Talk:Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign

Does anyone know who Cruz' campaign manager is? I can't seem to find anything. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there some way to stop the Cruz campaign staff from repeatedly re-editing the last paragraph of this article? Please? 190.24.45.139 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement BroylesReply

Please don't insert factually incorrect content or unsourced content into the article. - MrX 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The unambiguous positive eligibility claim is, itself, unsourced, and importantly inaccurate according to the United States Federal Government, itself (see link).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

(from link) "It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency...."

ETC.

But please feel free to insert this reference and see how long it takes for the other guy to delete it, too.

Thanks. 190.24.45.139 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement BroylesReply

The document you linked doesn't make any claim or assertion about Senator Cruz. Our policy does not allow for original research. You assertion that "The unambiguous positive eligibility claim is, itself, unsourced," doesn't matter, because the article doesn't say "unambiguous", It says "most commentators", which is properly sourced.- MrX 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't put that statement into the article as you seem to suggest I did. I put it on the talk page as a criticism of an unsupported claim inside the article. The link that I provided is not original research; it is an official document published by the US State Department which directly pertains to the conclusively unsupported claim made in the article, that Cruz is eligible. It indicates that there is no reason to conclude such from definitive legal precedent, as there is no definitive legal precedent. It leads a competent reader to conclude that a statement to the effect that Cruz would eventually or inevitably be determined to be eligible is nothing more than speculation; far less than what your article asserts that it is.

Also, the word "most" is a statistically unsupported assertion. The citations which implicitly support it are at the anecdotal level of statistical value. The word "most" might not be incorrect, but it also very well might be incorrect. It goes an important step beyond begging language, and it is the very thing which I first construed as defacto invitation to begin to adjust the language in the article, myself.

You, Sir, are really not any more neutral in this matter than I am.

The world is watching you.

Do the right thing.

Thanks again,

190.24.45.139 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement BroylesReply

You added that he is "ineligible". You can't do that without sources that say Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as POTUS. I didn't claim that you are not neutral, nor should you make such a claim about me. I agree about the word 'most' being a statistically unsupported assertion, based on my reading of a couple of the sources.- MrX 22:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding again. I'm sorry that I felt I had to go as far as I did to get attention to this article by proper editors (I normally prefer to stay on talk pages and not touch articles.) The "ineligible" claim is in not in direct response to the previous overstatements in the article in support of his supposed probable eligibility. You can see that these were later replaced with the very plain statement that he is eligible. The word "ineligible" is specifically in response to the latter statement, not to those former. It is a simple 2-letter additon to the specific statement which it modifies and to which it responds. Simply to modify the word "eligible" to its opposite does not produce a less neutral statement than the original statement while Cruz's eligibility has never been definitively legally established (again, the .gov link). It merely produces a statement equal and opposite to the one modified in terms of its neutrality. I acknowledge an unscholarly tone to other content which I have tried to contribute to the article. But as regards your specific criticism here, I believe I have explained my treatment of the sentence in question as not detracting from some imagined comparatively more neutral earlier version provided by someone else.

I understand that you prefer to consider yourself neutral. I also recognize that you're a proper article editor and, at this point, that I am not.

But your continued defense of the article as claiming Cruz to be eligible, while the US State Department continues to make a point of not supporting the argument upon which the claim is based, is not neutral behavior. Moreover, if you are not personally biased in favor of the Cruz campaign, your actions here are nonetheless saliently consistent with such a bias.

If you will really, really neutralize the article, and really, really keep it neutral while Ted's friends inevitably begin to play with it (more) over the next few days, I will much prefer not to touch it again and to instead go back to my preferred mode of interaction with Wikipedia. And more, I will also discourage others from editing the article unnecessarily.

Thanks yet again,

190.24.45.139 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement BroylesReply

Still nothing else to say?

Looking at the references formatting, it's not difficult for me to think that the whole article is probably written by the Cruz campaign. It is not neutral, and it tacitly asserts a legal decision by or pertaining to the US State Department which the US State Department very cleary explains is a decision which was never made, either by them, or by any judge.

If I don't see any action within 12 hours to correct the use of Wikipedia as a free propaganda tool for Cruz, I consider that the principle of good scholarship compels me to take legitimate editorial action, myself.

Meanwhile, I will be directing essentially everyone on the inernet to please read this page and to read the following points to consider, which are directly relevant to the claim, stated in the article, that Cruz is qualified to be POTUS.

1) Cruz's case is importantly different from McCain's because McCain was never issued a Panamanian birth certificate, and was thus never legally certified as a foreign-born person before receiving his US citizenship. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge this point.

2) The US State Department considers any person born in a foreign territory and receiving a valid foreign birth certificate to be a foreign-born person, even if US citizenship is later acquired by whatever means. Such persons do not become natural-born persons by means of changes to citizenship, or by other means. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge this point.

3) The provision that persons born abroad and who acquire citizenship through a parent may sometimes be defined as natural-born persons does not necessarily extent to constitutional puposes, and the State Department says this quite explicitly. Further, there is no provision, anywhere, to extend such status to persons already certified as foreign-born persons. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge these points.

4) The claim that Cruz is eligible to be POTUS, subjected to deductive analysis, necessarily and inevitably must proceed from 1 or more of 3 tacit superordinate premises: A) That acquisition of dual citizenship can void or nullify existing certification as a foreign-born person. B) That to renounce foreign citizenship can void or nullify existing certification as a foreign-born person. C) That status as a foreign-born person and status as a natural-born person can simultaneously apply to a single person. Neither the US State Department nor any acting US Judge has supported any of these 3 possible tacit superordinate premises, and the subordinate claim of eligibility is thus without any support, to date, from either the US State Department or from any acting US Judge. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge these points.

Many Thanks,

Josh Broyles (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh BroylesReply

The State Department site does not mention Cruz and is thus not a reliable source for anything to do with him. You are wasting your time with it. Reexamine original research. Find a reliable source that supports your opinion. Ratemonth (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@190.24.45.139: I trust that by now you have read the original research ploicy and will produce some sources that directly support your claims about Senator Cruz. When you do, I will be among the first to help write them into the article.- MrX 19:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding. If we can handle this some other way, again, I really would rather not personally touch the article again.

There is still no conclusive support for the unqualified statement in the article that Cruz is eligible. If we can change that to a statement that he "claims to be eligible", rather than a statement that puts words in the mouth of the State Department and/or SCOTUS, that will be a pretty big step in the right direction in and of itself. The reference provided immediately before the "eligible" statement does not in fact say that foreign-born status can be expunged in cases where a person born abroad has already recieved foreign-born status. Such a statement would have to be present in the reference item in order for the reference item to support the "eligible" statement as it has been used (erroneously) to appear to do. The link provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_Act_of_1940) also does not mention Cruz at all, and is therefore no more relevant than my .gov reference in terms of having "nothing to do with" Cruz. The fact that it is also a Wikipedia article in no way detracts from the fact that the way it is used here qualifies it equally as "original research" by the same standard you've applied to my .gov link. Moreover, the 1940 Act cited, as not yet revised to the 1993 or other version as of 1968 places specifications on the parents which the article fails to demonstate are met in Cruz's case, as should be necessary to assure that the reference in fact supports the claim it is intended to support in the article. For example, there's no documentation of Cruz's mother's 10 years of residency in the US, or proof that his parents were married.

I might also just as well ask where anyone has anything more than heresay to support much of anything else that is said about Cruz in the article. Where is the documentation of his US citizenship to begin with? What hard evidence exists that he actually renounced his Canadian citizenship?

I am being held to a double-standard. The references cited throughout the article clearly have neither been fact checked, themselves, before statements they are claimed to contain (and even this falsely in the last 2, at least, I believe you have already conceded) are presented as more than conjecture or heresay.

In lieu of further invitations to editorial Ping-Pong, could we at least put a notice at the top of the article that the neutrality of the article has been challenged?

I'm not good yet at technical parts of this process. I wouldn't have got involved at all if the abuse of the medium didn't pretty much jump off the page and hit me between the eyes on first sight. I do realize that I would be totally wasting my time here if the whole point were to have any effect on the election. The point is not that, but, rather, to refuse to allow persons of deficient integrity to set the standard of content accuracy for Wikipedia articles in general. I think you should make an example of this article. If, in the process, you also end up making some kind of example of me for my own disappointing behavior, I can live with that.

Thanks,

Josh Broyles (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh BroylesReply

I added a POV tag. WP:Wikilinks are not article references; they exist for convenience. You can BEBOLD and make edits to the article to fix issues, but please adhere closely to reliable sources and don't add original research. If in doubt, you can post here first to get input from other editors.- MrX 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate this. The more I "be bold", though, the more discussion we'll probably have to have about it later. First, I think it might be better to try to speed things up by pointing out that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz is a more balanced article, which references this http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-inherits-birthers-with-presidential-bid, for example. In addition to suggesting we link not like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause (as it is now), but, instead, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz, I think it's only fair for me to ask why only references favorable to the Cruz campaign had been selected from this linked Wikipedia article for re-use in the Cruz Campaign article. Cherry-picking is not a crime, of course. But there's no reason to offer further encouragement by leaving it "unquestioned".

Thanks. Josh Broyles (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh BroylesReply

You can copy content from one article to another, but there are two caveats: You should verify that the sources accurately represent the content and you must give attribution. This can be done by adding "Material copied from Natural-born-citizen_clause" in the edit summary. The source article must be linked to comply with licensing requirements.

I'm OK with linking to Natural-born-citizen clause#Ted Cruz in this article and equally OK with linking to Natural-born-citizen clause. I have made an edit to this article to try to address some NPOV concerns, but I have not yet fully researched available sources.- MrX 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

are there Endorsements already?83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article states

Because his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940 most consider him eligible to serve as President of the United States.

which is attempting to say that Ted Cruz was a US citizen from birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940. However, the Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1137) had no applicability at the time of Ted Cruz's birth because Ted Cruz was born in 1970 and the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed in its entirety by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163), which too effect on December 24, 1952.

Here is the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 403(a)(42) (on page 117-118 of the PDF) says:

Sec. 403. (a) The following Acts and all amendments thereto and parts of Acts and all amendments thereto are repealed:

[...]

(42) Act of October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137);

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual is an official authoritative source that confirms this. 7 FAM 1132.7 (on page 12 of this PDF) says:

7 FAM 1132.7 January 13, 1941

a. The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA) (54 Stat. 1137) went into effect on January 13, 1941. Section 201 NA addressed acquisition of citizenship by birth abroad. The pertinent text of Section 201 NA is shown in 7 FAM 1134.2.

b. The NA was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The mention of "Nationality Act of 1940" should at the very least be removed as it is manifestly factually incorrect. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed Sarah Palin from the list of Cruz's endorsements because her comments did not constitute an endorsement. See Talk:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Sarah Palin, Dan Bilzerian for full details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do we have an article on foreign-born American presidential candidates that qualify for president? It would be a good overview to work from, and should cover eligibility requirements and why the candidates are eligible. This would include John McCain (born Panama), Cruz (born Canada). And there's the statements that Barry Goldwater (born Arizona Territory) wasn't American enough as he wasn't born in a state. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply