Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 11 August 2015

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Latin and Hispanic heritage / Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Latin and Hispanic heritage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Content Dispute

@108.45.74.201: I always thought the Liberty Caucus was Republican, not Libertarian, and he's in the Conservative Portal. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

108.45.74.201 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)All I know is, it already had him listed under "American libertarians". So, if you're going to remove my addition of "Christian libertarians" on the grounds that he's not libertarian, that's fine, but then remove him from any other libertarian categories, too.

Done. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that state that the subject of the article is libertarian? Salon, a source which could be said is not friendly to those on the right of the political spectrum, say that Cruz and Paul are not libertarian. Reason.com says that Cruz is seeking to court Libertarians, not that he is one. Kenneth Anderson, writing for the Hoover Institute Press, refers to Cruz as being on the "libertarian Right".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationality Act of 1940 is incorrect because it was repealed in 1952 and Ted Cruz was born in 1970

The article states

Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (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)

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) 23:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. Source says 1940, so we do as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you anon editor 50.193.52.113 you are not a reliable source on the topic. Now, we have quotes from over four different sources that are reliable sources and they point to the 1940 Act. Also, even though your personal opinion is not relevant because you are not a reliable source I want to point out that your analysis is wrong. Yes, there was a 1952 Act, but the 1952 Act did not overturn ALL aspects of the 1940 Act and the specific section of the 1940 Act still applies today. It is 1940 Act that makes Obama a U.S. citizen even though his father was not a U.S. Citizen. Obama's mother was a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Kansas, making Obama a U.S. citizen. It is the 1940 Act that makes Cruz a U.S. citizen because his mother was born in Delaware, making her a U.S. citizen and Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen. Reliable source after reliable source points to the 1940 Act. We aren't going to change the article because an anon editor incorrect believes that 1952 Act overturned each and every piece of the 1940 Act because that is factually is not true. Congressional Acts rarely completely 100% overturn a previous Congressional Act. And it is not any different between the 1940 Act and the 1952 Act. The 1952 Act did overturn part of the 1940 Act, but not all of it. And more importantly the part that applies to Cruz and Obama was not overturned: the section that provides citizenship to any child born outside the U.S. as long as ONE parent is a U.S. citizen.ML (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no time or room for the birther arguments. They don't belong here. As Professors Neal Katyal and Paul Clement said: But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose. See On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, MAR 11, 2015, 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161.--ML (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not using myself as a source on this topic. I am not using my personal opinion. The Foreign Affairs Manual is the most authoritative source about US nationality law matters. It says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952. The law also says the same thing. Some provisions in the 1952 Act may be similar to some provisions of the 1940 Act. That does not mean the 1940 Act was still applicable. It's the statement of the 1940 Act being applicable which is incorrect. "It is the 1940 Act that makes Cruz a U.S. citizen" is patently incorrect. No source for this article says that the 1940 Act is the specific act that applies to Ted Cruz. "incorrect believes that 1952 Act overturned each and every piece of the 1940 Act because that is factually is not true." is precisely contradicted by the sources I have provided which said the 1940 Act was repealed -- yes, each and every piece of the Act was repealed; its provisions may have been re-enacted in different Acts. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: I am not doing WP:OR. I have provided a very authoritative source, the Foreign Affairs Manual, the most definitive source on US nationality law, which says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952. None of the sources in the article say that the 1940 Act is the specific act that is applicable to Ted Cruz. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Still WP:TRUTH. Find an WP:RS that talks about those laws and Cruz. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First, there are no WP:RS that says the 1940 Act applies to Cruz or that it applies after 1952. The WP:RS I have already provided repeatedly above says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952, and Cruz was undisputedly born in 1970, after the Act was repealed. So you have an unsupported statement that is contradicted by the evidence. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This source does: . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Where in the source does it say that the 1940 Act applies to Ted Cruz? or that it still existed after 1952? --50.193.52.113 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon (50.193.52.113) editor: You have the burden of providing a reliable source to support your edit. Please provide it. Thank you. Best,--ML (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This talk page section does not say anything about making an edit. This talk page section is about disputing an assertion written in the article as incorrect (the assertion of Nationality Act of 1940 as being applicable to Ted Cruz's citizenship). Reliable sources have already shown the assertion is incorrect, and no sources support the assertion as it is written in the article. The burden of proof for the assertion in the article has not been met, and furthermore contrary proof has been found, so this assertion should be removed. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Horse hockey. You have not provided a reliable source to support your own personal opinion. Really, unless you can provide a reliable source, just drop it, ok? Your opinion is not a reliable source, do you get it?--ML (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For about the 10th time, I have provided a reliable authoritative source (the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual) in the very first post that describes the dispute. Please actually read the post before making comments. It's the assertion in the article that is being disputed that does not have a reliable source. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the whole post and you have NOT, in any way provided a reliable source that supports your personal opinion. This is getting boring. Provide a reliable source to support your personal opinion. The Ted Cruz article, as it is currently written, cites Eugene Volokh's explation that the 1940 Act was the first Act in U.S. history to outline the requirements of citizenship of children of U.S. citizens born aboard. He is quoted in the Texplainer article in the Texas Tribune. The article quotes a well respected law professor pointing directly to the 1940 Act and explaining how the 1940 Act was the first act to outline the requirement and how that 1940 Act is still in the law of the law today, though the whole citizenship laws have been amended by other Acts of Congress, including the 1952 Act. But Volokh NEVER states that the 1952 Act fully and completely throws out the 1940 Act, that is your idea that you made up out of whole cloth. We do not in Misplaced Pages make edits to articles based upon the ideas made up out of whole clothe by an editor who simply has an agenda that the particular wants to push. You are quoting the U.S. Code and then you provide your own personal commentary on it like you are a law professor or something. You might be a law professor, I serious doubt it, but even if you are your opinion is not a reliable source. If you are a law professor, which I will bet you aren't, then you need to take your crazy idea, write it down coherently, and get a reliable source to publish it and then come back and attempt to have it worked into the article. Good luck with that since your idea flies in the face of 99% of the experts in this field. And let me point out that your claim that you know more than the experts quoted in the article is getting or so boring. Don't come back unless you can name a reliable source who is NOT you. (Just stamping your feet and saying something over and over again does not make a false claim true: Just saying that you are a reliable source does not make you one.) Who is your reliable source? What is their name???? I have given you a name, Eugene Volokh, who do you got? Anyone? Anyone at all, that is not YOU.--ML (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1940 Act was the first Act to add the requirement for a US citizen parent to have been present in the US for a certain number of years to transmit citizenship to children born abroad -- this is true. That is not at issue here. The 1940 Act is still in effect today -- this is false, and Volokh and the Texplainer article never said that. Volokh and the Texplainer article also never said that the 1940 Act was in effect after 1952, or that it applied to Cruz. This is the unsupported assertion in the Misplaced Pages article that is being disputed here. The 1940 Act was not "amended" by the 1952 Act; you made that up. No source supports this. The reliable source I have provided (which again, for the millionth time, is not "me"; it is the Foreign Affairs Manual) says the 1940 Act was "repealed" by the 1952 Act. Nothing in the article disagrees with this. It is your confusion that is making you think so. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are providing your analysis, which is absolutely worthless. Who is your reliable source? Who is that person's name? You are providing your analysis of the Foreign Affairs Manual, like you have any idea what you are talking about. I have provided a reliable source that points to the 1940 Act and you have not provided the name of a reliable source. As Ted Knight said in CaddyShack, "Well?"--ML (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not providing "my analysis". There is no "analysis" here. It says directly "The NA was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." No analyzing there. The "who" is the U.S. State Department. I can find any number of reliable sources that say the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed in 1952.

For example, the book "The Citizenship Flowchart" by Robert James McWhirter (first result here) says:

Although the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) entirely repealed the 1940 Nationality Act,

No "analysis" needed here. Or how about the article Filipinos in the United States Navy prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Naval Personnel (must be unreliable, huh?):

The Nationality Act of 1940, however, was repealed on 27 June 1952, effective 24 December 1952 by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Or how about the article In Service to America: Naturalization of Undocumented Alien Veterans in the Seton Hall Law Review by Darlene C. Goring, a law professor, which says (on page 26 of the PDF):

In 1952, Congress repealed the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended,

Here's another one Deportation of Veterans: the Silent Battle for Naturalization, published in the Rutgers Law Review by Cathy Ho Hartsfield, a JAG officer, which says (on page 6 of the PDF):

During the Korean War, Congress repealed the 1940 Act and enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

I can go on and on. But what's the point? No matter how many sources there are, you are going to say I don't have a reliable source, that it's just "my analysis". The fact is, it's you who is making a wrong and unsupported analysis of the Texplainer article because nowhere in that article does it say that the 1940 Act applied to Ted Cruz. There is no source to support that assertion. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 clearly says it repeals the Nationality Act of 1940. I do not think the sources say that the 1940 act is in force, merely that it outlined the conditions under which children of U.S. citizens born abroad became citizens and those principles are still in effect (even if now as part of the 1952 act.) I do not see why it is significant that the principles were explained in the 1940 act and whether they existed in previous acts or under common law - the article is not about nationality law - and would just say "under U.S. nationality law." TFD (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why because the anon editor is quoting PRIMARY sources and drawing conclusions from the PRIMARY sources. He needs a reliable source (that is a SECONDARY source) that comments upon the PRIMARY source to remove information that is in the article and it is information that is in the article supported by a reliable SECONDARY source. The anon editor and now you are commenting on the primary source and trying to remove information supported by a reliable source with information that is based upon merely your opinion and the anon editor's opinion. Besides why do you want to remove the information that is supported by a reliable source? Why? What is your reliable source? What is the anon editors reliable source? You have not provided one. The anon editor has not provided one. The law professor, quoted in the Texplainer article, points to the rules originally put together in the 1940 as the basis for Cruz's citizenship. There is a reliable source saying this. Now, you and the anon editor want to remove information supported by a reliable source with your personal opinion. You are not a reliable source. The anon editor is not a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source. What reliable source says "under U.S. nationality law"? What is your reliable source? Also, why do you feel the need to change the information? Why? You have not provided a reliable source to support your desire for change so why do you feel the need for the change?--ML (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited the sentence. I changed "required" to "outlined" to reflect the fact that the 1940 Act was the first codified version of the 10 years residency requirement of the one parent U.S. citizen family and the fact that the Foreign Affairs Manuel, quoted above by the anon editor, still quotes the 1940 Act extensively and specifically requires applicants to meet the requirements of the 1940 Act. See: 7 FAM 1134 NATIONALITY ACT (NA) OF 1940. The FA Manuel is absolutely consistent with what the law professor outlines in the Texplainer article (i.e., the 1940 Act was the first time Congress demanded a 10 years residency requirement). Having read the primary source that the anon editor provided. I'm going to stick with the reliable secondary source (as good Wikipedians we are required to do). There has not been given any reason to remove valid reliably sourced information from the article and replace that reliably source information with the wording made up by anon editor or wording made up by 4 Deuces. There has not been a reliable secondary source provided by either Anon or Four to justify removing stable, reliably sourced information that has been in the article for well over a year.--ML (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not OR. If a secondary source incorrectly reports a fact about a primary source, we should not repeat a statement we know to be wrong. For example if a source said that Cruz was born in "Calgary, Alberta's capital" (Calgary is the largest city but not the capital), it would be wrong to repeat that incorrect fact, even though we are unable to find a source that says both Cruz was born in Calgary AND Calgary is not the capital of Alberta.

The other issue is whether the sources say the 1940 act is still in force. If they do not say that then they are clearly not reliable sources for saying it is. Even if you can find one that does make the claim, an article by a journalist is not a very good source for interpretations of law or any other specialized field.

I agree with your changes though. I do not see though why you had a problem with my wording. Do you doubt that Cruz has citizenship "under U.S. nationality law?" I certainly hope this article does not attract the same sort of discussions that the Obama one did.

TFD (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find it hilarious that anon editor brought to the table a primary source which fully supports the current wording in the article. The primary source that the anon editor pointed to justify the removal of wording of the law professor quotes the 1940 Act extensively and specifically states that on this one specific issue (i.e., 10 year residency requirement for a households with one U.S. citizen parent) the 1940 Act is still controlling and is the specific basis for the code section that covers it: 8 U.S.C. section 1401. NA 201 still exists today in 8 USC 1401. I also find it hilarious that neither of you are reliable sources yourself but you want to remove the information from the article that is supported by a reliable source (a law professor) because you both believe that you understand the primary sources better than the law professor that is quoted in the article. Amazing. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between the law professor comments and the FA Manual. Also, I don't doubt Cruz has citizenship. I don't doubt that Cruz is eligible for the Presidency. But my personal opinion is not relevant here just like your opinion or the anon editor's opinion is not relevant here. So you really did not even need to ask the question. You question was unnecessary and silly.--ML (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It would not be significant, except for the fact that the Misplaced Pages article specifically names the Nationality Act of 1940 as the justification for Ted Cruz being a citizen from birth. If it said "under U.S. nationality law" then that would be okay. Actually the requirements under the 1940 Act are not exactly the same as the requirements under the 1952 Act, and the Texplainer article only mentioned the 1952 requirements, not the 1940 requirements, so the Misplaced Pages article's association between those requirements and the 1940 Act is not supported by the source. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Its like you did not even read the Texplainer article. It specifically refers to the 1940 Act. You have just jumped the shark. The quote from the Texplainer article is this: The Nationality Act of 1940 outlined which children became “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The law stated that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she were born in United States; born outside the U.S. to parents who were both citizens; found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere; or if a person has been born to one American parent, provided that parent has spent a certain number of years in the United States.--ML (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

While editors are not reliable sources, an act repealing a previous act is the most reliable source that that act repealed the previous act. And the Texplainer article does not say the 1940 act is still in force. If one wants to discuss hilarity, it would appear hilarious that you are using a source that does not support what this article claims. TFD (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ted Cruz article does not state that the 1940 Act is still in force. So your comment leads to nothing.--ML (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Texplainer article says the Nationality Act of 1940 stated a person born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen only if the parent has "spent a certain number of years in the United States". It *does not* say "for more than 10 years" comes from the Nationality Act of 1940, as the Misplaced Pages article says. The Texplainer article does not mention what the detailed requirements were under the 1940 Act. Instead, "10 years" is only mentioned ("parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14") in the part about the requirement for "people born between 1952 and 1986", without specifying which Act it comes from. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It actually does. The article states that the 1940 Act outlined the "single-American parent requirement" and that requirement, as it applied to individuals born between 1952 and 1986, must be "a parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14". The "single-American parent requirement" was created by the 1940 Act and its implementation during the period from '52 to '86 required 10 years living in the U.S., just as this article states. In the Texplainer article all of this info (the law that applies) is attributed to a law professor named Eugene Volokh--who also writes a blog carried by Washington Post. This Ted Cruz article is not inconsistent with the Texplainer article or the FA Manual (which is a primary source and Misplaced Pages does not encourage their use, but as long as it is consistent with the secondary source, which it is). The article then asks how does this info (the 1940 Act single-American parent requirement) apply to Ted Cruz? The Texplainer writer then talks to "Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University" who concludes, "He almost certainly was a citizen at birth. I think that he would be eligible for the presidency. . .Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth." So there you have it. The Texplainer article outlines the law that applies (the 1940 Act single-American parent requirement) and specifically applies that law to Ted Cruz's specific situation and the Texplainer article quotes two nationally known law professors, whose backgrounds you can review in the articles about their lives here on Misplaced Pages. This article on Cruz goes over the law that exists and then applies it specifically to Cruz.--ML (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. The Texplainer article does not say that and you are making your own incorrect interpretation of it. It says the 1940 Act first outlined the "single-American parent requirement", which is correct. And it also says the single-American parent requirement specific to 1952-1986 was "a parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14", which is also correct. It does NOT say the single-American parent requirement specific to the 1952-1986 period comes from the 1940 Act. That is completely unsupported by the Texplainer article and is something you made up. Everything Eugene Volokh said was correct and it is not what you said. We have already shown a huge amount of secondary sources that all say that the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952 and have no source to contradict it. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, you are just blindly talking and making false claims. The Texplainer article via Eugene Volokh said that the 1940 Act outlines the "single-American parent requirement". The Texplainer article via Peter Spiro clearly states that Cruz meets the "single-American parent requirement". I'm sorry that you don't have a reliable source to support your desire to remove valid information from that article but you are not a reliable source.--ML (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have explained it to you time and time again and you're just refusing to understand it through your thick head. The 1940 Act was the first Act to impose such a requirement, but it's not the last. The 1940 Act was repealed in 1952 and the requirement was re-enacted in different Acts (with different conditions from before 1952). Cruz meets the 1952-1986 version of the requirement, which doesn't come from the 1940 Act (which was already repealed). Everything the Texplainer article says is true and it is you who has been interpreting it in a way that the article does not say the whole time. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Great grand father? not notable and not needed

I removed the content about Cruz grand father and great grand father. Not notable and not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing the same (getting an edit conflict warning). That much detail is deeply in the territory of undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The extra content on his father is not necessary, either. The article is about Cruz, not his father. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Internet regulation section seems to contradict itself

The internet regulation section of the article reads as follows:

Cruz opposes net neutrality arguing that the Internet economy has flourished in the United States simply because it has remained largely free from government regulation. He believes regulating the Internet will stifle online innovation and create monopolies. He has expressed support for stripping the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of its power under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and opposes reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

Based on what Cruz is claimed to "argue", it would seem that he is in favor of net neutrality. Am I missing something? 73.136.92.159 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Immigration Stance

Why isn't his immigration position on the page anywhere?

2602:306:3B27:2670:8D38:7208:258F:B5F2 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? Huh?--ML (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the added, "Huh?", I'm sensing your tone to be less than welcoming to this IP user. Please remember to not WP:BITE the newbies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sensing your tone. . ." Really? You have the ability to "sense tone" through the long lines of the Internet? No, of course you don't. Don't make assumptions because your ability to "sense tone" must be broken or lousy (or both), but I think it is figment of an active imagination. Winkelvi, why don't you put Cruz's immigration position in the document, huh?--ML (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

All we have here in Misplaced Pages is "tone" via words typed into a computer keyboard and viewed on a computer screen to evaluate and understand what editors are trying to convey, MaverickLittle. Obviously, tone is an issue in Misplaced Pages as we even have policy regarding it (see WP:TONE for more) in relation to articles. So, yes, tone is something very real here in the world of Misplaced Pages. We make judgments in editing based on it. While you may scoff at whether or not one is able to sense a tone coming from an editor, be aware that administrators do evaluate tone via those typed words and issue preventative blocks for policy violations in regard to WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND based, in various instances, on said tone. You might want to remember that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@WV ● ✉ ✓: I have reviewed your edits and I have reviewed the comments that other editors have said to you. And I have reviewed the edits you have done to my work and the "tone" of your edit summaries to me and toward other editors. And based upon all of that review I can say without hesitation that you are the last person on this planet to lecture anyone about any of those things. As I have told you before and I will repeat right here that you are an edit warrior and you are a bully. Please keep your lectures to yourself and attempt to follow the dictates of those lectures because you don't follow your own advice.--ML (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Hispanic and Latino American articles
• High-importance Hispanic and Latino American articles
• WikiProject Hispanic and Latino Americans articles
• B-Class Texas articles
• High-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons