Talk:Rafael Cruz/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Hatchet Job article

The article is clearly a "hatchet job" - almost all of the sources cited are leftist (leftist books, leftist websites and so on). People who actually want to know something about this man and what he believes will find little of use in this article.90.193.173.97 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that I mean the last section of the article - specifically on the man's beliefs. The article is O.K. before this last section.90.193.173.97 (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you believe is inaccurate or incorrect? --Spasemunki (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Time for a disambiguation page

There are probably Wikipedia readers going to the wrong page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Cruz, that of the Brazilian footballer, Rafael Cruz Activist (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I created the page. Activist (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Family history is integral to article

The current state of RBC's family relations is quite germane to this article, as are inclusions of Ted's half-siblings. His sisters were sent from Texas to Canada for summers and eight and nine years his senior, looked after Ted. In the article on Ted, his half brother by his mother, who died before Ted was born, is mentioned, appropriately. Erasing them from RBC's family history is unreasonable. The sources are reliable. Redacting them would be no more reasonable than erasing the existence of five of the six children of John Adams, save for John Quincy. In fact they're all repeatedly mentioned in the father's article, four have their own pages, including a son who died of alcoholism at 30. Another sister died in childbirth. You can't arbitrarily and unilaterally establish a different criterion for RFC's article.

Adams married his third cousin Abigail Smith (1744–1818) on October 25, 1764. Her parents were Elizabeth Quincy and Rev. William Smith, a Congregational minister at Weymouth, Massachusetts.[19] They had six children; Abigail "Nabby" in 1765, future president John Quincy Adams in 1767, Susanna in 1768, Charles in 1770, Thomas in 1772, and Elizabeth (who was stillborn) in 1777.[17]

Note that the life spans of the Adam's children are all noted in his article. Please don't erase that pertinent history again. I would suggest if you're uncomfortable with that, you can always request an RFC. Activist (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Eleanor divorced RBC after years of separation, but their relationship has improved in recent years, which seems notable. Activist (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Familial relations" is one thing. What you have inappropriately readded is undue weight about Ted Cruz and does not belong in the article. It has been removed once again. If you want to add more about Cruz' family, it will have to be done in a manner that doesn't add undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think at all that the inclusion of the current state of the relationships between the subject of the article and his second wife and surviving children is an instance of undue weight. There were estrangements between the subject and both of his wives; the surviving one has made efforts to repair that break with her ex-husband. She has also joined with him in support of Ted's campaign. Not a subject of this article is the surviving sister's disagreements with her brother. What you removed is not prominent in the article, nor is there an abundance of text, nor any unbalanced presentation of a minority viewpoint, so I fail to see the basis for your objection. I'm welcome to other suggestions you might make about the material. The reverts of the removed descriptives regarding RBC are also justified, in that he is defined by his role as "evangelistic," and "dominionist." I looked for sources for dominionist + RBC and stopped reading after reviewing 100, from religious, secular, left, right and neutral sources. Not a single one of them rejected that label. Similarly, he is generally referred to as "evangelistic." None of those who use or discuss the term with relation to him dispute that characterization, whether the sources view that as favorable, unfavorable or neutral. You can look it up yourself. You can find the video of RBC's 2012 very notable speech at the 2012 on many sites, including YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy074QLV2D8 He is introduced at one hour into the video and starts speaking at about 1:03 into it. He remains listed in the Wikipedia category "evangelical" In further fact, Ted went to evangelical private schools and describes himself as an evangelical. http://www.religionnews.com/2015/08/06/5-faith-facts-sen-ted-cruz-gods-work/

The <Crooks> article cited contains a description of dominionism and RBC:

...So has Rafael Cruz. He delivered a sermon in August, 2012 where he discusses how Christians should "take dominion over the earth." Cruz goes on to define what that means, saying "dominion is over every area -- society, education, government, economics..." That particular moment happens 1 hour and 12 minutes in, if you care to watch. It's instructive to see him deliver that line with dictatorial passion.

The only place where I've seen him described as other than a dominionist, is where he was referred to as an adherent of the convergent theology, Christian Reconstructionism. The two descriptive terms you removed are as important, I think, as using "major league" and "minor league" to distinguish the levels of professionalism of baseball players. I will add the source of RBC's own quote about his marriage, after I revert your deletion there. Activist (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you had reverted RBC's own quote about his drinking's effect on his second marriage, I'm not sure why you thought it was unsourced. Did you read the cited source? Activist (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit warring is not only disruptive, but it is against BRD. Please do not revert back to your preferred version while there is discussion occurring on the talk page. As far as the content you keep putting back in, much of it is undue weight, some is not referenced and appears to be original research, and some of it is extraneous or not appropriate to its location. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've written you to try to resolve this, and you don't even bother to read it. You remove sources, then remove text because you claim it's unsourced. Then you say whatever you've decided to retain or add is inviolate. You've set yourself up as the judge and jury on this article, and I can't imagine that it just a rare aberration. Here's what I wrote on your page which you seemed to revert instantly:

I'm stunned by your accusations regarding the Rafael Bienvenido Cruz article. You've reverted many of my edits, without justification as far as I can tell, many in what seems to be an entirely arbitrary manner. I've extensively discussed the reasoning behind my original edits and reversions. So you appear to have adopted a position of dismissively claiming that I'm the one engaging in the edit war. You've been repeatedly erasing some very basic information about Rafael Cruz's family history, and changed descriptions to those that suit you in the absence of any logic that I can discern. How can his relationship with his first ex-wife and stepdaughters not be germane to the article? The particulars are repeatedly well sourced in the article. You've edited the Ted Cruz article and no doubt have noted the mention of his half-brother who died before Ted was born. Ted was not even aware of his existence, until his mid-teens. Conversely, the edits you've erased from his father's article concern his two half-sisters who spent some summers with him in Canada beginning when he was a toddler and who even accompanied them on dates when they were in their mid-teens, at his father's insistence, by his father's own account. I'm just as puzzled by your repeated changing of the description of his very basic and public views of religion and government. He's clearly a Dominionist and an evangelical and those are core to whom he is, not just some trivial matters. He's quite open about it. Those are very precise definitions, with a consensus as to their meaning that can be found across a wide range of denominations. When you substitute "born again" for those terms, or delete them entirely, you're insisting on a much more vague descriptor. Please refer to the Born again (Christianity) article, particularly the "Disagreements between denominations" section. If you would, before you get to scrubbing the article once again, at least read the articles on the terms you're removing, such as Dominionism and Evangelism, and the cited sources in the Cruz article. You've substantially pared down the section on his personal life, but you've retained text for which there is zero sourcing, such as "In 1969, at his new job..." I've furnished citations which you seem to disregard. I don't know if you've bothered to read the source material. I also don't know why you are quick to describe my behavior in a manner that misrepresents it, but ignores your own clearly autonomous decision making. I don't see you seeking any efforts at achieving consensus on these issues but you have seemed to assume a dictatorial posture. Probably the biggest problems with the article is that many contentions in it are based solely on Rafael's own narrative, and are simply impossible. I've tried to at least qualify them, especially since for years many fact checkers have examined actual reliable sources and have found his accounts to be wanting. The New York Times article is only the latest (so far as I know) in a long series that cast doubt on elements of his story, but the publication has added weight thanks to its journalistic reputation. The Cruz campaign has increasingly insulated him (and Eleanor) from reporters, but I expect the media will be increasingly motivated to examine his accounts of his life in Cuba (and perhaps his sister's) much more closely and scrupulously. Rafael cannot be the sole, uncorroborated source for the purported details of his life. Activist (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to the request for citation, the separation information is already in the "Personal Life" section: [[1]] In May 1993, the couple sep­ar­ated, court re­cords show. Ra­fael filed for di­vorce after sev­er­al years. His di­vorce pe­ti­tion cites “dis­cord and con­flict of per­son­al­ity” without any chance of re­con­cili­ation as the reas­on for the di­vorce. The pe­ti­tion sug­gests that Ra­fael had little to his name at the time: a few thou­sand dol­lars in a bank ac­count and some fre­quent-fli­er miles but no prop­erty, no pen­sion, no car, no fur­niture. (Elean­or, who lives in the same apart­ment com­plex as Ted and Heidi Cruz, told me that she and Ra­fael “bur­ied the hatchet” and are now friends who get din­ner when Ra­fael is in Hou­s­ton.) Activist (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File Number 013560 Husband Name CRUZ RAFAEL B Husband Age 57 Husband Wife Name ELEANOR E Wife Age 62 Divorce Date 2/13/1997 County Name HARRIS Texas Report of Divorce Index [1968-2013] It's in a ZIP file at: https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/marriagedivorce/dindex.shtm Activist (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

All WP:TLDR. Please state your concerns succinctly and briefly, Activist. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

USER:Cwobeel left a "citation needed" tag. That was my response that editor's request. Are you ordering me how to respond? Activist (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Activist, I've skimmed recent edits. I'm sure there are details I missed but I'll give my general impression. I understand frustration at reverted many of my edits, without justification as far as I can tell, many in what seems to be an entirely arbitrary manner, but I'm generally seeing reasonable edit summaries. Maybe you're not well familiar with some of the shorthand summary explanations that were used used, and the related policies. We are extra careful on Biographies of Living People WP:BLP. We lean more towards a presumption of removal, which can then be discussed for possibly adding it back.

• Source problems: It seems you sorted this out already on my talk page. Removal of a poor source means the (now-unsourced) text might also be removed. (And possibly restored if a better source is found).
• Alleged: WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch has a section on WP:ALLEGED. It makes the article sound non-neutral. That can backfire. If it sounds biased people may defensively take a contrary mindset. We neutrally report that someone said something.
• Relatives: I concur with WV and Cwobeel that too much was being added. Consider these two policy sections: Balancing aspects: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. And more significantly WP:BLPNAME: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Basically, we're not writing a novel-size-biography. We shouldn't be including detailed information on Rafael Cruz's low-profile relatives. We can mention he has brothers/sisters/ex-wives, but in general they aren't that important to this article and we shouldn't be shining a spotlight on them. They are innocent bystanders.
• Dominionism: I saw a video clip, it would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH for us to interpret his statements and decide if it makes him a Dominionist. We generally only make direct assertions about someone's religious beliefs if they are sourced to the person themselves, or if it is well sourced and uncontroversial. On my talk page you mentioned a peer reviewed paper. That's considered a primary source, primary sources can only be used with special care and many limitations. It's not going to be usable for here. If high quality sources directly call him a Dominionist then we could probably say they said it.

Better plan: As I understand it there are a significant number of good quality sources discussing his Dominion statements, yes? That would give it substantial Weight for inclusion. Collect a small number of the best sources to establish weight. Figure out exactly what to quote from Cruz. (Keep it as short as you reasonably can.) Try to neutrally describe what the sources say about it. Don't try to prove a point or "nail him" on it... let the reader decide to be happy or upset about what he said. Someone who *is* a Dominionist should feel you accurately and neutrally reported on the noteworthy coverage that is out there. Try to use probably the best two sources as refs. (Piling on too many refs can actually make something look weaker.) Post it all here on talk as a proposal, without a preemptive argument for it. Give people the chance to agree or improve it first. Worst case, you simply post your argument after someone objects. Alsee (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:@Cwobeel:@Alsee:Thanks for all the useful input. The most important things in most people's lives, and obviously to the subject of this article, is family. Rafael, his son, daughter-in-law and granddaughters often join him on the stage and Eleanor attends Ted's rallies. I would suggest the restoration of these two redacted edits: (1) Rafael and Eleanor separated in 1993 and were divorced in Texas in 1997. and (2) Senator Cruz and his wife Heidi, a Goldman Sachs executive (or, alternatively for brevity, Ted and his wife Heidi), have two young daughters, Catherine and Caroline. I had previously added a now redacted edit that showed the animosity which existed at the time of the divorce has dissipated. Eleanor now lives in the same apartment complex and Ted and his family, and said that she and Rafael have "buried the hatchet" and the family now have "dinner together when he is in town." For balance, I think that also should be restored. Note that the McClatchy citation that has a wealth of family info is: "Ted Cruz’s family story: Poignant but incomplete" Activist (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than when they divorced, a very brief mention that there is no animosity toward each other, and that he has grandchildren all being appropriate, the rest appears to be undue weight and unencyclopedic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:If you could, since you've made some acceptable changes, could you find a synonym for something other than "said" that isn't going to give rise to concern, as possibly would "alleges," or even "claims," to substitute for your word, "recall?" Cruz didn't work as a "dishwasher" for "50 cents an hour" in 1957 because a) his student visa wouldn't allow him to work at all, and b) the federal minimum wage in 1957 was $1/hour, and the same state minimum for Texas age of majority males (18 y/o)? You can't "recall" anything that didn't happen. Of course, a "50 cent hourly" job also wouldn't pay for much of anything and would detract from the studying involved in a difficult major. Thanks. Activist (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I'm glad you find my edits "acceptable". In regard to your request, as has been explained numerous times previously, we go with what reliable sources say, we don't analyze the sources to come up with a conclusion. That is WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH. If Cruz and his son say he worked for .50/hour and reliable sources support that, then that's what's in the article. I have reworded the .50 cents an hour content to reflect the sources and added another as well. More content has been added to the religious beliefs section in addition to more references, and the section header has been changed to reflect the content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't pay much attention to the Cuba section. I didn't try to figure out what did or didn't happen. Regarding: student visa not permitting work / minimum wage / detracting from study... it's not particularly unusual for people to work anyway under those conditions anyway. Trying to argue a case like that doesn't work very well. Citing solid sources wins. If there is disagreement about what happened then we report what he said, and we can report on sources that dispute it. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct, Alsee. Not to mention, during that time period, it was not unusual for employers to underpay college students who were non-citizens and for those students to take whatever they got pay-wise. Happened all the time. Even so, it all comes down to what the sources say. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi:You wrote: "...during that time period, it was not unusual for employers to underpay college students who were non-citizens and for those students to take whatever they got pay-wise. Happened all the time." And your source for that was??? Activist (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Living it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You were born in 1939 or earlier and were going to college with non-U.S. citizens on student visas? Activist (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• I supplied a print publication citation for the previously deleted information because the source for the latter was a blog. I note that a blog, the Daily Caller, remains the source for another edit, so should be removed or receive acceptable sourcing. Some of the details of Cruz's life in the U.S. and Canada '60s remain unclear, including the date of his first divorce, his move to Canada, his being granted Canadian citizenship and his second marriage. Activist (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a blog, it's a news source. The Mother Jones article you referenced and quoted from is extremely POV in tone, as were your content inclusions regarding Dominionism. Further, the extended amount of content regarding the sermon was undue weight. What's more, no other sources, nor Cruz himself, have referred to him and his beliefs as "Dominionist". One left-leaning publication calling what he said Dominionist does not make Cruz a Dominionist. You are trying to employ WP:SYNTH to come to a conclusion because you want to prove that he is a Dominionist. That's not NPOV editing. Please don't continue to reinsert the content as doing so would be edit warring as well as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent changes to infobox... Baptist? Southern Baptist? Christian?

Where are the references that unequivocally state Cruz is a Southern Baptist? Shearonink (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle article/ref "Cruz's life..." states that (his son) Ted Cruz was "raised Baptist" but does not state that the elder Cruz is Baptist or even Southern Baptist (which can be two very different things). None of the other references I checked stated that Rafael Cruz is Baptist/Southern Baptist. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz being raised in a Baptist 35+ years ago can mean nothing in reference to his father's current Christian-belief system. I've seen nothing that indicates Rafael Cruz is currently Baptist (any kind of Baptist). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. Better source needed or leave it out. I don't know why it's controversial though. He is or he isn't. Certainly he's got to say? Or no? DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rafael as campaign "surrogate"-citation

I'm not sure (anyone?) if Yahoo News has a level of editorial review of its news, or it simply aggregates and/or rewords. The term "surrogate" has been used to describe his role in many of the article's existing citations such as the NY Times and the National Journal articles. I think the word "surrogate" much more accurately describes his role than "stand-in."

Rafael Cruz, a 76-year-old Cuban-American who fled the Batista regime in the 1950s, is a super-surrogate on the campaign trail. He is a practiced speaker who brings evangelicals to their feet and a powerful weapon for his son in one of the fiercest battles within the Republican nomination contest: the fight for voters on the religious right. http://www.wsj.com/article_email/ted-cruzs-father-fires-up-campaign-rhetoric-1434880803-lMyQjAxMTI1MTA0MjcwMzIzWj

Activist (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I Googled "Rafael Cruz," "Ted Cruz," and added "surrogate," and, separately, "stand-in." Besides Yahoo News I found only the the National Review using the latter term, while scores of national and major regional publications used the term "surrogate." Activist (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The National Review mention described Rafael as "not merely his confidant and stand-in..." Activist (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sermons and/or other connections to Ted Cruz

WV, regarding this diff[2] and edit summary undue weight -- the article is still about ted cruz' father, not ted cruz -- have his other sermons been quoted? no? Then this is undue --- Rafael Cruz is significantly notable for his involvement in Ted Cruz's campaign. It is definitely Due Weight to cover that connection. I didn't revert your edit only because I'm not sure the text you removed was really the best example to include, and because it is be preferable (but not necessary) to cite a less partisan source than HuffPo. I suspect Activist already knows what examples are out there, or would be willing to research them. Alsee (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I still maintain it's undue, especially since there is no other content in the article on any of his other sermons. Because it is about Ted Cruz's presidential hopes, it's appropriate for the Ted Cruz article, but not for this one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee:@72.198.26.61:Alsee gave an extensive response with respect to the citation and weight. Rafael Cruz has been inextricably linked to his son's campaign. He advises him, he regularly appears with him, he often acts as his surrogate at campaign and other events, and his "sermons" are wholly political and virtually indistinguishable from his presentations to groups such as Tea Party gatherings, Forward America, Heritage Action, etc., etc. Conversely, Ted repeatedly refers to his father's narrative in his own. There is no dichotomy there. To all appearances, his son's campaign appears to be Rafael's full-time, intense occupation. You ask for discussion, and then you deliberately ignore its content if you don't agree with it. Activist (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You've continued to act autonomously, Winkelvi. You once again reverted my edit that describes what and whom the article's subject is: You continue your edit war. The MJ article, which was supplemented with embedded video clips of Cruz's sermons, reads:

A sermon Rafael Cruz delivered in August 2012 at an Irving, Texas, mega-church has also come under scrutiny. At that event, he asserted that Christian true believers are "anointed" by God to "take dominion" of the world in "every area: society, education, government, and economics." He was preaching a particular form of evangelical Christianity known as Dominionism (a.k.a. Christian Reconstructionism) that holds that these "anointed" Christians are destined to take over the government and create in practice, if not in official terms, a theocracy. Rafael Cruz also endorsed the evangelical belief known as the "end-time transfer of wealth"—that is, as a prelude to the second coming of Christ, God will seize the wealth of the wicked and redistribute it to believers. But, Cruz told the flock, don't expect to benefit from this unless you tithe mightily. Introducing Cruz at this service, Christian Zionist pastor Larry Huch offered this bottom line: In the coming year, he predicted, "God will begin to rule and reign. Not Wall Street, not Washington, God's people and his kingdom will begin to rule and reign. I know that's why God got Rafael's son elected, Ted Cruz, the next senator."

(In July 2013, several prominent Dominionist pastors at a ceremony in Iowa blessed and anointed Ted Cruz, rendering him, in their view, a "king" who would help usher in the kingdom of Christ.) Scores of bloggers, left, right and center, religious and secular, remarked on the content of that speech, such as Morgan Guyton, the chaplain of the Wesleyan Center ministry at both the secular Tulane and the Jesuit Loyola universities in New Orleans. But you rejected that because his careful analysis of Rafael's New Beginnings speech ran in the Huffington Post. Many other respected writers such as reporter/documentarian Bruce Wilson, an analyst of the nexus between religion and politics, writing at Alternet, said the same. http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer Rafael has gathered Dominionist pastors in Iowa to anoint Ted. He's a member of the New Apostolic Reformation, a Dominionist organization. Dominionism is the very essence of what he is. He aligns with historical revisionist David Barton to provide a framework for a rationalization of theocracy. Now as far as Dominionism is concerned, Rafael has recently said he was misquoted, because the truth in this case, hurts, but anyone can watch the intact videos and could hardly come to any other conclusion. Denial of his theology simply doesn't pass the "duck test," and is of major consequence in understanding whom he is. Your position further reminds me of Chico Marx, in "Duck Soup," when he said, "Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?" Activist (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Could you please be succinct and more brief? Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have attention span problems? Activist (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WV, I request you self-revert this edit[3] where you reverted me with the edit summary Salon is not a reliable source. Thanx. Salon.com has a full editorial staff. And if you really really really insist Salon.com isn't RS, I warn you it will take you about 24 days of non-stop editing (at one article per minute) to remove the other ~17,394 articles across Wikipedia that cite it. Alsee (talk)

Doesn't matter how many articles use Salon as a reference currently. It's not considered a reliable reference for Wikipedia purposes and the content you used from it is subjective, just the opinion of a Salon blogger. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Professional writers who operate under a professional editorial staff are not "bloggers". Secondly, you didn't look very closely. This wasn't even written by Salon staff. This piece is a reprint, originally published by The_Washington_Spectator with it's own editorial staff and a print circulation of 60,000. So this piece has gone through two rounds of professional editorial review. The fact that Salon is used as a source in ~17,394 articles demonstrates a reputation as an RS. And Salon is indisputably reliable for a claim of how Salon describes Cruz. Do we really have to take this to WP:RSN? Alsee (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Spectator isn't a reliable source, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Both are about as reliable as you can get. Reverted. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an open invitation for other editors to comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Salon.com. Alsee (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be general consensus a the Noticeboard that Salon is a Reliable Source. I'll copy over an interesting source posted there:

National Journal: "(Cruz) has been iden­ti­fied over the years with a move­ment known as Chris­ti­an Domin­ion­ism. In a 2012 ser­mon pos­ted on­line, Ra­fael preached that Chris­ti­ans are 'anoin­ted' to 'take domin­ion' of every as­pect of life on Earth—'so­ci­ety, edu­ca­tion, gov­ern­ment, and eco­nom­ics.'

It might be a good replacement for the Salon Dominionist quote I had, and the source in general looks valuable for other parts of the article. This Wall Street Journal piece looks very promising, but it's paywalled. Can anyone access it, or better yet find link to the full version? Alsee (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I missed this for some reason. Anyway, to comment: The article says, "Cruz has been identified over the year with a movement known as Christian Dominionism..." Then the article goes on to use some synthesis of their own by taking the "has been identified..." in conjunction with the sermon and voila! Now the National Journal has made a proclamation even Cruz himself, nor his son, are on record saying. How is it these publications get to label someone's religious leanings when the individual they are labeling hasn't? I don't see it as a good replacement. In fact, I still maintain that if Cruz himself has not said he's a Dominionist, we can't, either. We can say that there are sources that claim it but Cruz has never referred to himself as a Dominionist. But to refer to him as such via the use of a poorly- or non-referenced article -- I just can't go along with it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, the rest of the world isn't required to follow Wiki policies such as Original Research, Synthesis, and publishing REFs. We don't dissect sources as if they were Wiki articles. Maybe a reporter has seen/heard Cruz describe himself as Dominionist, and didn't include a <ref> for it. Or maybe a reporter simply listened to Cruz and concluded it was an appropriate description. A reporter may use the description pro-choice when they see that politician often argue&vote for abortion to be legal, even if the politician never used the term "pro-choice". If that is a prominent theme in the sources, Wikipedia needs to inform the reader that theme exists. NPOV is that we report all prominent views, roughly proportional to their presence in RS. Alsee (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why we have WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is there for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You both have misread my meaning. All I'm saying is that we have to make it clear that sources which have not named their sources are labeling him something he's never claimed publicly to be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WV, do you have any suggestions for making it more clear? Maybe if we pair it with a good source of Cruz describing himself? That could highlight the shift to quoting nationaljournal/salon/whoever. Alsee (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee:@Winkelvi:I noted last week that I found 147 sources that identified Cruz as a dominionist or preaching Dominionism. Many included links to the entire 2012 sermon or excerpts from it at Larry Huch's New Beginnings megachurch in which Cruz repeatedly referred to an agenda of "dominion" in a theological context. By your standards, WV, it would seen that we couldn't say that Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, because he wasn't convicted of the crime at the time of his death, and he never admitted it, though millions watched it on live TV. Is that your position? Activist (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, they aren't my "standards", it's common sense and ethics. Secondly, your analogy is ridiculous. It's so ridiculous, it doesn't even qualify to be an analogy. Comparing someone who committed the act of murder surrounded by witnesses on live television to someone who has never said "I'm a so-and-so" in relation to their religious beliefs? Really? (last time I looked, religious beliefs aren't a crime in this country, but I digress...) Obviously, the person murdering someone in front of millions of others has already said they did it by the witnessed commission of the act. Cruz has given sermons and attended groups that have a Dominionist bent? So what? Still doesn't make him a Dominionist. People can have all kinds of beliefs and speak in a way that leads others to think they believe a certain way, but beliefs are complex and a single act of shooting/murdering someone isn't. Someone can be a Catholic at heart but also feel at home in an Episcopal or Anglican environment. That doesn't make them an Episcopal/Anglican. No one has the right to tell another person what they are spiritually, not a publication, not Wikipedia. We cannot say he is a Dominionist either covertly or overtly because he has not said he is a Dominionist.

Alsee, I am going to be able to take time to answer your question later today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Activist, take a breath for a moment. Wink hasn't touched that part of the article in quite a while. Wink says we misinterpreted. Misinterpretations are a common cause of unneeded arguments. Let's see what Wink means by improving clarity. Alsee (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientist?

He called himself a scientist during some sort of speech [4] and I cam here to see what kind of scientist. But it doesn't say... Does anyone know what he studied at UT? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

According to ref #10 R. Cruz received a degree in mathematics, and subsequently worked in IT. Shearonink (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pastor or not?...

I do not understand why the material which laid out the various sourced statements as to whether or not R. Cruz is the pastor of a congregation was deleted. The information is sourced - to leave one statement or the other in the article without its related obverse gives the impression that the assertion is without controversy and that is not so. To delete one or the other from this article violates WP:NPOV and is not encyclopedic. Perhaps the material could be more carefully crafted (keeping in mind any WP:BLP concerns), but the content should stay in the article in a more-complete fashion.

Although some sources state that Cruz is a pastor of a church in Dallas,<ref>{{cite web|last= Jones |first= Russ |title= Christians Need to Be Politically Active Says Father of Sen. Ted Cruz |date= 2015-10-06 |website= Christian Press |location= [[Oxford, Mississippi]] |accessdate= 2016-02-02 |url= http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/us/politics/801-christians-need-to-be-politically-active-says-father-of-sen-ted-cruz |quote= Rafael Cruz, father of US Senator Ted Cruz, pastor of a Dallas church and director of North Texas-based Purifying Fire Ministries, said Christians need to be bold speakers for the truth of God and call upon God's people to be salt and light in the culture.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= Senator Ted Cruz and Pastor Rafael Cruz |date= 2015-07-18 |website= The Family Leadership Summit |publisher= [[The Family Leader]] |accessdate= 2016-02-02 |url= https://thefamilyleadershipsummit.org/senator-ted-cruz-and-pastor-rafael-cruz/ |quote= Today Rafael Cruz is a pastor at a church in Dallas}}</ref> other sources say that he is not the pastor of any church.<ref>{{cite web|last= Rose |first= Cindy |title= The Fictitious Life of Rafael Cruz, Part 3: The Pastor Without a Flock |date= 2014-04-08 |website= All Things Democrat |accessdate= 2016-02-02 |url= http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2014/04/the-fictitious-life-of-rafael-cruz-part-3-the-pastor-without-a-flock/ |quote= Truth is, Rafael Cruz is not a Pastor anywhere but in his traveling road show.}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title= The Rafael Cruz Biographical Ruse |website= Caleb's Report |accessdate= 2016-02-02 |url= http://calebsreport.com/the-rafael-cruz-biographical-ruse-2/ |quote= No church is found listing Rafael Cruz as a pastor.}}</ref>

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any church listing him as on staff as pastor. He's ordained through the Assemblies of God, but not pastoring, as far as I can see. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Winkelvi. R. Cruz does appear to be ordained by an Assembly of God congregation but "pastor" is understood to be someone in charge of a group of believers, a spiritual overseer of a church (again, a group of believers/Christians), R. Cruz is simply not the minister/spiritual overseer of a group or of a church or of a congregation. To assert that he is a pastor and then to cite a single possibly biased-source and to ignore the multiple other sources that state the opposite is unencyclopedic. Shearonink (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, kind of. One can still be considered/referred to as pastor if they pastored in the past. Just as one can be called "Governor" or "Mayor" or "President" or "Judge" -- the title is still valid and used as a form of respect for the individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In this instance I am only referring to the case at hand, my point being that R. Cruz has never been the spiritual leader of a congregation/church, in my opinion the term should not be used to describe him. The best thing to do is to rely on what reliable sources have stated about the man, to lay out both sides of the issue since sources apparently disagree and let readers make up their own minds. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If Cruz refers to himself as a pastor and reliable sources do as well, then that's what we go by. Verifiability over truth is our threshold of inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources state that Cruz is not a pastor. If the Wikipedia article leaves this sourced information out, then the article is, in effect, denying the existence of this verifiable information. Shearonink (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And there are sources that say he is a pastor, referring to him as such. He refers to himself as such. He gives sermons in churches (that's something a pastor does, right?). We can note in a glance that Cruz is not currently pastoring a church, however, if the sources say he is a pastor, then the article should say he is a pastor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me state this plainly. So far as I can tell, and according to the sources I have read/seen, R. Cruz has never pastored a church. Many people give sermons and speeches in churches, but that does not make every speech-giver a pastor. Both statements - Pastor, Not-Pastor - & sources that back those two verifiable viewpoints - should be included in a WP:NPOV way within the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rafael Cruz Supported Castro - self declared support can be added to WP articleRedtobelieve (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, in the early years of his career at UT, he remained a supporter of the Cuban Revolution. He tells me that he gave dozens of lectures about the Revolution to various clubs in Austin.

As soon as Cruz returned to Austin, he contacted the various groups before which he had lectured to ask them for a second audience. Now he talked about the evils of Communism, about the dangers of Castro’s regime, about the betrayal Castro had inflicted upon the Cuban people.

The question is who where those various groups, and is it possible that he could have been lead to both support Castro and oppose Castro by different groups and at different time for different purposes. Dis he actively support or oppose Castro while in New Orleans?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/282228/exile-and-revolution-mario-loyola

Nothing needs to be added to the article. It is already in the article. You should actually read the article before you make suggestions. The questions you have about the groups is just speculation and not supported by reliable sources.--ML (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Article narrative jumps around chronologically

It would be better written if one section was devoted to chronology - in order - then other sections of apparent interest can follow (religion, politics, etc). Right now it's a mess!66.64.72.10 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. its early life then personal life - early life extends to recent comments to son about regretsRedtobelieve (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

14 with Castro is false - 17 out of prison is false - Christian Post vs NYT

Within two or three years of the 1952 coup that brought Batista, a former president, back to power, Mr. Cruz says, he was participating in street protests 2 or 3 years - means that he is 15 or 16, perhaps not 14 in protests and 17 joined Castro group

Mr. Cruz was one of them, he said in the interview. He had enrolled in September 1956 at the university in Santiago. There, he said, “I became involved with the Castro group.” meaning 17

Interesting Fact: Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz, fought in the Cuban Revolution alongside Fidel Castro when he was only 14 years old. When he was 17, he was captured, imprisoned and tortured. After his father got him out of prison. FALSE - he we in fact 18 when he got out of prison the month before he fled to Miami - first in bottom of a Car NYT

[5] has both 14 and 17 wrong

[6]Redtobelieve (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has been edited to say "teenager". The reliable sources conflict. The word "teenager" gets the point across.--ML (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[7] is not a reliable source as it has a simple error in math to calculate age - NYT is better - you removed the line that "he became involved with the Castro group"

Then there is the statement that as a teenager he did not know Castro was a Communist - of course he didn't - nobody did - not the US either - he did not declare himself a communist till Dec 1061 when Cruz was 22. He was a revolutionary and had not yet been mugged by reality. This should be considered for removal as nobody is calling Cruz a communist. [8]Redtobelieve (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. All of the information that needs to be presented is presented.--ML (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Back Seat of Car - after getting Visa and Passport stamp to leave

Rafael Cruz’s Cuban saga ends with him hidden in the back seat of his father’s car in late 1957 as they drove along the coast to Havana, where he boarded a ferry and sailed to Miami, before continuing on to Austin. Back seat of Car - NYT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtobelieve (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

When you edited the article you stated that "he was in the bottom of a car", which is not what the NY Times says. Also, this information is undue weight. There is no need to report that he was in the back seat. That does not add anything to the article and it needlessly overly detailed.ML (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

should have said ""he was in the bottom backseat of a car" - if you are hidden in the backseat I know of no place but the bottom to hide - it is factual and material b/c he got a admitted to UNT, a Visa, and a passport stamp via a bribe, yet he went to the boat hidden in the backseat of a car - meaning that he was still in some sort of danger- your point is taken that I did not quote verbatim the NYT but this portion is material IMO Redtobelieve (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't in the bottom of a car. That's a fact. Also, it is irrelevant and unnecessary.--ML (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

backseat or bottom backseat - I did not mean underneath - anyway the fact that he states he was transported "hidden" in a car by he father, is much more important than that he was transported in a car. It is either in a car, or bike or walking - its that he was hidden that makes it noteworthy. - we can settle on "hidden in the backseat" just like in the NYT article

also the fact that he went to an Elementary School by the same name as the town he grew up in - although the section is called early life the elementary school is not noteworthy- where did you find the school anyway? thx Redtobelieve (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It was in the New York Times article. Also, why do you claim that "he went to a elementary school by the same name as the town he grew up"? If you claim this then you need to provide a reliable source. If there is no reliable source then it did not happen. You are not a reliable source.--ML (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

OK we agree about the need to remove the Elementary school. done And the verbiage about the back seat was an interview in the NYT article and it is a primary part of the narrative, that he was in some sort of danger when he left. added back doneRedtobelieve (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OK ML you put back in the interesting school name, Arturo Echemendia located in the unexpectedly located in his hometown Matanzas - and remove part of story "saga ends with him hidden in the back seat of his father’s car" and leave only "father drove him to a ferry terminal" - so you win we can leave the repetition of his hometown and school name, and just remove the fact that he his father drives a car - unless you can see reason Redtobelieve (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't won anything. It is not a competition. I removed an edit where an editor, not you, put in that Cruz's daughter died of overdose. I removed it because it is not relevant to Cruz's story. It is not about winning. I removed the information about Cruz laying down in the back seat of the car because it seems to be too much information, but if you believe we absolutely have to have it then we should put it back in. However, I put back in all of the citations that you removed. Now, those citations are helpful to the readers and they are not hurting the article, only helping the article. I do not see any reason to remove them. You have not provided a reason to remove them. No reason. If you have a good reason to remove helpful citations then I would like to hear it but so far you haven't provided one. As for the Elementary school, that information was provided by the New York Times and once again you and me are not reliable sources, but NY Times is.--ML (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ML Ok, appreciate the olive branch - I had just received Edit ability but lost it and now have to go to source, glad you put the sources back - its hard to edit at source so that reversal is justified and appreciated - look you talk about too much information, and although the name of the elementary school is in the NYT it does not add to the story. The fact that in another NYT article he tells the story that he was in effect, smuggled out of Cube, or transported, not just in a car, as you would want to leave in, but hidden in the back seat, the part you see fit to remove b/c that portion is too much information. So that being said my point is the elementary school is too much information but fact that he was smuggled or hidden in the back of a car is part of the saga. I would like to see you add that. Your stated earlier that the article is fine as is but in fact it needed and still needs updates. Hopefully you can see my point nowRedtobelieve (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You said, "It does not add to the story". Well, Wikipedia is not a story. It is a point of view (POV) to be created and promoted. We got where the facts and the reliable sources take us. I don't know why you want to remove the name of the school in Cuba but you haven't given a good reason. We can add the fact that he was in the back seat of a car while he exited Cuba.--ML (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this back and forth for a few days. Redtobelieve, one thing you seem to have trouble grasping is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article or an online book. We don't tell stories, we provide facts in the midst of prose supported by reliable sources. If something is properly sourced and aids the reader to better understanding the article subject, then it should be included. Not for "story telling" value but for lasting encyclopedic value. I see you've already received an editing block, and it seems you are still having trouble understanding why we do things here the way we do. Perhaps you should take time to read Contributing to Wikipedia before proceeding further and becoming more frustrated. After you do that, then return to editing. You'll likely have a happier editing experience after doing so. If you still find yourself coming up against brick walls -- whether they be in the form of having your edits reverted or communicating with other editors on talk pages -- I recommend you take your questions and concerns to The Teahouse. There, you will find experienced editors ready to help allay your concerns and frustrations and answer your questions kindly and productively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi Let me point out that ML wrote "That does not add anything to the article and it needlessly overly detailed.ML (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)" and you can see it just above. So if you replace article with story then we are saying the same thing. Just like I left our "backseat" when I should have wrote "bottom backseat of car". Just keep the important elementary school and leave out the saga of a smuggled escape from the story, I mean article. It just does not add anything and is overly detail. The core of the story/article is the elementary school name and not the escape from Cuba.

Review of Balance - all against Castro all the time, for the Revolution unless you mention Castro

didn't know Castro was a Communist -- he became a harsh critic of Castro -- lectures opposing Castro -- regretful for his early support of Castro

VS

joined the Cuban revolution -- support of the Revolution -- opposing Castro and the Revolution -- against the new regime in the counter-revolution

Request that we allow just one sentence in the beginning that he supported Castro when he started the Univ Santiago at 17

and that we remove the one sentence at the end - "regretful for his early support ... expressed to his son" This would still have a tilt overall against Castro in early life section Redtobelieve (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Redtobelieve (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? There is no reason for this.--ML (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Look ML it is a very small request and I have made so good improvements to this article and corrected some obvious errors or conflict. Didn't know Castro was a communist until perhaps summer of '59 when he returned to Cuba, but still two year before Castro declared he was a communist - the US Gov't still hoped he, Castro was not going Communist - and the line is talking about Ted Cruz anyway - simple that's why

2nd removing "regretting support for Castro" is redundant as he was reportedly now giving speeches against Castro.

Simply put, he was for the Revolution and its leader Castro - stated as articles state it, straightforward - then the was against Revolution and Castro as he became disillusioned.

Now I am starting to wonder, although maybe this is not the place, if Rafel was actually a supporter of Batista. That would explain the 3 days in jail in June '59, then with some outside help, a quick accepted application to UT and US Student Visa a month later and a quick stamp on his passport from Batista to exit the country beginning the journey hidden in a car. It is also amazing that he knew almost no English, yet finished with two hard degrees in 4 years, while taking a short trip back to Cuba while having meager job and assets. Yes he was for Castro, then against Castro, but maybe he and his family were always against him - and he must have had some unspoken resources to draw upon to get out of the country and in a university so quickly. Very interesting, don't you agree?Redtobelieve (talk) 00:25, 29 Apri

can we get a tighter timeline on Cruz move to New Orleans? it says he moved to NOLA in his 20's which covers 10 year time frame. i believe he moved to NOLA in 1962 is there any hard info or link to support his move to NOLA in '62? edclass66

also - the photo which shows an as of yet unidentified person per the Warren Report standing with Oswald handing out flyers, Cruz fits numerous points of the profile: Cuban who has ties to Cuban expat political goings on in the southwest, has revolutionary cred and maybe some clippings of the Daily Texan he shows to OSwald to cement a working relationship or point of agreement, lives in NOLA at the time, looks like person in photo ... etc. the reason why he has never been ID'd by the Warren Report etc is that he is working for US intelligence and hanging out with LHO prior to the assassination, which would obviously cause a huge PR problem up and down the line ML , Redtobelieve , Jonathunder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edclass66: If you want more information in the article about New Orleans then go out and find reliable sources to support any additions. It is as simple as that. Engaging in speculation on this talk page will not get anything in the article. If there is no reliable source then it did not happen.--ML (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Then it did not happen? Lol... 1984. 74.199.72.214 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

His conection with Oswald has made headlines and should be cited. 81.39.105.40 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't cite things here because they made headlines. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

National Enquirer allegations

The following comment was offered to support putting negative allegations against Cruz in the article and these negative allegations are being made by the National Enquirer. I have repeated them here for all of the editors of this page to read:

He is being linked to LHO / Camp street. HE was residing in NOLA at the time, no other credible name has been offered as person seen with LHO on still and motion picture and until such time as he gets a judgement against NAT ENQ my link should remain on the above page

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-scandal-father-jfk-assassination/

I am not vandalizing this page, just updating with new credible info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In the edit summary: (adding association with Lee Harvey Oswald as printed by National Enquirer. This credible allegation should remain on Wiki page until Cruz attains judgement against said publisher)

Let me point out that the comments above do not follow Wikipedia rules for a biography of a living person. Allegations like the ones made by the Enquirer must be supported by a reliable source and the Enquirer is not a reliable source. Also, the comments above are clearly wrong about removing challenged negative information from an article. The editors claims, incorrectly, that the Enquirer allegations MUST stay in the article until Pastor Cruz goes into a court and gets a judgement against the Enquirer and then, and only then, can the allegations be removed from Wikipedia. Well, that is not even close to what the rules are. Jimbo has made it clear that we err on the side of caution with living people. We don't put in allegations hapharzardly and then wait for court decisions. That is simply not true. I would encourage the editor review: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--ML (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The National Enquirer occasionally reports things that turn out to be true, but that does not mean we treat them as a reliable source. Jonathunder (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

ML Jonathunder The Washington Post occasionally reports things that turn out to be true as well, but I could point to numerous stories in the "real" press that were / are complete fabrications - Janet Cooke from the WAPO won a Pulitzer for her fabricated story. National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer on the John Edwards story that no one wanted to touch. Therefore, again, I respectfully submit that the NE link to LHO on Cruz page remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not going to happen unless you find a better source. The examples you gave are noteworthy because they are contrary to usual practice for both publications. That doesn't change which one is generally considered a good source. Jonathunder (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonathunder The article is notable for appearing in print across nation, the NE has done some diligence on this, can you please suggest or find another acceptable source? Edclass66 —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Allowing insinuations that a living person has something to do with the JFK assassination is the very reason Wikipedia has a BLP policy. We are not going to go down that road again without some really good sources. See WP:RS. Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Edclass66 see WP:BLPREMOVE. If the information is true then more reliable sources will quickly cover the story. At that time we can discuss how to add it to the article. Until then I strongly urge that you do not try to re-add it again. Edit warring negative material in a biography can result in an administrative block. Alsee (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Alsee Hey, The McClatchy Company The Sacramento Bee now covering this story. Credible enough? There exists undisputed photographs of Cruz protesting in favor of Fidel Castro in Austin (can you please find that photo and add to Cruz page? Not sure how to do it but I can give you link here - http://cdn.havanatimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PadreTed-display-300x215.jpg), Cruz at some point subsequently moves to NOLA and gets hired by Bush front company Zapata Oil. Lets make some news here guys! You cant keep denying that this DESERVES to be on this page, and is being picked up as a story by CREDIBLE news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody find the Cruz pro-Castro interview in The Daily Texan circa 1959? I am showing link above to the undisputed photo of Cruz @ UT protesting in favor of Castro. Why is this not on his page? As far as credibility goes its coming straight from the horse's mouth. This puts Cruz firmly in the same milieu as LHO / Camp street / Zapata Oil. Instead of threatening to block me about adding what are soon to be totally credible pieces of information, work with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for page protection[9]

The Sacramento Bee story[10] says a tabloid is making claims, along with counter claims that This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage, and that The explosive suggestion that Cruz’s father would have had any affiliation with Oswald is not corroborated in any other way. This is grossly insufficient sourcing to directly report the claims, and falls well short of covering it as a noteworthy controversy that a Tabloid made such claims. This should not be included in any form until we have more good sources, and if such sources show up we need to discuss how it would be covered before any edit is made to the article. Alsee (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This page looks like a Cruz press kit. It needs to have other information. Is Wikipedia just a regurgitation of a person's press kit? Can we quote Cruz from his interview in The Daily Texan and include the photo of him protesting in favor of the Castro regime at UT? Has anyone pulled a FOIA on Cruz? At such time that the FOIA becomes available can we post items for that? BTW McClatchy is the parent company of what was formerly know as Knight-Ridder, again I believe that there are plenty of credible sources for inclusion of some of this info but lets start at the beginning ie inclusion of photos from The Daily Texan as well as excerpts from interview with Cruzedclass66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding additional information, based on a reliable sources, is fine, even if it is negative about the article subject. If there is something particularly contentious that you want to add, it should be based on particularly reliable sources.

If you aren't sure what counts as reliable, see WP:Identifying reliable sources.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with talk of FOIA, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to make freedom of information requests.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Edclass66, you wrote above: "Lets make some news here guys!" You seem to have a very skewed and inaccurate impression of what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia is not news. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Alsee says "if such sources show up we need to discuss how it would be covered" so what say you Winkelvi, is this a notable news item worthy of being on Cruz press release of a Wiki Bio / WBLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events Wikipedia does cover news, this is news, this is an appropriate forum to discuss these allegations edclass66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556745/Ted-Cruz-furiously-denies-latest-claim-tabloid-claims-identified-dad-photo-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edclass66 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Just coming into this late, the allegation is widespread enough that I think it needs to be addressed, even if just by a WP:RS debunking it. Since this discussion ended, the following May 3 article from the Washington Post came out; it is a reliable source which examines the evidence (thoroughly, as far as I can tell) and concludes was not Cruz. [11] Adpete (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah, the original tabloid nonsense wasn't worthy of note in a biography, and minor coverage saying it was nonsense isn't worthy of note in a biography. Including it would only serve to promote the original nonsense. We don't report "Adam and Eve were not Space Astronauts" after the National Enquirer runs a silly story saying they were. Alsee (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rafael Cruz explicitly denied the allegation, which seems like a noteworthy denial. It's described in the Wikipedia article about the National Enquirer. So, I have inserted into this article a "See also" wikilink.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References 4, 5, and 6

Why does reference 4 read like a separate article? It has the appearance of someone using reference toolkit to get people to read what in essence would otherwise be considered plagiarized material. The long quoted text is a waste of space and a distraction.

The source for reference 5 is a book Ted Cruz wrote. The source is supposed to be about his great grandparents but isn't available at the google search url given. The larger point is there is nothing in the paragraph where this reference says anything about Ted's great grandparents. It could be nothing more that clickbait to a book Cruz wrote. And even if it was referring to something in the article a book Cruz himself authored it would violate a number of wiki guidelines. What's it doing here?

Reference 6. The only reason for this link I can think of is possibly as a confirmation of his mothers name, and there should be better ways than this. It's more easily explained, again, as click bait to a poorly written piece the topic of Ted's citizenship.

So if these links are supposed to stand of proof this part has multiple sources it fails. It could be people trying to find things beneath the surface of the article to sneak things past wiki guidelines Jackhammer111 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The LHO in NOLA is obviously nonsense, with zero support in RSS.
• Reference Four is badly written and inaccurate, and inconsistent with other stories Cruz has told. For instance, he claims in other sources that he began fighting with Castro when he was 14. That would have been when Castro was in jail for the attack on the Moncada barracks and Cruz was going to high school 400 miles away so he would have had to be teleporting back and forth.
• References 6, 7 and 8 are similar nonsense. Cruz states he joined the Cuban revolution as a teenager and "suffered beatings and imprisonment for protesting the oppressive regime"[4][7][8][9] of dictator Fulgencio Batista.[10][11] The only original source for the "beatings" (plural) and imprisonment is Cruz himself, who has proven he is an unreliable source. A contemporary, I believe, said he did get beat up and probably spent overnight in jail (not "tortured") because he possessed an unlawful pistol. Cruz enrolled at the age of 17 at the University of Santiago in September 1956. (Maybe, but Cruz is the only source for that, and the supposed "torture" was supposed to have happened in Matanzas. He also has said he was "bombing buildings" and "throwing Molotov cocktails." The NY Times pretty thoroughly debunked that nonsense. 7 According to Cruz, as a teenager, he "didn't know Castro was a Communist".[12][13][14] Cruz has stated in interviews that he was jailed by Batista for several days in June or July 1957 and after he was released he applied and was accepted by the University of Texas in August 1957. (Let's take this one fable at a time. He doesn't know exactly what month he was "in jail." His application would have been late for that school year but somehow his admission and a student visa were rapidly granted, an extremely dubious proposition. In order to qualify for admission and also for a student visa, he would have had to prove that he was fluent in English and did not require any U.S./Texas financial support. It was black letter law. He obtained a student visa[15] after an attorney for the family bribed a Batista official to grant him an exit permit.[1][2][16] (Why would it have taken a bribe, and if it did, who would be so foolish as to intervene and risk imprisonment?) Cruz said he left with $100 sewn into his underwear taking a two-day bus ride to the University of Texas, arriving with little or no English.[17][18] (Why would he have sewn his traveling money into his underwear? So he had an excuse to take his pants off to buy a donut? He got on a ferry for Key West or Miami and took a bus to Austin. That would have taken a good deal of that $100 and left him arriving homeless and almost penniless in Austin.) He graduated from UT with a degree in mathematics and chemical engineering four years later in 1961.[9][15] (Wow! That's probably true, a first, perhaps. He got married around his junior year and was living by then with his first wife, a fellow student, and becoming a father.) Cruz states he worked his way through college as a dishwasher, making 50 cents an hour and learned English by going to movies.[17][19] (No, no and no. He's taking a full load in a difficult double major, supposedly can't speak any required English, and he has claimed he worked seven days a week for "50 cents an hour." "Sorry, Charlie." (sarcasm) The minimum wage in Texas in 1957 was $1 hourly and he didn't have a work permit. Working while on a student visa would have been grounds for deportation. An employer would have no reason to hire him and would face serious penalties if they did. There was a recession going on and legit labor was cheap. No one goes to the movies between purported dishwashing and all day classes, to learn how to read texts and understand lectures. On top of this, he was an admitted alcoholic when young, so his tall tales may become even more implausible. Therefore, almost everything he contends is true is demonstrably false. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be works of fiction, and sole sourcing it to a liar is not requiring RSS. If the narrative can't be factual, the whole article should be taken down.) Activist (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Involvement in death of JFK

Can someone add in a section on the involvement of Mr Rafael Cruz in the death of JFK?

President Trump explained in 2016 that Rafael Cruz was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald.

What are the sources that President Trump cited?? How credible are they?

Since Mr Trump is now President of the USA, his statements must carry weight - and he has not retracted or apologized for these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We considered this matter when the story was fresh. It was a crackpot story published by a tabloid. We don't consider tabloids to be reliable sources. To the extent that other sources mentioned it, they considered it to be a discredited story. The fact that Trump mentioned it did raise the profile of the story, but it still doesn't belong in Cruz's biography. Alsee (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)