaning, strongly implies that Cruz was born a Canadian and later became an American citizen (i.e. he underwent naturalization). This is clearly a false implication and the phrase should be avoided to prevent the resulting confusion its usage would cause in this article. --Allen3 ^talk 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Allen3.--NK (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cruz calls his shutdown a success for the President

In 2014 Cruz said that the government shutdown, which he had called a success, hadn't been his idea after all.

And why is this "non notable"? It's the most notable thing Cruz has ever done. Hcobb (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the article about the shutdown.--NK (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is missing are his claim of success, followed by his disclaiming of responsibility. Our story stops short. Hcobb (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. There are folks in the media, that you quoting, that are attempting, after the fact, to say that Cruz is attempting to disclaim responsibility when the truth is it take two sides for the government to shutdown. Reid and Obama could have kept the government open. They do control the government. That is a fact. It is a political viewpoint question here. One side says it was Cruz's fault and the other side says it was Harry Reid and Barack Obama. You want the section to read as if it is established fact that is was Cruz's fault. The last time I check that is called Point-of-View pushing. They way that you wrote the section it is very clear that you believe that it is fact, not mere opinion, that is was all Cruz's fault. That is as believable as Obama saying that there is no IRS scandal and if there is a problem with the IRS it is FOX News's fault for making it one.--NK (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Mr. Cruz, and so we should report what he says. He's said it was a great success and he now says that it wasn't his intention. Who are we to cover this up? Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't report everything that anyone says. That is why we edit. Just the tone of your wording sounds like POV pushing to me: "Who are we to cover this up?" What cover up? If it is not notable then it is not notable. Your addition was written with your point of view showing. Cruz says the shutdown was done by the Democrats. You left that out of your edit. So, using your logic, I have to ask: Who are we to cover this up? Yes, I'm using your own words against you to make a point. You want to "spin", as Time says, the aftermath of the shutdown. So please explain to me how this POV is encyclopaedic and how it not POV pushing.--NK (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Senate history citation

In the section on political positions, reference 81 is cited as indication thar Cruz has criticized the administration for not doing enough about the mass shootings under the President's watch. The article referenced solely refers to the Hassan /Fort Hood shooting, which he referred to as a terror attack. Cruz is in fact (in the article) was calling for more effective use of the NSA to target 'bad guys'. I would offer that the last line needs to be removed from the paragraph, as the referenced item does not imply at all what the writer is inferring, I.e. that Cruz is hypocritically blocking the President on gun control but complaing about the mass shootings. Dperry4930 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)dperry4930

Cruz says "attacks", and it's the reporter who ties this to Fort Hood. The full paragraph of his statement does not mention Fort Hood at all:

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=811 "I think a great many Americans are concerned about the current state of NSA surveillance. I have concerns on two fronts: I am concerned on the one hand that the federal government has not been effective enough monitoring and surveilling bad guys. That we have not succeeded in preventing what should have been preventable terrorist attacks. And that the same time I am concerned that the sweep of the surveillance has been far too broad with respect to law-abiding citizens. And I think a great many Americans would prefer to see that reversed.

So this is a distortion by NBC News to tie that together that way. Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he is referring to terrorist attacks, not mass shootings like Sandy Hook, which is what the writeup wrongly states. Also, as you agree the article is distorted, it would seem it is not useful in any regard and should not be utilized. So, I think the last sentence in the paragraph either needs the correct citation if it exists, or it should be removed.Dperry4930 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see it was changed. Looks great.Dperry4930 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you for spotting the problem in the media's coverage. Still looking for a media outlet that covered his remarks more fully. Hcobb (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cruz's father

The account of Cruz's father is misleading and a little hagiographical. It implies that Cruz "fled" Cuba after Castro began building a Communist regime, although he left the country about two years before Castro seized power. The statement that he arrived in the US with only 100$ sewn into his pocket is rather cliched, and inappropriate considering that he was going to the US to attend a prestigious University. It may be true that he only arrived with 100$ but further context is needed; how, for example, was he accepted into the University and how did he pay for his education? The biography as a whole reads like a press release and focuses far too much on the father's anti-communism and hard work. It may be factually true, but it is certainly not neutral and overlooks some basic facts about Cruz's background which is also relevant. It ought to at least describe the Cruzes' economic & social status in Cuba before the revolution, and the fate of his other family members (besides the sister). If that information cannot be found then the whole thing ought to be shortened to simple statements about his origin.theBOBbobato (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob bobato: you need to provide actual suggested edits, instead of just saying: "either add info about Cruz's father's life in Cuba before he came or cut it down"--that suggestion is not helpful. Cruz's father's life in Cuba before he came here is not notable in an article about Ted Cruz. It seems to be possible that Ted Cruz's father might be qualified for his own article since he does get quite a bit of news coverage for being the Senator's son and his's prominent role in the Senator's work. Your suggestion would work in that article, but not this article. How the father paid for his education is not notable for this article. How do you know he headed to the U.S. just to attend the University of Texas? Do you have a reliable source for this particular personal claim? Why do you believe that the section should talk about other family members? What is your reasoning for this suggestion? Yes, this is your personal opinion, but why do hold this personal opinion. What other family members are you talking about and why are they notable in an article about Ted Cruz. Are these other family members notable at all? Remember the article is about Ted Cruz. Please point what part of the section is factually incorrect. You have made that claim, which is your opinion, but you have not pointed to anything in the actual article which is false. Just tagging a section then telling others to fix it with inappropriate suggestions is not a basis for a discussion. Please focus of the questions above.--NK (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, your claim that the section "implies" that Cruz fled Castro's communist regime is false. The section clearly states why the elder Cruz left Cuba. It clearly states in a neutral manner that Cruz fled the previous dictator. It does not "imply" anything else. That is not true.--NK (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The narrative about his father is excessive. It needs to be trimmed down. Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cuban-American?

Is Cruz a "Cuban-American"? How so? He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Cuban-American's definition is "are Americans who trace their national origin to Cuba". How can Cruz's "National origin" be Cuban? Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues of race and ethnicity are as much about self identification as they are of actual ancestry. Cruz's father was Cuban so this makes him a Cuban-American. This is the same logic by which Barack Obama, born to an African father and an American mother of English descent, is an African American. --Allen3 ^talk 10:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cruz self-identifies as an "American" period. Wikipedia uses the person's self-identification period. So there you have the answer. It is not the job of editors to decide what Cruz will call himself. If this was true then there would a ton of editors looking to identify Obama, since he is dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, as a Kenyan-American. That description would be wrong and it is wrong to force a description on Cruz based upon Cwobeel wants it to be. Do you have a reliable source for your proposed description Cwobeel? Since you haven't provided one then I assume you don't. This discussion should be about how to improve the article not what one editor wants the article to say, e.g., POV-pushing. That is not the standard. The two standards for discussion here is: (1) self-identification and (2) improvement of the article. Let's stick with those standards.--NK (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1st, Obama does not have dual citizenship. Second, I am not trying to push a POV, just trying to understand if Cruz is a Cuban-American or not. If we use the self identification path, we need a source in which Cruz identifies himself as Cuban-American. Cwobeel (talk)

Of course, Obama had dual citizenship. His father was a citizen of Kenya, which makes him eligible for citizenship under Kenya's constitution. Obama was born in Hawaii therefore he is also a U.S. citizen. Also, Obama can claim U.S. citizenship through his mother, who was also a U.S. citizen. However, Obama lost his Kenya citizenship at 23, but no one talks about the fact that he was a dual citizen until he was 23. You have edited the article to call attention to Cruz's status that is POV pushing.--NK (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, your original edit was ludicrous you basically stated that "as of so and so date, Cruz remained a Canadian" etc. Is the new rule now that we go around and say, "Today is so and so and John McCain is still a U.S. citizen". Or today is so and so day and Obama remains a U.s. citizen, he has not reverted back to Kenyan citizenship." That would be POV-pushing that is exactly how you edited his article. It was not an improvement. It was not notable. It was pure POV pushing.--NK (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: That is what the source says, sorry if you don't like it. Also, find a source i9n which Cruz describes himself as Cuban American". Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

it does not matter what the source says. The information is non-notable. If he denounces his Canadian citizenship then there is something notable. What you are adding is not notable. Also, you have the burden to find the source for the "Cuban american" thing. You brought it up.--NK (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course is notable. He is a US Senator and potential Presidential candidate. Here is the source: Ted Cruz still citizen of U.S. and Canada [1]] Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That source [2] is (a) not an WP:RS, and (b) is not a source in which Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American. Read the thread above. Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Austin American-Statesman is a reliable source and your statement that "he still is canadian" is not notable.--NK (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have requested assistance at the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ted_Cruz Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The official biography of Cruz at senate.gov neither defines him as "Latino" or as "Cuban-American" [3] . So my question is: can we still describe Cruz as Latino and Cuban-American, given that his Father was Cuban? His mother is American from Italian and Irish ancestry. Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that your question is a ridiculous question. It is not up to Cwobeel to decide what to call Cruz. Obama's mother was also white, just like Cruz, but his article in Wikipedia refers to him, in the first line of the article, as "African-Amereican". So, if we use the Cwobeel standard going forward the editors of Wikipedia cannot call Obama African-American because Obama's mother was white. You are making a ludicrous point and the article should stay just how it is "Cuban American".--NK (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the ancestry of the President of the United States, do it at Barack Obama. Here we are discussing the ancestry of the freshman senator from Texas. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ted_Cruz where experienced BLP editors are commenting on this issue. Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are piling it on, uh? In any case, it seems that your effort will be futile. Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing Ted Cruz. There has been a long, long discussion about the phrase "African American" as it applies to Obama and it was decided, correctly of course, that "African American" would apply. The same discussion applies here. No, there will be consistency between articles in Wikipedia on this issue. You are the only editor who is making the ludicrous argument that Ted Cruz is not Cuban American. You have to justify it and you will not justify it by choosing to ignore the logical discussion that took place over at Obama's article. If are arguing that "Cuban American" should be removed then you need to explain why Obama is correctly called an "African American" when his mother is white, but Cruz cannot be called "Cuban American" when his mother is white. You need to answer this question right, right now on this Cruz talk page. Just choosing to ignore this valid, relevant, on-point inconsistency will not work. You need to explain instead of ignore and stonewall. You need to explain it.--NK (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, "futile" what are you, 12 years old?--NK (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am 64. Futile: "incapable of producing any useful result; pointless" Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that ancestry in BLPs are based in self-identification. So far I found one source that self-describes Cruz as "Hispanic", but I have not found any sources in which he self-describes as "Latino" or "Cuban-American". In BLPs the burden is on the person wanting to add content that may be contentious, so the burden is on you to find sources in which Cruz self-describes as "Latino" and "Cuban-American" if you want to keep that in the ariticle. But until then, the only denomination we can use is "Hispanic". Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You are making up rules. Cruz identifies as "Cuban American" in all of his campaign literature and he uses his father as one of his biggest speakers on the campaign stump. There are plenty of reliable sources that support the phrase. The burden is on you to change the consensus. You have not done that. Also, you have never responded to the discussion on the Obama article talk page. You will have to respond to that discussion. You will not ignore it, as long as you think you are going remove the phrase "Cuban American". The information will not be changed based upon the comments you have made so far. You have not met your burden of proof to overcome the long, long term consensus on the wording used in the article.--NK (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Listen, NK, I am not interested in the Obama biography. I am interested in this one and other potential presidential contenders. If there are plenty of sources in which Cruz self-describes himself as "Cuban-American" or "Latino", I will be the first to add that text, but I have researched in-depth and could not find even one mention. The burden is on you as this is a WP:BLP, which reads: "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material." Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Cwobeel, I know you want to have your way. I know you want to ignore the fact that Obama's mother is white. I know you want to ignore the fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources that call Cruz "Cuban American". I know you want to ignore the fact that Cruz's father was born in Cuba. I know you want to ignore the fact that on the campaign trail and in interviews Cruz constantly talks about his father's escape from Cuba. I know you want to ignore the fact that his father goes on the campaign trail with him and gives long speeches on his personal flight from Cuba. I know you want to remove all references in the article to Cruz's Latino and Cuban heritage. I know that you want to ignore all of these facts because you want to push your POV. I am aware of all of these things and because I am aware of all of these things I am not going to go along with your POV-pushing agenda. How do I know that you are POV-pushing? Because you readily admit that Cruz's father comes from Cuba, but you don't give a reason why if Cruz's father is clearly "Cuba American" then how can it be that Cruz himself isn't "Cuban American". Why haven't you explained away that fact? There are hundreds of reliable sources that back up my position. You have not provided even one reliable source that says Cruz is not a "Cuban American". I am going to go with reliable sources over your POV-pushing any day.--NK (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place at the BLP Noticeboard, where non-involved editors with experience in BLPs are weighing in. You may want to join the conversation there. BTW, I have no problems whatsoever in keeping the denomination "Hispanic" as that is the way Cruz self-describes in his official biography. Now, if you could please WP:AGF, that would be really nice. I have only one interest: accuracy. Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He counts himself as a Cuban, at the US-Cuban democracy PAC in the first few minutes of this video http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ted+cruz+cuban&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=AEE900E9704C58924164AEE900E9704C58924164 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't find the reference

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but what is the source for the sentence "Cruz is one of three Latinos in the Senate. The others — also Americans of Cuban ancestry — are fellow Republican Marco Rubio of Florida and Democrat Bob Menendez of New Jersey"? I can't seem to find it in the article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several facts asserted in that sentence, which do you think is unsourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to clarify my question. I was looking for the reference that there are three Latinos in the Senate. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[4] appears to cover your question. (the world’s greatest deliberative body will have three Latino senators. And two of them will be Republican. WBEZ which appears to meet WP:RS for such a claim) Collect (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That citation was from 2012. Is that still the case? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is. Added the reference you provided. Thanks! Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this edit: "He was also the first Hispanic, and the first minority to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas." The reference is dead with a Page Not Found. Do we have a source that refers to Cruz as the "the first Hispanic, and the first minority", or is that editorializing WP:NOR? Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131018004355/http://wws.princeton.edu/coverstories/TedCruzCongress/ from wayback covers "first latino", but does not directly source first minority. However, as the total number of senators from texas is only 30 people long its pretty easy to verify. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Found it here too: http://wws.princeton.edu/node/11519 Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected source in article with new URL, and edited that sentence to stay close to the source accordingly. Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

duplicated statement

See below, my highlights:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is the junior United States Senator from the state of Texas, and the first Cuban-American[4][5][6][7] to hold the office. He was elected in 2013, and is a member of the Republican Party. He was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[8] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas' history. He was also the first Latino to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas.

The two highlighted sentences say the same in two different ways. I will remove the last one, as follows:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is the junior United States Senator from the state of Texas, and the first Cuban-American[4][5][6][7] to hold the office. He was elected in 2013, and is a member of the Republican Party. He was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[8] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and the longest-serving Solicitor General in Texas' history. He was also the first Latino to be elected U.S. Senator from Texas.

Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Latinos are not Cuban-Americans -- so the fact he was the first Latino is a stronger claim than just the first Cuban-American to hold an office. Elision would only be correct if a non-Cuban-American Latino had held the office. Collect (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So we are stating that he is the first Latino and Cuban American senator fro Texas, which we have agreed is the correct way to describe him according to WP:RS, but we are not saying that he is the first Canadian-born Senator ever. Why not? Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually he is the 4th Senator born in Canada to American parents [5] Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He is (or was) technically Canadian, because his dad worked there for a few years. Him lineage is not Canadian, He did not grow up for an extended amount of time in Canada, his family has no Canadian identity or history. etc. (Conversely, they do have Cuban identity and history) Additional, being Hispanic,Latino, and Cuban are much more related to sub-cultures and communities throughout the US. There isn't a nationwide movement of Canadian descendants etc. There is no Canadian-American PAC or lobbying group. (Past that, as you say he is the 4th. Not nearly as notable.) Regarding comments you have made elsewhere, I think it is very unlikely this gets much play in wider media, especially in the run up to a hypothetical Presidential run, except as a possible "gotcha" hypocrisy moment. Obamas been through this. McCains been through this. Its not really news anymore that we have wonky naturalization laws that might depend on how old your mom was when she had you, and how many years she lived out of country. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying that being of dual citizenship (Canadian and American) is not a notable aspect for his biography?, there are sources a plenty [6] Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Canada as place of birth

I am confused about why stating that he was born in Canada is such a big deal. He was born there and listed accordingly. List of foreign-born United States politicians. Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article does state that he was born in canada. Multiple times, in multiple places. But he has explicitly renounced his Canadian citizenship, and has no significant Canadian identity, so it is WP:UNDUE to emphasize it past his place of birth. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue? Other foreign-born Congressmen have their country of birth clearly stated in their bios. Here are a few examples:

• Former US rep for Kentuky’s 4th district: ‘’Geoff Davis was born in Montreal, Canada to American parents (one of few House members to be born in Quebec).’’
• Junior United States Senator from Hawaii: ‘’Mazie Hirono was born on November 3, 1947, in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. ‘’
• Member of the House of Representatives: ‘’Ron Barber was born in Wakefield, West Riding of Yorkshire, England, shortly after World War II.
• US rep. for Colorado 1st district: ‘’A fourth-generation Coloradan, Diana Louise DeGette was born in Tachikawa, Japan’’

Why not in this bio as well? Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to be confused because it is not a big deal that he was born in Canada. Your statement makes no sense. The article says over and over again that he was born in Canada. You just want to add it in one more time which, of course, is overkill. It is unnecessary. It is POV-pushing. The article discussed in great detail why he can be President even though he was born in Canada, etc. There is unnecessary for a fourth mention of his Canadian birth--just drop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relax, man. There is only one place in which his place of birth is mentioned, at the bottom of the article in the section "Speculation on a possible run for higher office". This is a biography for Pete's sake, and not mentioning the country of birth in the "early life" section (as if this was a big deal) is incomprehensible. Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, it is in this bio? "Cruz was born on December 22, 1970[2][5] in Calgary, Alberta, Canada[2][14] where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh[14][15][16][17][18][19] and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz,[17][18] were working in the oil business.[20][21] " Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I added that, but Mr or Ms NK reverted it. Diff: [7]. If it stays then we are done. Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it is whitewashing. You attempted to remove all references in the article to the fact that he is a Cuban American. Now you make up the story that having it mentioned in the article that Cruz was born in Canada is "a big deal" and that his Canadian birth was not mentioned in the bio, which factually is not true. It is bad enough that you are, unsuccessfully, POV pushing but you are also just flat out getting the facts wrong compounds the whitewash. The article already stated that "Since Cruz was born in Canada, commentators for the Austin American-Statesman" long before you came along. In the intro info box there was a mention of Canada and of course the section that discusses his eligibility for the Presidency referred to the Canadian birth several times. There is no reason to POV push.--NK (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not, and you should stop the lack of good faith, it is becoming tedious and insufferable. Now that we have resolved this at WP:BLP/N do we need 4 sources for the same content? As for the inclusion on Canad, after the name of City and State, that is standard in Wikipedia.Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is one mention of Canada on the “Early life” section (which you deleted and I reverted back)
• There is another mention in the “Speculation on a possible run for higher office”
• There is no mention of Canada in the info box

Get you facts straight before you trample with your own words. Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Canada in Infobox

Calgary, Alberta is specified in the info box, which as good as says Canada I think. I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to note TC's birthplace early in the lead, and the fact that it's mentioned in the body of the article would appear to support inclusion there. Although it's not universal practice, it's fairly commonplace. While I think Gaijin's policy point is interesting, I don't think a passing mention in the lead is UNDUE. It would simply be informative. If there are genuine concerns about UNDUE, might they be assuaged by reducing the number of mentions in the body of the article? (Sorry I can't be arsed to count them, but Gaijin's "multiple times" in "multiple places" suggest there are quite a few, and I probably don't have enough fingers.) Writegeist (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (adding) OK there are two mentions of Canadian birth and one of Canadian citizenship. (The remaining mentions are all in the references section.) Seems there's plenty of leeway for a birthplace mention in the lead? Writegeist (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Calgary, Alberta, without Canada is not encyclopedic. Think of the reader: How many readers will know in which country Calgary is? Look at other congressman bios, for example: US rep. for Colorado 1st district: A fourth-generation Coloradan, Diana Louise DeGette was born in Tachikawa, Japan. Will you just put Tachikawa, without Japan? Of course not, right? But for a Japanese reader Tachikawa is obviously in Japan. And for the same Japanese reader, Calgary, Alberta, can be anywhere unless is it clearly indicated that is in Canada. Makes sense? Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Writegeist (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added to infobox as per other biographies of foreign-born members of Congress (see above thread for some examples of such bios). Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sme more examples:

• U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 4th congressional district - “Jim Himes was born July 5, 1966 in Lima, Peru”
• U.S. Representative for Maryland's 8th congressional district - “Chris Van Hollen was born in Karachi, Pakistan”
• U.S. Representative for New Jersey's 8th congressional district - “Albio Sires was born January 26, 1951 in Bejucal, Cuba.”
• Junior United States Senator from Colorado “Michael Farrand Bennet, November 28, 1964 ,New Delhi, India”

Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Although my personal gut feeling leans with cwobeel on this issue (that we should Specify Canada in the infobox), it appears that is not the standard for Canadian topics. I clicked on about 10 random people from List_of_people_from_Calgary and ALL of them that had an infobox that had a birth in Canada just listed City, Province. The same thing for how their birth las put in prose in their bio section. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Places does not have explicit guidance on this, but does seem to lean towards City, Province as the preferred usage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sean Patrick Maloney, former U.S. Representative for New York's 18th congressional district, has Canada in his infobox: July 30, 1966 (age 47) Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. Granted, Shebrooke is not as known as Calgary for some of us, but for most non-American readers, Calgary can be anywhere unless the country is explicitly stated. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as requiring consensus at this point -- very few politicians and very few people of any group have a specific "place of birth" given in an infobox at all. Please seek consensus before making this bold edit again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Most infoboxes, if not all include place of birth, including country of birth. For most American-born BLPs that is sometimes omitted (but not all, check John_Quincy_Adams and Mitt Romney infobox). Infoboxes of non-US born BLPs have the country of birth. Why should Cruz get a different treatment?Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect:, please respect the consensus and don't delete the place of birth from the infobox that has been there for a very long time. Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- if one looks, one finds it is not usual for "place of birth" to be in BLPs. As such, it requires consensus for inclusion - thus my procedural request that you obtain a consensus for any cite of his place of birth in the infobox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

hugh hewitt interview

I am unable to find that interview, there doesn't appear to be a transcript for that day http://www.hughhewitt.com/category/transcripts/page/30/ however I did find http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20121220-editorial-texan-of-the-year-finalist-ted-cruz.ece which has the "Southern Baptist" quote, which seems to be all we are using for both locations the Hewitt interview is currently cited for. Anyone have a better lead on the Hewitt interview? If not we should probably just swap out for the dallasnews source Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should just swap them out.--NK (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2012 elections

This sentence seems to be unsourced (the sources do not support that statement) . The "dubious" tag has been there since Jan 2014:

Cruz received 40% of the Hispanic vote.

Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

From the first source, I read it as 35% of the mexican vote, and 34% of the "other latino" vote, with an overall latino vote of 35%., He was at 40% of latinos who answered the poll in spanish. We should perhaps reword the statement to indicate that this is due to polling and not taken directly from election results. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a more explicit source [8], and agree that we have to add some text about that it was based on polling. Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[9] shows totals. And all estimates about any groups in any election are based on polling period. GWB got 49% of the Texas Hispanic vote in 2004 according to the polls -- it is far from unlikely that a person who wins with 57% of the vote did not get an appreciable share of that vote. But where Cruz significantly outran Romney, and Romney was credited with 30% of the Hispanic vote, the 40% figure looks pretty solid indeed. Weaseling by saying "it was only a poll" where the election totals (landslide time) were so lopsided is risible here. Collect (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The text does not say "only a poll", rather, I stayed closed to what the source reports. Any issues with that, Collect? Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there were no exit polls in Texas in that year from what I can gather, so we need to qualify that the poll was taken a few weeks later, as presented in the source. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)