This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heidi Cruz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Heidi Cruz has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Heidi Cruz appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 March 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
The text says: "Cruz suffered from depression and in August 2005 was found by a police officer sitting on a grassy verge by a public highway "with her head in her hands"." A lot of people experienced similar situations, crying in public is nothing unusual und nothing to feel ashamed about. Why has a police officer to interfere? And why is this to be emphasized on wikipedia? -- 188.107.189.87 ( talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not? It's a fact, and it relates to a potential First Lady. Put your censor scissors back in the drawer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.18.213 ( talk) 07:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Leftists talking about censorship? That's rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.118.66 ( talk) 13:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia use such a bad photo of Heidi? It's really not flattering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Heidi is an Adventist. First Adventist in the White House Might be a Woman - AT http://atoday.org/first-adventist-in-the-white-house-might-be-a-woman.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
But Ted Cruz is a dominionist, not a southern baptist. Wouldn't that make her a dominionist if she married a dominionist and converted to his religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.2.101 ( talk) 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
What do the beans consist of? and will it ever make it into article?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it belongs. This events shape public perception and inclusion as they occur is warranted. Is it petty, mindless? So what. Do people listen to it and recall it? absolutely. If it is citable in reputable media outlets then include it. If others have a problem; blame our society and what it considers as acceptable, citable media. If it is left out, how would a person in the future be able and understand the climate that exists in the 2016 presidential race? A no brainer, to me.
The content; > On March 22, shortly after nude photographs of Melania Trump from a photoshoot were used by an anti-Trump Super PAC in a Facebook advertisement, Trump threatened Ted Cruz that he would "spill the beans" on his wife if he was not careful. Campaigning in Wisconsin, Cruz responded to the threat by asserting she was solely interested in helping her husband and denied that the Cruz campaign had anything to do with the ad. [1] [2]-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk of "bean spilling" continues [3] and each time I read a reference to it, I wonder how much closer the mention of is to appearing in the article. What would be an appropriate time frame? weeks, months, years, never?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 15:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper CNN GOP townhall; Trump addresses the issue again. Is it not time to make mention, now? In the article. Or, do we ignore reality? "Donald Trump on Heidi Cruz photo: 'I didn't start it' [4]
References
The very last sentence of this BLP says: "In the early years of her marriage, Cruz suffered from depression.[94][95][96][26]" This is not as accurate as it could be, and will leave many readers with the impression that she said "I do" and quickly fell into a depression that lasted for years, which is not true per the cited sources.
Was it a "moment" or was it "years"? I don't think we have adequate sourcing to suggest the latter. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Some significant editing of the talk pages has been occurring and I would like to see what the changes consist of but the "curr/prev" functionality is not enabled. What gives? -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
One step closer to exiting wikipedia, other than for amusement purposes, since it seems highly suspect that biases are more a norm than exception. My interest with Mrs. Cruz was the media treatment of circumstances, which would include wikipedia. Now that my proposed enhancement have been buried and allegations of improper behaviour are made; the ability of a few editors to limit and restrain knowledge of an encyclopedia is how our history was, and continues, to be written. The Trump threat , "spill the beans" will apparently not touch the article. Outrageous. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 18:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
"My interest with Mrs. Cruz was the media treatment of circumstances, which would include wikipedia."Actually, you were one of those treating Wikipedia like "media" and that's why your edits and comments on this talk page were reverted and/or deleted. Wikipedia is a non-POV encyclopedia, it's WP:NOTNEWS. And it's certainly not an online political blog or chat forum, nor is it a battleground. When you start to approach what we're supposed to be doing here as unbiased encyclopedic editing, then you will likely be a happier camper. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, to me, is a media source; as are newspaper, encyclopedia, etc., My contributions are non-POV and reference citable, legitimate sources. I suggest you re-read the article and then ask yourself if this is totally within the guidelines. For myself, it border on being a "puff" piece already.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipietime, I'm not ascribing motives; this chatter about "biases" is nonsense. If you wish to paint me as a Cruz operative, WP:AN is thattaway, but I'll call upon Cullen328 as a character witness. The stuff that was first deleted and then removed (not "buried"), was a BLP violation, pure and simple. Why you feel the need to make a screenshot of something is beyond me. It would behoove you, as a Wikipedia editor, to more carefully peruse WP:BLP, and then you can see, at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#2, what the rationale for deletion was. Again, if you disagree, WP:AN is thattaway, but the rule is, we cannot have BLP violations anywhere in the project. And if you do bring it up at AN, admins will look to see if I was right or not, and I welcome that--but given what you said at 22:43, 24 March 2016 about a living person, I really think it's not a good idea. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
All good and well. With time and mounting pressure, it will be most interesting to see which deleted contributions and suggestions make it into the article. I have nothing personal against your viewpoint and actions; but, disagree. So, as a hypothetical of what may very well be a reputable news story in a few days -- talk of a "sex tape"; is that pertinent to Mrs. Cruz's article? rhetorically speaking. Sanitization has it's limits. Since when is The Blaze a reputable source? Is this not just Glenn Becks's Cruz campaign?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I have improved upon the infobox photo currently in the article, cropped it, and retouched it to be less blurry. When I included it in the infobox, I reduced the size so that the poor quality is less noticeable. It has since been removed and replaced with the photo of Cruz and her husband. An infobox photo should show the article subject alone, not with others, to give the right first look to the reader. While I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically not the best argument, I think in the case of infobox photos (individual portraits, really), the example we have of other biographies and BLPs - infobox photos of article subjects alone - is best considered in this case. Here are the two article versions - one with the current photo, the other with the photo I cropped and corrected: larger photo of Cruz and husband, smaller, cropped and corrected photo of just Cruz. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapse personalized sniping
|
---|
Just making sure no one confuses your claims of innocence with the facts both now and in the past: even when brought previously to ANI as well as when receiving notifications on your talk page about your penchant for using personal attacks, you have denied every time that anything you have said is a personal attack or bullying. Anyone reading this can take from that what they will. --
WV ●
✉
✓ 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
|
I suppose it should stop, I don't see why the discussion and evidence needs to be hidden upon first glance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I took another stab at cropping the picture that we do have. You can review it here: -- ML ( talk) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapse personalized sniping
|
---|
Really? Is this not an intentional distraction from more relevant and pertinent content? Laughable; but, sad. The talk pages are suppose to be apout improving the article; not window dressings. If anyone wants to see her image... https://www.google.com/search?q=heidi+cruz&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=665&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlrq_eoeTLAhWBOiYKHSf7DLAQ_AUIBigB&dpr=0.9-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
|
There's a lot of undue weight in the campaign section. A day-to-day, month-to-month play-by-play of what she's done during the campaign is overkill and unnecessary. It needs to be pared down significantly. That much detail might be appropriate for the Cruz presidential campaign article, but not for a BLP on Cruz' wife. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentences in Role in 2016 section that states; "Cruz took a leave of absence without pay to participate in her husband's 2016 presidential campaign. Cruz was quoted as saying, “I took a leave of absence from my career because I believe our country is in crisis" is totally asinine. Why say it twice? Besides, is the Blaze even a citable source since it is Glenn Beck's pro Cruz machinery. In my opinion 75% of the article is inadequate.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 03:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
MaverickLittle, I've noticed you have found some new photographs, and cited them as your "own work". Are you a professional photographer? If not, these images cannot be your own work. Please specify further where these may have originated from. -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is now a question as to the permission/copyright status of those photos. We are waiting at Commons for a determination. Cirt is the admin assisting in working on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper hosted and Mrs. Cruz was singled out from the audience numerous times. Does this not qualify her image as fair use? Being that she was present and featured at a political event with no expectation of privacy. Also, from March 29 2016, GOP CNN Townhall; Donald Trump on Heidi Cruz photo: 'I didn't start it'; makes it really worthy considering mentioning in the article. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor just added a section to the article concerning Cruz's service on the Council of Foreign Relations. He cited an article from Politico and he cited a report written by a CFR committee that Cruz participated and where she also dissented from. The section as currently written is as follows: From 2005-2011 Heidi Cruz was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (aka CFR) and was a member of the Task Force that published a report entitled "Building a North American Community."[27] That report promoted the establishment of a North American economic and security community, similar to that of the European Economic Community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.[28] Heidi Cruz's statement on the Task Force Report was filed under the section "Additional and Dissenting Views" and in addition to endorsing the report, Cruz suggested that the private sector lead the way to achieve the objectives outlined in the report.[29]
" I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants. " Nowhere did she say the words "I dissent." Contrast her statement to that of Thomas S. Axworthy on page 33, who clearly states "But there are some key points on which I dissent."
The issue of depression in the "Personal life" section was inadequately addressed so I included the information already referenced in the Buzzfeed article. This is what was added to the "Personal life" section: [2]
This addition was reverted back at 19:08, on 19 April 2016 by User:MaverickLittle. This editor is claiming, "Not encyclopedic, undue weight, BLP, etc." I disagree and here's why:
First, as a WP:BLP, the addition maintains a WP:NPOV since the information is from Buzzfeed which draws its' info from an Austin, TX police report. Second, the information is WP:VER since it is given appropriate citation. And third, it is obviously not WP:OR. Fourth, the addition is not WP:UNDUE because it simply elaborates on the depression issue mentioned immediately prior to the addition. Fifth, the addition is WP:NOTE because it is WP:VER and it is not WP:UNDUE and is an incident with regard to the issue of Mrs. Cruz's depression. The fact that the police report is heavily redacted is also noteworthy but in keeping with WP:UNDUE it is not elaborated further. Therefore, the addition is appropriate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines.
I have requested discussion from User:MaverickLittle and other interested editors as I would like to avoid seeing a WP:EW, so in keeping with WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, I have posted this issue for further collaboration. I have also asked User:MaverickLittle to please discuss the matter here prior to any further reverts. Thank you. 23:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Jtpaladin ( talk)
Agree that buzfeed + Police report is insufficient sourcing for a medical condition discussion under BLP Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that if there is indeed reputable,citable sources; and they are oppressed from inclusion for nefarious reasons - a huge problem.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)-- Wikipietime ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Although I am flattered, no need to keep quoting me and making it personal; only expressing my take. In the end, this will all work itself out as to who Heidi Cruz is. Omitting recent revelations of BLP and keeping it encyclopedic harkens back to Britannica and World Book. Is this really how relevant the article needs to be. Would be laughable for my daughter to give a report on Mrs. Cruz and current events and the contentious topics of the talk pages that have been excluded, would be omitted. Revisionist history has early seedings and this page bears witness.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the "early campaigning" section on Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, there is this statement:
On December 3, Cruz returned to Texas to file paperwork for her husband's name to appear on the state ballot. She acknowledged she had previously filed for his name on ballots in previous states, but also said the Cruz campaign had "a campaign strategy that's built to last, and we have built a grass-roots army that this country hasn't seen since Ronald Reagan."
I have no idea what that second sentence is supposed to convey. The phrase "but also" indicates that there is some kind of contrast between her filing to put him on the ballot in other states (which is implied to be a potentially negative thing, since she has to "acknowledge" it?), and his campaign strategy being strong: why would those contrast? Wouldn't a strong campaign naturally lead to someone being on more ballots? I don't follow politics at all (just here browsing because of the DYK) and reading the source articles didn't obviously clear it up, so I don't know how to revise. What are we supposed to learn about Heidi Cruz from this paragraph? ~ oulfis 🌸( talk) 03:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heidi Cruz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Heidi Cruz has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Heidi Cruz appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 March 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
The text says: "Cruz suffered from depression and in August 2005 was found by a police officer sitting on a grassy verge by a public highway "with her head in her hands"." A lot of people experienced similar situations, crying in public is nothing unusual und nothing to feel ashamed about. Why has a police officer to interfere? And why is this to be emphasized on wikipedia? -- 188.107.189.87 ( talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not? It's a fact, and it relates to a potential First Lady. Put your censor scissors back in the drawer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.18.213 ( talk) 07:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Leftists talking about censorship? That's rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.118.66 ( talk) 13:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia use such a bad photo of Heidi? It's really not flattering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Heidi is an Adventist. First Adventist in the White House Might be a Woman - AT http://atoday.org/first-adventist-in-the-white-house-might-be-a-woman.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
But Ted Cruz is a dominionist, not a southern baptist. Wouldn't that make her a dominionist if she married a dominionist and converted to his religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.2.101 ( talk) 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
What do the beans consist of? and will it ever make it into article?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it belongs. This events shape public perception and inclusion as they occur is warranted. Is it petty, mindless? So what. Do people listen to it and recall it? absolutely. If it is citable in reputable media outlets then include it. If others have a problem; blame our society and what it considers as acceptable, citable media. If it is left out, how would a person in the future be able and understand the climate that exists in the 2016 presidential race? A no brainer, to me.
The content; > On March 22, shortly after nude photographs of Melania Trump from a photoshoot were used by an anti-Trump Super PAC in a Facebook advertisement, Trump threatened Ted Cruz that he would "spill the beans" on his wife if he was not careful. Campaigning in Wisconsin, Cruz responded to the threat by asserting she was solely interested in helping her husband and denied that the Cruz campaign had anything to do with the ad. [1] [2]-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk of "bean spilling" continues [3] and each time I read a reference to it, I wonder how much closer the mention of is to appearing in the article. What would be an appropriate time frame? weeks, months, years, never?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 15:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper CNN GOP townhall; Trump addresses the issue again. Is it not time to make mention, now? In the article. Or, do we ignore reality? "Donald Trump on Heidi Cruz photo: 'I didn't start it' [4]
References
The very last sentence of this BLP says: "In the early years of her marriage, Cruz suffered from depression.[94][95][96][26]" This is not as accurate as it could be, and will leave many readers with the impression that she said "I do" and quickly fell into a depression that lasted for years, which is not true per the cited sources.
Was it a "moment" or was it "years"? I don't think we have adequate sourcing to suggest the latter. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Some significant editing of the talk pages has been occurring and I would like to see what the changes consist of but the "curr/prev" functionality is not enabled. What gives? -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
One step closer to exiting wikipedia, other than for amusement purposes, since it seems highly suspect that biases are more a norm than exception. My interest with Mrs. Cruz was the media treatment of circumstances, which would include wikipedia. Now that my proposed enhancement have been buried and allegations of improper behaviour are made; the ability of a few editors to limit and restrain knowledge of an encyclopedia is how our history was, and continues, to be written. The Trump threat , "spill the beans" will apparently not touch the article. Outrageous. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 18:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
"My interest with Mrs. Cruz was the media treatment of circumstances, which would include wikipedia."Actually, you were one of those treating Wikipedia like "media" and that's why your edits and comments on this talk page were reverted and/or deleted. Wikipedia is a non-POV encyclopedia, it's WP:NOTNEWS. And it's certainly not an online political blog or chat forum, nor is it a battleground. When you start to approach what we're supposed to be doing here as unbiased encyclopedic editing, then you will likely be a happier camper. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, to me, is a media source; as are newspaper, encyclopedia, etc., My contributions are non-POV and reference citable, legitimate sources. I suggest you re-read the article and then ask yourself if this is totally within the guidelines. For myself, it border on being a "puff" piece already.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipietime, I'm not ascribing motives; this chatter about "biases" is nonsense. If you wish to paint me as a Cruz operative, WP:AN is thattaway, but I'll call upon Cullen328 as a character witness. The stuff that was first deleted and then removed (not "buried"), was a BLP violation, pure and simple. Why you feel the need to make a screenshot of something is beyond me. It would behoove you, as a Wikipedia editor, to more carefully peruse WP:BLP, and then you can see, at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#2, what the rationale for deletion was. Again, if you disagree, WP:AN is thattaway, but the rule is, we cannot have BLP violations anywhere in the project. And if you do bring it up at AN, admins will look to see if I was right or not, and I welcome that--but given what you said at 22:43, 24 March 2016 about a living person, I really think it's not a good idea. Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
All good and well. With time and mounting pressure, it will be most interesting to see which deleted contributions and suggestions make it into the article. I have nothing personal against your viewpoint and actions; but, disagree. So, as a hypothetical of what may very well be a reputable news story in a few days -- talk of a "sex tape"; is that pertinent to Mrs. Cruz's article? rhetorically speaking. Sanitization has it's limits. Since when is The Blaze a reputable source? Is this not just Glenn Becks's Cruz campaign?-- Wikipietime ( talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I have improved upon the infobox photo currently in the article, cropped it, and retouched it to be less blurry. When I included it in the infobox, I reduced the size so that the poor quality is less noticeable. It has since been removed and replaced with the photo of Cruz and her husband. An infobox photo should show the article subject alone, not with others, to give the right first look to the reader. While I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically not the best argument, I think in the case of infobox photos (individual portraits, really), the example we have of other biographies and BLPs - infobox photos of article subjects alone - is best considered in this case. Here are the two article versions - one with the current photo, the other with the photo I cropped and corrected: larger photo of Cruz and husband, smaller, cropped and corrected photo of just Cruz. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapse personalized sniping
|
---|
Just making sure no one confuses your claims of innocence with the facts both now and in the past: even when brought previously to ANI as well as when receiving notifications on your talk page about your penchant for using personal attacks, you have denied every time that anything you have said is a personal attack or bullying. Anyone reading this can take from that what they will. --
WV ●
✉
✓ 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
|
I suppose it should stop, I don't see why the discussion and evidence needs to be hidden upon first glance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I took another stab at cropping the picture that we do have. You can review it here: -- ML ( talk) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapse personalized sniping
|
---|
Really? Is this not an intentional distraction from more relevant and pertinent content? Laughable; but, sad. The talk pages are suppose to be apout improving the article; not window dressings. If anyone wants to see her image... https://www.google.com/search?q=heidi+cruz&espv=2&biw=1517&bih=665&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlrq_eoeTLAhWBOiYKHSf7DLAQ_AUIBigB&dpr=0.9-- Wikipietime ( talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
|
There's a lot of undue weight in the campaign section. A day-to-day, month-to-month play-by-play of what she's done during the campaign is overkill and unnecessary. It needs to be pared down significantly. That much detail might be appropriate for the Cruz presidential campaign article, but not for a BLP on Cruz' wife. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentences in Role in 2016 section that states; "Cruz took a leave of absence without pay to participate in her husband's 2016 presidential campaign. Cruz was quoted as saying, “I took a leave of absence from my career because I believe our country is in crisis" is totally asinine. Why say it twice? Besides, is the Blaze even a citable source since it is Glenn Beck's pro Cruz machinery. In my opinion 75% of the article is inadequate.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 03:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
MaverickLittle, I've noticed you have found some new photographs, and cited them as your "own work". Are you a professional photographer? If not, these images cannot be your own work. Please specify further where these may have originated from. -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is now a question as to the permission/copyright status of those photos. We are waiting at Commons for a determination. Cirt is the admin assisting in working on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper hosted and Mrs. Cruz was singled out from the audience numerous times. Does this not qualify her image as fair use? Being that she was present and featured at a political event with no expectation of privacy. Also, from March 29 2016, GOP CNN Townhall; Donald Trump on Heidi Cruz photo: 'I didn't start it'; makes it really worthy considering mentioning in the article. -- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor just added a section to the article concerning Cruz's service on the Council of Foreign Relations. He cited an article from Politico and he cited a report written by a CFR committee that Cruz participated and where she also dissented from. The section as currently written is as follows: From 2005-2011 Heidi Cruz was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (aka CFR) and was a member of the Task Force that published a report entitled "Building a North American Community."[27] That report promoted the establishment of a North American economic and security community, similar to that of the European Economic Community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.[28] Heidi Cruz's statement on the Task Force Report was filed under the section "Additional and Dissenting Views" and in addition to endorsing the report, Cruz suggested that the private sector lead the way to achieve the objectives outlined in the report.[29]
" I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants. " Nowhere did she say the words "I dissent." Contrast her statement to that of Thomas S. Axworthy on page 33, who clearly states "But there are some key points on which I dissent."
The issue of depression in the "Personal life" section was inadequately addressed so I included the information already referenced in the Buzzfeed article. This is what was added to the "Personal life" section: [2]
This addition was reverted back at 19:08, on 19 April 2016 by User:MaverickLittle. This editor is claiming, "Not encyclopedic, undue weight, BLP, etc." I disagree and here's why:
First, as a WP:BLP, the addition maintains a WP:NPOV since the information is from Buzzfeed which draws its' info from an Austin, TX police report. Second, the information is WP:VER since it is given appropriate citation. And third, it is obviously not WP:OR. Fourth, the addition is not WP:UNDUE because it simply elaborates on the depression issue mentioned immediately prior to the addition. Fifth, the addition is WP:NOTE because it is WP:VER and it is not WP:UNDUE and is an incident with regard to the issue of Mrs. Cruz's depression. The fact that the police report is heavily redacted is also noteworthy but in keeping with WP:UNDUE it is not elaborated further. Therefore, the addition is appropriate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines.
I have requested discussion from User:MaverickLittle and other interested editors as I would like to avoid seeing a WP:EW, so in keeping with WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, I have posted this issue for further collaboration. I have also asked User:MaverickLittle to please discuss the matter here prior to any further reverts. Thank you. 23:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Jtpaladin ( talk)
Agree that buzfeed + Police report is insufficient sourcing for a medical condition discussion under BLP Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that if there is indeed reputable,citable sources; and they are oppressed from inclusion for nefarious reasons - a huge problem.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)-- Wikipietime ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Although I am flattered, no need to keep quoting me and making it personal; only expressing my take. In the end, this will all work itself out as to who Heidi Cruz is. Omitting recent revelations of BLP and keeping it encyclopedic harkens back to Britannica and World Book. Is this really how relevant the article needs to be. Would be laughable for my daughter to give a report on Mrs. Cruz and current events and the contentious topics of the talk pages that have been excluded, would be omitted. Revisionist history has early seedings and this page bears witness.-- Wikipietime ( talk) 13:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the "early campaigning" section on Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, there is this statement:
On December 3, Cruz returned to Texas to file paperwork for her husband's name to appear on the state ballot. She acknowledged she had previously filed for his name on ballots in previous states, but also said the Cruz campaign had "a campaign strategy that's built to last, and we have built a grass-roots army that this country hasn't seen since Ronald Reagan."
I have no idea what that second sentence is supposed to convey. The phrase "but also" indicates that there is some kind of contrast between her filing to put him on the ballot in other states (which is implied to be a potentially negative thing, since she has to "acknowledge" it?), and his campaign strategy being strong: why would those contrast? Wouldn't a strong campaign naturally lead to someone being on more ballots? I don't follow politics at all (just here browsing because of the DYK) and reading the source articles didn't obviously clear it up, so I don't know how to revise. What are we supposed to learn about Heidi Cruz from this paragraph? ~ oulfis 🌸( talk) 03:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)