# Talk:Heidi Cruz

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)

There shouldn't be. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the statement, "in August 2005 was found by a police officer sitting on a grassy verge by a public highway" here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 23 March 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) 

Please explain to me what is so unusual about "sitting on a grassy verge by a public highway"? Meatsgains (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
How surprising. The sort of person who throws around the word "leftist" as an insult mistakes the removal of unimportant information for censorship. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 27 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) 

So take a better one. (Indeed, it would be difficult to take a worse one.) Jonathunder (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I took the original picture.  The picture has been cropped so that only Heidi's face shows and it has been blown up.  It makes the picture look horrendous.  I have attempted to put in the original picture, which has not been so severely cropped and has not been blown up.  The older version of the picture is NOT as blurry and I suggest we use the original picture that I took of both Heidi and her husband in the same picture.  I am looking for input here because I do agree with LittleMarkR and Jonathunder that the current version is too blurry and does not look professional enough.  But I want to make it clear that I believe that we should remove the newer cropped and blown up version with the original version because the original version is not as blurry and amatuer looking.--ML (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I have taken down the newer, blurry version two times and re-inserted the original version, but each time it has been reverted.  I'm looking for the reason for these reversion.--ML (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If Informant16 reverts again, I will gladly block them for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You're going to block the person trying to use the only picture we have, as opposed to the individual without an account that vandalized the page by replacing her photo with that of a monkey? Informant16 25 March 2016
Don't deflect. You were edit warring over the photograph and over the "spill the beans" stuff. If someone vandalizes an article, you can warn them on their talk page and/or report them to WP:AIV; I do not see in your edit history that you did, so stick to the topic please. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I cast no shield but I argue against singling me out as some sort of detractor from the content when i've been anything but, in my view. Informant16 25 March 2016

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) 

Heidi was raised as an Adventist, but she converted to Southern Baptist after he marriage.  Please read all of the reliable sources.--ML (talk) 18:26, 24 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 removed content noting that Trump threatened Ted Cruz by stating he would "spill the beans" on his wife as a result of a Facebook ad. I was reverted by Informant16 and the information has since been restored back to the page. Rather than engage in edit warring, I wanted to get other users' input as to whether the content is this noteworthy and warrants inclusion on Cruz' BLP? It reads like a tabloid to me. Meatsgains (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It may say something about Trump, but unsubstantiated insinuations do not belong here; that's a BLP violation. Jonathunder (talk) 03:21, 24 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.--Wikipietime (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how this material would not reach the article. Informant16 24 March 2016
I see Heidi Cruz as being only indirectly involved, thus the content should not be included in her BLP. She is not the one who initiated the Facebook ad, she just responded to Trump's threat. Trump threatened Ted Cruz, not Heidi. Meatsgains (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk of "bean spilling" continues 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)

It might be worth adding if/when Trump actually decides to "spill the beans". I guess only time will tell. Meatsgains (talk) 01:08, 30 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'  

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.

Buzzfeed:  "'About a decade ago, when Mrs. Cruz returned from D.C. to Texas and faced a significant professional transition, she experienced a brief bout of depression,' said Jason Miller, an adviser to the senator."
ABC: "Cruz gets candid describing a tough moment during his marriage when his wife, Heidi Cruz, battled depression. The episode occurred over 10 years ago when Heidi Cruz moved to Texas when Cruz became solicitor general of the state."
NYT:  "In the interview last week, Mrs. Cruz declined to elaborate on what happened that night and said there had been no similar incidents since. She refrained from using the word 'depression,' although in his book, 'A Time for Truth,' Mr. Cruz wrote that her move to Texas had 'led to her facing a period of depression.'  'I don’t have years and years of major suffering from this,' she said, 'and I want to use it to strengthen people around me and to recognize that we all have rough patches.'"
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)

I agree, the current claim reads as if her depression lasted for awhile. Given the sources you provided, we should include something along the lines of: "In the early years of her marriage, Cruz experienced a brief period of depression." If anything, the term "suffered" should be replaced with "experienced". Meatsgains (talk) 03:48, 26 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)

I believe admins can remove post(s) if the post violates policy/guidelines. The talk page is for discussing article changes/improvements. Other comments or whathaveyou can be removed and or buried. --Malerooster (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The comments were removed because they were a BLP vio.  They were then  "buried" because they were such an egregious BLP vio.  The user was warned on his talk page, so I'm not sure why he's claiming he doesn't understand what happened (and going to the talk pages of others not involved and claiming it was about censorship and political agendas).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
....Really hope you're not alluding to me. Informant16 26 March 2016
According to the page log, administrator Drmies deleted revisions containing WP:BLP policy violations (see WP:REVDEL). You'll have to ask them for more details, though I highly doubt they'll tell you exactly what was removed. clpo13(talk) 17:08, 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)

Seriously, did you just totally forgot what you called Ted Cruz, though you couched it in "some say"? That's what the point is here. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 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)

WV's cropped version of the picture I took is just as blurry and horrendous as the one that User:Informant16 created.  You can review User:Informant16's horrendous picture here:  Informant16's crop of Heidi Cruz picture.  I can't see any difference between Winkelvi's crop and Informant16's crop.  Also, there is no hard and fast rule that the picture be on just one person.  That is the Winkelvi's opinion which is trying to pass off as rule of law.  It isn't.--ML (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the deal: two if us have attempted to fix your crappy picture offering and make it infobox friendly and less crappy.  If there's going to only be opposition to attempts to fix this infobox inappropriate photo, then I say there should be no photo until we can get one that is appropriate.  There is no requirement that infoboxes contain photographs, therefore, not having one until we get a good one is the best option. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't like either one of the cropped versions since they're so obviously cropped, and (like the lamppost at Kent State) that microphone is awkwardly coming out of nowhere. Given that much of her notability, if not all of it, derives from her being the wife of, having an image with both in there seems appropriate to me. Y'all, let's try to have these conversations in a more friendly way and not descend to the level of discourse used by our subjects. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Disagree.  If she is notable on her own, as several editors argued at the recent AfD for this article, then the article entire should reflect that, including the first thing readers see when coming to the article.  We write biographies in a certain manner to reflect who the article is about by putting less emphasis on the well-known spouse, child, or other relative of the article subject. There's no reason why this kind of standard isn't also applicable to the infobox photo.  People are very visual.  The current infobox photo gives an immediate visual impression that is the antithesis of individual notability.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we disagree, it must be because you are of the wrong political or religious persuasion. What else could it be? You're clearly a Trump/Clinton/Bill Clinton/Cruz/Mrs. Cruz/Ben Carson operative. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we ALL disagree.  The picture with the two of them is appropriate for the reasons that you stated.  We will use it until someone takes a picture of her completely by herself which we can swap out latter.--ML (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Dammit, Drmies.  You figured me out.  I am an operative for all of them.  My cover is finally blown.  Time to COI tag myself.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Are there not any better photographs which we can use under fair usage policy? I don't personally see any issue with the cropped photograph, but I feel as if the only way this can be solved is by looking for another one of better quality... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing in Commons, there is nothing available in the free and fair use realm at Flickr.  Of photos at Flickr that have her in them, there are very, very few.  Which, in my estimation and in light of the fact that we live in a very photo-centric 21st century, takes Heidi Cruz back to the non-notable category making her ineligible for a BLP article on her alone, but that's me.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But, just to be clear for other readers of this discussion, Winkelvi is flat out wrong about Heidi Cruz's notability.  There was a recent discussion on this and Winkelvi's own personal opinion was clearly defeated in the voting.  Also, the fact that there are no Heidi Cruz pictures available in public use at Flickr does not change that determination.--ML (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and MaverickLittle - this stops now, please. The Interior (Talk) 21:39, 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)

Winkelvi - shame about the lack of photographs. I will say I concur, if there are no photographs available of her on her own it really does bring her notability into question... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and its subcategories have over ten thousand people we have articles for but not a photograph. Most of them are notable in some way. Jonathunder (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the lack of photographs does not prove anything.--ML (talk) 17:23, 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)

It lacks the blurriness that the other cropped versions do.--ML (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
No Too long and narrow for an infobox photo.  As was stated in the section above, we have tons of articles in Wikipedia without an infobox photograph. Based on that, and the fact that the only photo we have on her sucks, the infobox should be without a photograph until we can find one that is suitable and at least somewhat attractive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Fine. But we will leave the pic with her and her husband.--ML (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Winkelvi. Article is better off without a photograph as of now. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Support I simple like this one better than the current one, but if it is not liked then we will stick with the one with both Cruz and her husband.--ML (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the cropped version over this one but either is better than having none at all. Meatsgains (talk) 21:30, 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)

I agree the campaign section is way too long.  It MIGHT be appropriate for the campaign article, but way too much for this particular article.--ML (talk) 14:23, 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)

It's a direct quote and is relevant to explaining why she decided to take a leave of absence from her high-profile job.  Not "asinine" at all.  The Blaze may seem unreliable to its detractors, however, it's highly doubtful that they would lie about a direct quote.  I don't see any issue with using The Blaze as a source in this case.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:11, 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)

What are you talking about? I was at the fundraiser and I took the pictures. Just like I was at the opening for Cruz's headquarters where the picture of Heidi and Ted comes from.  They are my own work, just like the Heidi's picture.  Please explain yourself and your question.--ML (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Just asking out of curiosity, MaverickLittle. If they were not your own work then this matter would be very different. However, that is not the case. Thank you for explaining. The uncivil tone in which you responded to me is another matter, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There was nothing uncivil in my tone whatsoever.  That is a flat out falsehood.  Now, I will repeat my question, "Please explain yourself and your question."--ML (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Accusations of "falsehood" are out of line and you've been warned before. End it now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What else am I supposed to say when he states that I was being "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil?--ML (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
MaverickLittle, thank you for getting the photographs. I appreciate it. Informant16 30 March 2016.
Thank you.  You are welcome.  --  ML (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice pics, very well done.  BTW, the word "falsity" often goes down much better.[1]😎Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:49, 30 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)
Unfortunately, Winkelvi is the one made the complaint.  There is not an issue.  I took the pictures, I own the copyright, and I have been working with the admin, not WV, to straighten the situation out.--ML (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the hallmarks of Wikipedia editing is that editors are supposed to work with other editors not just with those who appear to have some power within Wikipedia. That in mind, your comment about not working with me but with an administrator is strange and appears to go against the very nature of civility and collegial editing.  The more you communicate here, the more it appears you do not have a good grasp on editing policies.  Please work on being more civil with other editors who, like you, just want to improve the encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Winkelvi and Jonathunder for responding whilst I was away - much appreciated. MaverickLittle: my explanation is that I was simply curious as to how you had found the photographs and whether or not they were covered under fair usage policy. If I were to take a photograph of David Cameron making a speech at the House of Commons, and I were to upload it to Wikipedia, I'm certain I would be asked questions about it, too. I am simply a rule follower, and I expect others to act accordingly. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I took the pictures. Period.  I follow all of the rules.  Your previous comment claiming I was uncivil was untrue.  Just like the Winkelvi's comment above stating that because I pointed out that I am not working with him to straighten out the copyright issue (but rather with the admin--which is a true statement) is uncivil is likewise not true.  If you make untrue statements then I am going to point that out.  Jonathunder made it clear that he does not like the word "falsehood".  But when something is not true then it needs to be said.  I'm not conceding that I should not have used the word "falsehood" because it is a perfectly good word but I will stop using it and when I read a statement that is untrue then I will say it is untrue.  When you stated that I was being uncivil then that statement was not true as in untrue.  I simply asked you a question and did not answer the question but you did take the time to call me uncivil for asking the question.  I would suggest you learn how to cooperate with the other editors.--ML (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not disputing the source of the photographs, MaverickLittle. I have received an appropriate explanation, for which I am grateful. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm working with the admin and I expect the copyright issue will be settled soon.--ML (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, MaverickLittle. I have seen the discussion at Commons. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the issue was with the photographs has been fixed.  It was really never an issue though.  But all is well, as it should be.--ML (talk) 21:49, 4 April 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)

No, we don't use fair use photographs of living people, and certainly not when there are freely licensed ones available. Jonathunder (talk) 14:15, 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]

The second sentence that states the report promotes a N.A. economic and sec community is original research because this comment, even though it might be true is not supported by a reliable SECONDARY source.  It is not supported by the Politico article and the other source provided is an report from the CFR.  The CFR is primary source, which we discouraged from using.  However, that is ok if the report (the primary source) is quoted directly and not quoted in a manner which takes facts and issues out of context.  That is not the case here.  The sentence is the work of the editor, not the primary source.  The third sentence is also OR because it characterizes what Cruz says instead of quoting her.  AND it mischaracterizes what she said in the her dissenting statement.  The third sentence is written in a manner that mischaracterizes her position.  She is against the creation of the N.A. econ and sec zone if it infringes on any state's sovereignty.  That's not what this paragraph states.  I suggest we remove most of the paragraph and point out what we can: (1) Cruz served on the CFR from certain date to certain date, and (2) she filed a dissent to the report she assisted in creating, without getting into the details of what the discussion was, unless there is a better SECONDARY reliable source provided that support the inclusion of more details.  As usual, feel free to make changes and have a discussion, but in the meantime I'm going to trim the section down to what we can actually support with reliable sources and remove all OR.--ML (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You deleted this "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]" and added this " Cruz filed a statement partially dissenting to the report." which is not only false, it is actually the definition of "original research" because nowhere in her statement does Heidi Cruz say she dissents.  The Task Force Report lists the Task Force Members on page 9 of the PDF with an asterisk next to the name of each member that endorsed the report, stating "The individual has endorsed the report and submitted an additional or a dissenting view."  Heidi Cruz's statement on pages 33-34 reads as follows:
" 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."  

When you characterize her statement as a "partially dissenting one" it clearly shows that you have a bias to make Heidi Cruz look like she did not agree with the Task Force Report. In other words, what you characterize as a "partial dissent" is your subjective opinion.  Therefore, I will edit the original piece to describe the report and quote her statement and let the reader decide if her statement is an additional or a dissenting one.Skatz613 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead. Give it a go.--ML (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed your addition because it was way, way too long.  It is undue weight.  Please look for a secondary reliable source that summarizes her point of view.  What I take away from her statement is that she wants the Council to "emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector."--ML (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That is what I stated originally but you deleted it. OK so let us not comment about her opinions because you are correct about the section being too long and undue weight.  If someone is interested they can read the report.  I am just letting everyone know that if an editor deletes this CFR sentence or edits it to reflect a bias, whether for or against, this will not be sanctioned.  Censorship is the antithesis of Wikipedia.  Skatz613 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

You cannot be serious in asserting that Buzzfeed is a good source. Find a better one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Undue trivia; the current mention in the article is sufficient. NE Ent 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This is tabloid muckraking of the worst sort. Of the many problems with it, the worst is that it is simply irrelevant. I make no judgement on its accuracy, but even if it were true and well sourced, what relevance does it have for an encyclopedia article? Sourcing is also a problem: Buzzfeed? Be serious!  Even a police report is not a robust medical diagnosis.
It was recently decided at AfD that it was an act of lèse-majesté to describe Lord Trump as a short-fingered vulgarian. Yet we're to make this sort of intrusive, unsourced and unencyclopedic statement? WP has some strange problem with Heidi Cruz, and this isn't the first instance of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree that buzfeed + Police report is insufficient sourcing for a medical condition discussion under BLP Gaijin42 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition would be WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. What is so significant about a woman sitting on the ground with her head in her hands? Meatsgains (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, describing the details of what happened in Austin, Texas, according to a police report (as detailed by Buzzfeed) has a ton of BLP issues with it.  Also, the personal depression issue has been covered in the article.  The addition does not even come close to following WP guidelines.  Also, you never explained how this incident is encyclopedic.  Please explain how this incident is something that you would find in an encyclopedia? You just said that it is encyclopedic, which is a conclusory sentence, that does not provide rationale or reasoning to support the conclusion.  Your personal opinion is not a rationale or reason.  Please provide the rationale or reason.--ML (talk) 11:27, 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)

My concern is that what you describe did not happen.  That's my concern.  Also, my other concern is that you are claiming "nefarious reasons" when you should be AGF.--ML (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
"oppressed", "nefarious"? Now who's skewing bias?! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with NE Ent and Meatsgains: Undue trivia.  Further adding that it has no encyclopedic value.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that consensus has been reached and the content does not warrant inclusion in a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 00:30, 21 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)