Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:41, 30 November 2015

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 Misplaced Pages readers going to the wrong page: https://en.wikipedia.org/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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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: ] 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 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 Misplaced Pages to make a point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference CostaNatlRev08282013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Ted Cruz’s Secret Weapon to Win the Right, National Journal, Andy Kroll, June 25, 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
3. Ted Cruz’s family story: Poignant but incomplete, McClatchyDC, Maria Recio, April 1, 2015. Retrieved 25 November 2015.

Sermons and/or other connections to Ted Cruz

WV, regarding this diff 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)

• Biography articles of living people