Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Good article reassessment

I'm submitting this article for reassessment, as it is neither neutral nor stable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Perhaps it's just because I'm tired but parts of this article seem to be a little too glowing to me, as if this is a PR rather then an encylopaedia. Of particular concern is the relationship with district section. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

imo you're never going to have a "stable" article about a candidate in an ongoing presidential election. Why not assess where things are when this all dies down? SJMNY (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about this claim in general; Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have both been stable during the election, for example, and are FA and GA respectively. They are biographical articles, of which the presidential campaign material is a small portion. It doesn't speak well of Wikipedia if its articles on political figures involved in campaigns cannot by definition be considered excellent or good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Orange Mike. However, SJMNY has a point - maybe the Iowa caucus results will fizzle out the activity on this page. Anyway, I think the "good article" label was a sad joke. (Watch the army come and vandalize my page come Monday, again.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be delisted because of POV issues. Right now, it reads like a press release.

• "Paul is strongly pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion." — We should avoid loaded and controversial terms like "pro-life," unless they are part of a direct quote or a discussion of the term itself. "Anti-abortion" is more neutral.
• "On August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon closed the "gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard, he says he realized what the Austrian School economists wrote was coming true." — Replace this with a direct quote. Otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia is agreeing with his claim that "what the Austrian School economists wrote was coming true."
• "In 1974, alarmed at the turmoil he saw predicted by the Austrian school, Vietnam War funding, rampant inflation, and wholesale welfare[...]" — Again, this should be put as a quote. Say "what he described as..." and then recount it in his own words.
• "In 1980, when a majority of Republicans favored President Jimmy Carter's proposal to reinstate draft registration, he pointed out their views as inconsistent, stating they were more interested in registering their children than they were their guns." — "Pointed out" is POV; it implies Paul was correct.
• "On the House Banking Committee, Paul blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation,[34] and spoke against banking deregulation that allowed for the 1980s savings and loan crisis." — POV and original research.
• "Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of tax cuts, closing agencies, and curbing the UN would have more influence" — describing his goals as Constitutionalist is POV.

This article is salvageable, but it needs work. It also needs a bigger criticism section, since Paul is really a fringe figure and this makes him look much more mainstream and popular than he really is. *** Crotalus *** 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes him more "frindge" and less "mainstream"? I think that thepast couple of months has moved him from fringe to mainstream. Saying that it needs more critisism BECAUSE he is a frindge candidate is a bias issue. It should be constructed as any other candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.100.80 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Crotalus has pointed out some genuine flaws -- I don't agree with the second bullet point, because an indirect quote doesn't imply he's correct any more than a direct one, but the others have some validity. However. As far as I can tell all the candidate articles have a generally positive tone. It's not WP's function to decide who's "fringe" in an ongoing race. I think Crotalus's comments suggest that he himself may not be coming at this from an entirely neutral position. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus is, imo, right about all but one of the things he lists as not NPOV. that one thing is "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion", there is nothing POV about referring to his position as "pro-life" i would infact say that it would be pushing a pro-abortion point of view to call him "anti-abortion". SJMNY (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life is an inherently biased term. Saying "anti-abortion" doesn't take the point of view that an embryo is a human life. MilesAgain (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"anti-abortion" takes the point of view that the removal of the embryo/fetus is whats important as opposed to the life of said embryo/fetus. SJMNY (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delist at GAR, so the article remains listed. The discussion will be added to the GAR archives shortly. Geometry guy 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelling TNR a liberal magazine

I disagree with terjen, but I'm going to try to bury the hatchet with him. I know the wiki article calls it a liberal magazine, but I don't feel it is appropriate to label it here. It is irrelevant to the piece on this page and if someone doesn't know what TNR is, they will go to the article and see for themselves. Calling it liberal is really opinion, even if it is their own opinion. I think the NY Times is liberal, but I suspect a lot of people would revert me if I labelled it as such, even though I could provide ample support from books and magazines to argue it. I feel it is more appropriate, more neutral, to simply provide the WL to TNR and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Republic, being a liberal opinion magazine, is not an objective source. Our readers should be made aware of that. NY Times may be considered liberal by some, but practices objective journalism. In contrast, The New Republic proudly labels themselves liberal, or as their editor proclaims, "invented the modern usage of the term liberal". The article we cite and quote repeatedly, "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul, is not objective journalism but opinion, if that isn't apparent from the title of their piece. Terjen (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a source is not required to be objective, just notable and verifiable. Am I mistaken? And does a liberal magazine mean that it is not being truthful? Why is it not sufficient to allow the reader to read the wiki article about TNR themselves and draw their own conclusion instead of forcing a "warning label" on them? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It's a silly bit of editorializing, unnecessary at best. The opinions of Kirchick and TNR's editorial staff are not the subject of this article.

As for "initially," the point is to show the different responses issued by the campaign. In 1996, he made no claim that he did not author the newsletters, only that they were being misinterpreted. Anyway, it doesn't necessarily imply that Paul doesn't still believe the quotes are out of context, only that the response is different. Bartleby (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed "a liberal magazine" before seeing that it was being discussed here - it jumped out at me as a POV identification for this article. Let readers follow the wiki link and make their own determination of any bias the magazine has. Niteshift is right on this. Tvoz |talk 07:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a POV identification, properly labeling The New Republic as they explicitly has a liberal POV. It's not my POV - in their current incarnation, I would label them "statist warmongers" or something like that, given their long time support for the war on Iraq. If we are going to reference them and quote statements colored by their POV, we owe our readers to alert them to it. I think "liberal opinion magazine" is a shortcut in place of a more thorough exposé. Terjen (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Paul skeptic and a TNR reader, I don't object to the word "liberal", but strongly object to the word "opinion". TNR is no more an "opinion journal" than The Atlantic Monthly --- both have broken stories, both publish long-form and narrative journalism. Foreign Policy is an opinion magazine. The word "opinion" is also a transparent attack on the credibility of the Kirchick article, and it creates the inaccurate impression that Kirchick wrote an editorial. He did not: he broke a story, with original reporting, that has been picked up in a myriad of tertiary sources since. --- tqbf 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point - I was focusing on the "liberal" and didn't think about the "opinion" part: both should be out. Will take it out if you haven't. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New issues

Terjen, what is the purpose of including Kirchick's quote? It appears most of us, you included, agreed that his opinions were not relevant and rather his reportage was. I find it odd that you previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint and now are attempting to make it stick out.

Uber, your problem seems to be with citing his article at all. I think you will find that you are the only person who feels there is any BLP issue involved here, and as thus ought to avoid unilaterally removing it. Even if there is an issue here, what you removed were minor facts (that Paul didn't release back issues, that online archives only go back to 1999). I think this is unhelpful. Bartleby (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, backissues (i.e. rest of the newsletters) was kept, per NYT source. "Since 1978" suggests they're still being published, whereas "from 1978 to 1995" is factually accurate. TNR article fine to cite to discuss the fact they have published such an article on Paul, but to use its content as matters of fact in implying Paul wrote the letters violates WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber, are you really going to use the "accuracy" defense? Where was this concern for accuracy when I was statig Paul got 9.96% of the vote and Paul supporters wanted to round it up to 10 since it was "easier to read"? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting that a reliable source asserted Paul was the author does not violate WP:BLP, though of course our article cannot itself make that assertion (until Paul's supporters stop challenging it, which may happen as the story progresses). --- tqbf 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if all Paul supporters suddenly left an no longer paid attention, it would be unethical to make the article assert that Paul was the author. Perhaps we have different philosophies, but I think we all should strive to achieve WP:NPOV rather than impose our own POV to the extreme and rely on somebody with an opposing POV to hopefully provide some balance. Terjen (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html - you will find that publication of Paul's newsletters did not cease in 1995 and has continued until at least July 2007. 1978 to 1995 is just the period of controversy, not the period of publication. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that I "previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint". Rather, I have favored that we explicitly state the viewpoint. I do however think we shouldn't pay any attention to the less notable Kirchick himself in the article, and only mention the The New Republic as source. I don't think Kirchick adds any authority whatsoever to the claims, and it is not our job to inflate his reputation. Terjen (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick owns this story for TNR, has authored all subsequent material about Paul for TNR, and is cited in virtually every tertiary news source covering the story. It's totally inappropriate to source to TNR; some stories really are authored by TNR (ie, the TNR editorial board). This one isn't; it's simply published, fact-checked, and approved by the TNR editors. This isn't a matter of opinion or reputation; it's just professionalism. --- tqbf 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is correct in the sense that you wanted to remove his paraphrasing to avoid his POV. I fear you are trying to make him the issue instead of the reporting. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick is an associate editor for TNR. He is not our story - his name is just clutter on the page as far as I am concerned. Better to emphasize that TNR published the story, as that's what gives the story credibility. His name will be in the reference anyway (unlike in most news sources, which typically has to include such information in the citation in the text). Terjen (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Kirchick's story. If we were writing about the aftermath of 9/11, we would call it "Langewiesche's story", not "The Atlantic's" story. If we were writing about the controversy surrounding Mother Theresa, we'd call it "Hitchen's story", not "Vanity Fair's story". I know Paul supporters don't like this guy, but that's no excuse for unprofessional attribution. --- tqbf 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In many cases we don't even attribute in the text, instead using a simple reference for the citation. Wikipedia is not a place for idolization. We attribute for the benefit of our readers, not for the benefit of the author of the cited source. I suggest we move his name to the article reference. Terjen (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, we disagree about just about everything, but you seem like a smart and reasonable editor. You can't really be saying that proper attribution is "idolization", or that we should conceal or alter the facts of an article's authorship for "the benefit of our readers". I don't know who Jamie Kirchick is; first I heard of him was this story. I don't care about him. But I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by the editorial decisions we make. --- tqbf 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me again lay this out:

• It's proper to cite the actual author of a piece
• It's inaccurate to label Kirchick's piece "The New Republic's piece" --- a "TNR piece" would imply a far stronger endorsement of the story, and multiple authors
• It's unwieldy and confusing, because there will be additional TNR pieces cited in the article, potentially on this very controversy
• It's almost universally the way the piece has been attributed (according to NEWS.GOOGLE.COM)
• The reasoning given to avoid using Kirchick's name is, charitably, inoperative: we don't cite or not cite because of concern for someone's "reputation" or "idolization". He wrote it, so we say he wrote it, and move on.

--- tqbf 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If TNR didn't endorse it, they wouldn't have published it. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but do you really think the editors of Slate and Vanity Fair endorse Hitchens position that Mother Theresa is a fraudulent fanatic? There's a difference between editorial oversight and endorsement. Oversight implies that Kirchick followed professional, responsible journalistic practices in sourcing and writing the story. Endorsement implies that a famous and respected current affairs publications in the US agrees with what Kirchick concluded.

Also, you only responded to one of my arguments. --- tqbf 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should write: "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters..." with a proper citation in the reference including Kirchick attributed as author. As wikipedia supports references, there are no need to mention Kirchick in our text. Terjen (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tgbf is completely right about this - TNR is the publisher, Kirchick is the author and his name should be in the text. More information is what we're supposed to be striving for - not burying of information that apparently has some significance to some portion of our readership, judging by the vehemence with which some want to remove it. Tvoz |talk 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What I heard you say is that you take this position because you think I have some partisan reason for not wanting Kirchick included in the text. Not so, I argue this case for editorial reasons, as I think it will make that part of the article easier to read with less ignorable clutter. But it is limited how much I will bother to spend time on something that are only a minor improvement and that others insist on stalling for purely partisan reasons. Terjen (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your edit summary of "pathetic" if you're referring to my comment, and I was not addressing just you, Terjen. I haven't tried to stall anything, nor have my edits here been partisan - my edits to this article, among the top ten editors on this article in numbers of edits, go back many months and have been largely to reduce the POV edits that this article is subject to. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall you got here as early as last summer. You do good work.Terjen (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of May, about 3 months after you did - but back then I believe you and I occasionally agreed, on subjects like non-scientific polls. And thank you. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did my first edit on this page in January 2007, before all this craziness. We have usually had quite compatible editorial policies, as far as my memory goes. BTW, I just checked the edit counts: you are the tenth most active editor of this page.Terjen (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to add, "thank you". --- tqbf 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean me, tgbf? I didn't forget- see above - anyone who says I do good work gets a 'thank you'! And Terjen - actually I think I'm #9 (according to this one), but who's counting. I'm #4 on this talk page, which tells me it's probably time for dinner.... Tvoz |talk 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider for a second the principle behind. I presume it would be that for each cited source, we should explicitly mention both the author(s) and the publication in the text, in the name of striving for more information. Now, I don't want to edit to make a WP:POINT, but we would end up with far more than the current 86Kb text if we consistently adhere to that principle for our citations. Terjen (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know that's not what anyone is saying. Most authors of articles are pretty much invisible - they don't make appearances on shows like Tucker Carlson's to talk about their articles, for example, as Kirchick did. He has a considerably higher profile on this, as evidenced by the negative attention the pro-Paul bloggers pay to him, and eliminating his name just doesn't make sense. Lower profile authors of articles of course would be just in the citation, and even the publication often would be just in the citation. But Kirchick and TNR are part of the story, for better or worse. We mention the author and publisher of the New York Times magazine article too, in the text. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the nature of the piece is. When the piece is itself referenced directly in an article, we attribute the author of the piece. If the piece doesn't merit attribution, it doesn't merit direct reference in the article; demote it to a citation to a fact. --- tqbf 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt' get exactly what you mean by "referenced directly in an article". Can you restate that rule in a less ambiguous way?Terjen (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-dent) I'm sorry, I know my comments are prolix and confusing. Restated: if you're writing about the article, and not simply using the findings of the article in the prose and keeping the identity of the source to a reference, then you need to attribute professionally. Even simpler: if you find yourself needing to say "The New Republic", then you're identifying (and writing about) the article, and the author needs to be attributed. --- tqbf 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the consensus that we should write about the article and Kirchick? Currently, writing about the TNR article is used mostly as a coatrack to include quotes directly from the newsletters, a primary source. I think our focus should be on the criticism that has resulted from Kirchick reviving the newsletter controversy, rather than about how Kirchick fueled the fire. But if we cover the latter, we may consider to expand it with additional viewpoints on the article. And we need to use secondary sources.

2. Where can I find the rule you confidently provide for how to attribute sources? I wasn't able to immediately find it in the WP:LOP but perhaps you can help.

3. You talk about us needing to attribute professionally, but this post by CNN (oops, I almost broke your rule: by Brian Todd, another guy with two first names) only mentions The New Republic with not a pip about Kirchic, and other MSN vary in whether they mention Kirchick, TNR, or neither. (BTW: I am glad to hear that you are a professional thus getting paid for doing this - how can I get in on the deal? ;-)

Terjen (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The only guidance WP provides that I can find (I looked too) says "cite the author", but doesn't do so with authority, saying "write it like XXX". WP has a thing about instruction creep.

You're right about CNN, which also did original reporting on the story and minimized TNR's article. Recall, the newsletters were "uncovered by CNN". --- tqbf 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Split Newsletter controvesy to separate article

Reasons:

1. The stability of Ron Paul and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has suffered significantly due to this controversy, to the point that I question whether or not this article should still be listed as GA. A separate article would contain the instability to a single, less important article.

2. Changes to one article don't reflect changes in the other. For ease of maintenance a single article on the controversy with short blurbs on the main articles would help keep the articles in synch.

3. There seems to be some precedence for splitting significant controversies to their own articles, see Whitewater (controversy). I would recommend creating the article Ron Paul newsletters, and merging the relevant information there.

4. If, after the election, everyone loses interest in the newsletters, the new article could be merged back into Ron Paul or Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 as appropriate.

In part, I believe that the newsletters have achieved enough notability in their own right to have an article. Burzmali (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Two words: POV FORK. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Try SPIN OUT instead, better 2 words. Burzmali (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also against forking out the Newsletter controversy into its own entry. I second Burzmali on that it may appear to be a pov fork. I don't think stability is an issue, it seems like mainstream media is mostly done covering the story anyway. Terjen (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this article came out from protection around 40 hours ago, it has had 131 revision. That's at least 1 revision every 20 minutes, and earning the number 22 spot on the most edited article list according to wikirage. That makes for about as unstable an article as you can get. I am more worried about WP:UNDUE because I do not believe the newsletter issue can be covered fully in this article without expanding it to the point that it takes the article over. Burzmali (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider that the recent revisions are a delayed response to the newsletter story making major news a few hours before the article got protected. Expect it to cool down. Terjen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has clocked one edit every 25 minutes over the last eight and a half days with well over half of the edits linked to the controversy in some way, and sometimes reads like a POV fork of the newsletter section in this article. Burzmali (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads differently because I've been working on it there with Terjen and Buspar and about 3 more Paul skeptics, yourself included. I was unaware that the controversy was even mirrored onto this page until Duchamps_comb pointed it out. I object to the notion that is a "fork" of this article; I didn't start with the content here.

Agree that we should contemplate some kind of a merge. Strongly dispute that it has an editorial bias one way or the other. I've gagged down a lot of pro-Paul material there, and I'm sure Terjen feels like he's had to gag down a lot of dubious anti-Paul material, but everything in that section is sourced to first and second tier news sources. --- tqbf 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have stepped in both on apparent pro-Paul and anti-Paul edits. The Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 section on the newsletters still has issues. Terjen (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood; my point was, the editing process for that article has been fairly rigorous, even if neither of us are satisfied with it. I think it's better than the section here. --- tqbf 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this too; I thought about it for the same reason you did, Burzmali, but article splits should happen for flow and size reasons, not because we can't resolve content disputes. The newsletters are an exceedingly important detail of Paul's political career, and if a dispute takes GA away from the article, it doesn't deserve to have GA. --- tqbf 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few examples:

Jesse Jackson#Remarks about Jews, his "hymietown" statement was a political scandal at least as big as this, and it is 1 paragraph, maybe 5 sentences.

Michael Richards#Laugh Factory incident is two paragraphs and represents an event that ruined someone's career.

Trent Lott#Resignation from Senate leadership is three paragraphs and documents an event that almost ruined a US senator.

Spiro Agnew#Resignation is one paragraph of details and 3 of aftermath, and it ranks in the top 10 political scandal in the 20th century.

Anyway you slice it or dice it, this section is 14 paragraphs long spread over 2 articles, and represents the largest section in both articles. That is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. If the event is really that notable, 14 paragraphs would make a great article and each of the current articles could have a nice 1 paragraph synopsis with a link to a main article. Burzmali (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, we're in the middle of the presidential primaries and in an election year, so the timing is perfect for making it look like these were Paul's newsletters, and make sure our readers get riled up about the wile, possibly hateful and racist quotes you can find in some of their issues. And this is also a chance to warn anti-war leftist against voting for Paul. We can't do that with less, and some of our readers may miss it if we don't cover the controversy widely even if the mainstream press seems to have lost interest. Terjen (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that was supposed to be a joke, Terjen. None of that has anything to do with why I too am opposed to forking off the newsletter controversy. Burzmali, one of the reasons there were many edits was indeed that when the full protection expired, the semi-protection wasn't reinstated until early this morning when I requested it, after numerous vandalisms and POV edits by IPs. So I don't think it's indicative of lack of stability - this article, like the biographies of the other people who are candidates in this election, are high profile, frequent targets, and also victims of the rush to get every tiny detail in after a primary or debate or any other event. That settles down, and is usually substantially reduced by sprot being in place. I actually think that despite some clear differences in opinion, we've managed to keep the section pretty balanced, and like it or not, it appears to be a significant part of his story, as measured by the amount of press coverage it did get, for a person who has trouble getting any serious coverage at all, even when his campaign makes news. Tvoz |talk 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's almost balanced, now it breaks WP:UNDUE. If we trim, people shout WP:NPOV. If we split, people shout WP:POVFORK. What lovely options. If it wasn't for the crappy press that the article will attract for WP, I'd let the election pass and fix it then... Burzmali (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaction:

• The newsletter section in the campaign article is 8 grafs long
• It stands alone, without reference to any of the content in this article
• It's far from the biggest section of the article (there's more converage of Internet and grassroots activism)
• It's even further from the biggest section if you consider Moneybomb and the "Political Positions" article
• The newsletters are a far bigger story, judged purely by press hits and venues, than moneybombs (for instance)
• At least 3 of the grafs in the section are strict reporting --- the Kirchick article, the Reason article, and the campaign response --- and can't be removed or easily merged

There's no such thing as a "clear violation of WP:UNDUE". It's all subjective.

This content will eventually stabilize. When it does, then's the time to consider simplifying it. When Paul drops out of the race (or secedes from the Union), a more reasonable size for these articles is sure to suggest itself. --- tqbf 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, and also no. Vidor (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Split, Merge, trim, or delete WP:UNDUE. "If we trim, people shout WP:NPOV. If we split, people shout WP:POVFORK" -that's how they like it it's good to wp:GAME the system..."When Paul drops out of the race (or secedes from the Union)" The goal of the POV-warriors to put out as much disinformation as long as possible (to effect the election), besides some of them are getting paid for it!--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusing people of being part of some vague conspiracy or "POV-warriors" isn't conducive to the goals of wikipedia. Bartleby (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing information about extremely controversial involvements of a presidential candidate is also not very conductive of Wikipedia's goals. It's a ridiculous suggestion to move the single most fleshed out criticism section out of the article. This is most definitely an important aspect of who Ron Paul is. —msikma (user, talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources for revival of newsletter controversy

The claim that "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters and including images of the actual contents of some of them" had a primary source: the TNR articles. I have upgraded this to a NPOV secondary source, the Boston Globe[1]. I moved the primary sources to appropriate locations. The paragraph still appear as a coatrack for quoting from the newsletter. Terjen (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's coatrack about quoting the newsletter? The section is about the newsletter. --- tqbf 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the section should not be about the newsletter, but about the related controversy and criticism. Terjen (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not enough quoting of all the different primary-source offensive excerpts which form the basis of the controversy. People are going to look at the first paragraph in that section and wonder what the fuss is about. You don't describe a controversy with anything but the strongest sources of it. For example, the quote about Martin Luther King seducing boys and girls is probably representative of what is really fueling the controversy. MB83 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the paragraph to mention that the newsletters attacked Martin Luther King, Jr. etc., citing the claims to a secondary source. Terjen (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear enough. Did he attack MLK on racial issues or on social issues? We need to make the distinction. Wrad (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and contentious content in the biography of a living person requires the highest standards and should be written with strict adherence to wikipedia content policies. The views of critics should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully, and avoid original research including synthesis of material serving to advance a position.

The newsletters are primary sources and can easily be misused. With the recent revival of the newsletter controversy, there should be plenty of secondary sources to substantiate claims about the newsletters. We should phase out quoting from the newsletters as primary source and upgrade to broader claims cited to secondary sources, preferably NPOV ones. While this gives less ability to emotionally affect the readers by putting together selected inflammatory quotes, it will also allow more powerful, broader statements to be made about the content of the newsletters.

-- Terjen (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I said? Wrad (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reply to your comment. If it was, it would have been intended accordingly, like this.Terjen (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NY Times magazine quotes

I see that the negative quote about Paul's newsletter explanation not being transparent was removed but the positive quote retained. Am I missing a discussion here? (That's possible - I haven't read every word on talk tonight.) Thanks Tvoz |talk 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now in edit summary - no, that's not going to work. The edit summary from the IP who removed the "not transparent" part says: I removed the last comment of that sentence since it contradict the previous one. The guy can't say on the one hand that he believes ron paul and on the other that he was not transparent.. But the actual sentences in the Times piece by Caldwell read as follows:

"Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it."

The editor's opinion notwithstanding, it is misleading at best to include half of what Caldwell said, especially when the two sentences follow one another, and arguably the second point clarifies the first. It would be equally wrong to include the "was not transparent" part and omit the "quite believeably". So, I am reinstating it as it was. Tvoz |talk 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've reinstated David Gergen's comment. Obviously the section has been edited to remove material critical to Paul - exactly what prompted the full protection that expired. So, I'm asking for at least semiprotection again. And now we have to go through all of the edits from tonight to put the piece back together. To the partisan IPs - this is not a campaign piece. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick column

Wikipedia articles should report known facts and should not report subjective opinions of columnists without at least telling the readers something about the columnists. In this controversy, CNN reported that the "Ron Paul 90s newsletters rant against gays, blacks", and the Wikipedia article correctly mentions this undisputed fact, which is documented. The Wikipedia article then mentions that Jamers Kirchick concluded that Paul was 'an "angry white man", noting that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".' However, aside from the facts presented in CNN, there is no evidence at all for Kirchick's other comments, and the Wikipedia article does not even mention that Kirchick is a columnist and not a reporter.

We see Kirchick's type of argument all the time. Bill O'Reilly reporting on the Toronto Globe and Mail's mocking of Fox News called it "far-left". Would it be sensible to include this opinion in an article about this conservative but respectable newspaper without at least informing readers of who Bill O'Reilly was? Is it really a good idea to use a columnist's opinions rather than a reporter's article as a source?

Surely Wikipedia's standards should be at least as high as CNN. People reading Wikipedia's articles should not be expected to read columns that are quoted in its pages, research the columnists and then search for evidence they have provided, and determine whether it fits the story. If a column is used as a source, only substantiated material should be quoted. If the publication of the column itself is the story (e.g., J'accuse) then the reader wants to know something about the writer.

If the source is unreliable, then so is the article.

Although this article is about a presidential candidate, and therefore controversial, one expects that high standards of objectivity should be maintained about all subjects. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Paul's Views in summary

Here is my revision to the opening paragraph. Please, suggest changes or clarify if or why you believe it is not NPOV to note the connection between Paul's beliefs and those of Washington. I can cite sources if you don't believe me about that link. He himself can be quoted in agreement.

And again, someone takes out my "the privacy violations codified in" the patriot act. Paul is against those. How is that fact not NPOV? Please enlighten me. 65.54.154.145 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Dragonnas 01/06/2008 11:00pm PST

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He is against partisan politics and favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, instead supporting the idea of strong national sovereignty citing the dangers of "foreign entanglements" as expressed in the wishes of George Washington's farewell address. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the violations of privacy codified in the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion. 65.54.154.145 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)dragonnas

Because "the violations of privacy codified in the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control" (whether one agrees with part or all of the clause or not) is definitely not a neutral description of those matters. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make my change without the part about privacy violations. I Suppose if someone doesn't know that the patriot act causes privacy concerns, they wouldn't be at Ron Paul's page.Dragonnas (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)dragonnas

It should be noted that he voted in favor of a federal ban on late-term D&C abortions, HR 760. This is not consistent with opposing federal regulation of abortions. 71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It should say "He advocates overturning Roe v.Wade claiming it will let states determine the legality of abortion."

Paul supports changing the constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would effectively determine the legality of abortion on a state level. While I suppose states could make the newly-defined murder legal, much of the abortion debate centers around the question of whether the fetus is alive or not. It therefore strikes me as misleading to say that he believes states should determine the legality of abortion if he supports removing their right to determine when life begins. The wording as it stands makes it sound like Wikipedia is confirming that overturning Roe v. Wade would indeed allow states to determine the legality of abortion in the sense of abortion as it is now defined. Sorry if that's not clear, this is one of my first times trying to edit a page.

Also, I don't understand what that 2 citation is referring to. It directs to a page written by somebody else about Ron Paul; it is not something out of his office. [[[User:SheepFugue|SheepFugue]] (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)]

Newsletters/Nevada

Well, I originally deleted other opinions regarding the newsletters, but if we're going to include a former LA Times editor's blog entry, then I guess we should include other opinions about how the newsletters affect Paul's campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a former Los Angeles Times editor noting in the newspaper's under editorial control Top of the Ticket "blog" that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters. That's more of an observation about the lack of effect from the newsletters revelation.Terjen (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, blogs are still not valid sources. —msikma (user, talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs aren't considered a verifiable source, but newspaper "blogs" by professionals writers under editorial control are an exception according to Wikipedia:V#_note-4, which also suggest we may not even have to attribute the author. Even calling such sources "blogs" is somewhat misleading. Terjen (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion"

Even after creating an account, I can not edit this article, so I will ask someone else to...

When it says, "affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion" that doesn't really make sense.

I think it should say, "believes states should determine the legality of abortion" instead. Anyone agree? Paulin08 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. Paulin08 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence should clarify the connection between overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting states' rights to determine the legality of abortion. This can be achieved with minor changes to the sentence structure and wording. Terjen (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading when the intro labels Paul as "strongly pro-life", even if the candidate has described himself this way. Paul opposes a Federal ban on abortion[2], hardly a "strong pro-life" position. In addition, he has several times voted against legally restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions and against making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. I suggest we drop the adjective/adverb and leave the label to just "pro-life". Terjen (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Except that he voted in favor of a federal ban on D&C abortions, HR 760 [3]. He *is* a "strong pro-lifer," happy enough to vote for federal bans until the states can do the banning themselves. 71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul is indeed "pro-life". See [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912300/posts]. There are also a bunch of other bills/resolutions that you could see besides 760, such as 1095 or 1003, or for example 380. There are more, I've got links if you want them. —msikma (user, talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a citation is needed for the sentence "Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent." Or at least a name or identifier of what legislation it's referring to. [[[User:SheepFugue|SheepFugue]] (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)}

If you listen to Ron Paul's interviews, he explains his ideas on abortion. Ron Paul is Pro-Life, but he says that the individual states, not the federal government, should take care of issues concerning abortion. Every question that anyone has is addressed in his numerous videos on You Tube. Nly8nchz (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

The section covering Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, probably what makes him most notable at the moment, is small and much too small compared to the newsletter bit. This, of course, creates weight problems. Newsletter section should be reduced and summarized; the campaign section should be expanded. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur (YES)...--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as that would be a POV fork. Criticism is very scarce in this article, and the newsletter bit is important. There are many people who want to trim that section because it wouldn't be notable enough, despite the fact that Ron Paul is a presidential candidate and there are (very serious and, one might say, credible) allegations of him having published racist opinion pieces for 20 years. There's no reason to fork. (Also, please see all the discussion above. Do we really need to start another conversation about this?) —msikma (user, talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Either you don't understand what a POV fork is, or you meant to reply in the above section. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I mistakingly used the term "POV fork" here because I believed that you wanted to move content out of this article to some other article. But I'm wrong; instead, you want to just trim the section. Well, I disagree with that as well, because, like I said, the newsletters are important material. They're a major point of criticism that pertain not just to his 2008 campaign, but also to his 1996 run for congress. —msikma (user, talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider how important the newsletters are compared to his campaign. The media has all but forgotten the letters. His campaign, however, gets a considerable amount of attention. This campaign is a big part of his life. It makes zero sense to have the newsletters section much larger than the campaign section. There are obvious weight issues going on here. Not only should the newsletter section be reduced, but the campaign section should be expanded. ASAP. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The campaign section is in WP:SUMMARY style, which means it is supposed to be very brief. The newsletter section is not. Presumably we could create Ron Paul newsletter controversy to address this. MB83 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No. See the above section. Given the importance of Paul's campaign, it should be expanded. Of course, this should be within the limits of WP:SUMMARY, but definitely within the limits of WP:WEIGHT as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The campaign has it's own article because it's important. But still, WP:SUMMARY sections should generally be less than four paragraphs. I can point to dozens of featured articles were summary sections of important subtopics are only a single paragraph. MB83 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Restyling newsletter section (NOT necessarily trimming/expanding, etc.)

The newsletter section is a bit difficult to read through right now because it's mostly a collection of facts and prominent opinions right now, without the prose having a clear direction. I suggest reworking it to the following structure (note that the bold text does not represent a new heading):

• Introduction to the newsletters: what are they? How were they named? What notable claims were made in them? Why are they controversial? Note that at this point, most of the serious claims should be mentioned. There's no need to wait for a later time. It's probably easier to clearly define the newsletters at this point rather than while explaining the fact they were brought up later.
• During the 1996 run for congress: they first became an issue in 1996. Who brought them up? What was Paul's response at that time? What did political commentators have to say at this time? Also, any prominent statements Paul made in-between 1996 and 2008 should be mentioned here.
• During the 2008 run for president: the newsletters became an issue again. Who brought them up? What distinct passages are quoted at this time? What is Paul's response this time? What is the world's response to Paul's response?
• Did Ron Paul really write them? Ron Paul says he did not write them, and several others say he did. At this point, several arguments (from both sides, mind you) should be mentioned and compared to one another. The arguments that haven't been mentioned because they didn't fit in the previous context should be mentioned here as well.

I think that rewriting the section to this structure will make it much easier to read through and understand. This is especially important, since I figure that a lot of people have heard of the newsletters and will come to this article for a good summary of what went down. If nobody objects (I doubt it!), I'll just start editing. Or if anyone has other suggestions, let's hear them. —msikma (user, talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the section is about the newsletter controversies, not about the newsletters themselves. We don't know whether Paul wrote the newsletters - the latest in the saga is that Lew Rockwell is the proposed culprit. Terjen (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The section should not be just about the controversies surrounding the newsletters. After all, how can we properly explain the controversies if we can't explain the newsletters themselves? We must give a detailed account of the newsletters and then we can mention why these things are so controversial. It's only very natural this way. Also, it's true we don't know whether Paul wrote the newsletters or not, but there's strong evidence that he did, and a lot of opinions by political commentators point into his direction. We shouldn't ignore these. (Of course, we should also not ignore the opinions of the people who say he didn't write them, but they are already mostly well-presented in the section as it is right now.) —msikma (user, talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the story. What we have is evidence that Paul in 1996 took the blame for controversial statements that we now credibly know likely was written by somebody else. The newsletters are interesting in context of the controversies, not the other way around. Terjen (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please put forward your "strong evidence" that Paul wrote the controversial statements in the newsletters. It better be something else than the 1996 interviews. Terjen (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One important evidence is that there isn't really any credible evidence Paul can present other than his word. He says he did not do it, but there was a newsletter published under his name (and his name was bannered right above it in big fat letters on every single issue) by two separate organizations he's affiliated to. The person listed as "subscription manager" was Jean McIver, who is currently still employed by him (as per ronpaul2008.com). Can you have a racist newsletter published under your name by the people and organizations you're affiliated to for 20 years and not know? Would you allow a newsletter with your name bannered right above it to be published without you knowing what's in it? There is no excuse in politics for such a thing to occur.

But, you know, let's not even care about that. I'm not going to force that opinion down anyone's throat. But we should make it very clear that political commentators have said exactly what I just said. That it is absolutely ridiculous to have something like that published for 20 years and then for you to say it "must have been some ghost writer". —msikma (user, talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section as it stands is confusing and not helpful for someone who isn't already aware of the subject. I think most of the information that is going to come out has come out, so it is safe to start reorganizing. Bartleby (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sean Paul Picture.

It very misleading for there to be a picture of sean paul in the 2008 campaine section labeled as ron paul! This need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.106.5 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it a while ago. Editor also took down the regular pic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is Ron Pauls position on 'lobbying'

Shouldn't it be banned since it's a form bribery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.110.38 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss Ron Paul's positions - check his websites. Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the question is because there is no information about it in the article, it is clearly in support of improving the article and as such is encouraged here. Devpty01 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue for the Political positions of Ron Paul entry. A starting point might be his writings on Campaign Finance Reform. See e.g. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS?. Terjen (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

--69.149.15.249 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Thankyou!

removed unsourced statement

i went and removed the "opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty" claim, as no one has felt like providing a source for that. if someone can get a source for that, feel free to add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The position is very clear on Paul's website. I put a citation up for you. Not sure why you'd contest it really.

Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From the campaign website under [4]

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.199.246.40.54 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Republican bias

The article continues to claim that the Ron Paul newsletter was full of conspiracy theories and support for militia groups, yet offers no evidence for these claims. In the interest of fairness, could the author please provide supporting evidence. --The Four Deuces (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, why don't you read them for yourself? Bartleby (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the letters that are referenced in the comments. Not one conspiracy theory and not one militia group is named. Please name one that you found. --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts where Paul called armed militia groups, "one of the most encouraging developments in America":

"I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."

• Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
• If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
• Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
• Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
• Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

-- that's from the January 1995 issue. A militia group and conspiracy theories all in one. If you need more conspiracy theories, just read further for the "New World Order." Devpty01 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article no longer exists, and I am willing to bet the quotes are taken out of context. I do not think that it is apporpriate for Devpty01 to advertise for Obama's supporters, especially on the Ron Paul biography page.Nly8nchz (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The link works for me, and the quotes are clearly not taken out of context. And I am not an Obama supporter. I have never mentioned Obama's name, or any other Democrat candidate. Devpty01 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The link is working for me too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw Polls

Madrigal is making an issue of the straw poll wording. Looking at the wiki article on it, it looks to me like Paul won 18 of them. He did not win in 19 of them. 1) Where is the proof he won "most" and not "some". 18 out of 37 is not "most" of them to me. and 2) Who cares? Paul won the SC straw poll, but got trounced in the actual primary. He won in FL, but if you watch the primary tomorrow, you'll most likely see the same result. He won 3 in NH and got beat handily in the actual primary. He won in PA, but is polling at about 2% right now. Straw polls are pretty meaningless, so why is there a push to say "most" without any supporting article? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With the primaries/caucuses underway, the degree to which the intro emphasizes straw polls is inappropriate, not that it ever wasn't. According to this very talk page, straw polls measure candidate support even better than phone polls, which, after all, are "not scientific," which is why we had to highlight Paul's straw poll showing in the lead for so long. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they aren't better than phone polls. The phone polls have been much closer to the actual voting results than straw polls. Straw poll participants are usually much more politically active than the rest of the voters. Representing activists as the true measure is apparently not a that accurate when it comes to guaging support. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsroom hierarchies has deleted my statistics regarding the straw polls and second place finish in Nevada and Louisiana. "this falsely implies that he is a leading candidate. he's not." Falsely? How can a statement of fact be false? JLMadrigal (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what you wrote with regard to Paul's campaign performance: So far, he has placed second in the primaries in Nevada and Louisiana. How about in Iowa, NH, SC, FL? Why'd you pick the best two to single out? That's exactly how a "statement of fact" can be misleading. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Singling out those two (and he only placed third in Louisiana, incidentally), constitutes undue emphasis of a classic sort. It is definitely biased. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he may have placed first (among candidates). The Louisiana GOP still has not released the results, and changed the rules AFTER Paul won the most delagates by the deadline. How is singling out the two in which he placed second anything other than a statement of the two in which he placed second? JLMadrigal (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as Orange Mike said--doing so is undue emphasis. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The "undue emphasis" claim doesn't hold water, since the disputed content is not a skewable viewpoint, but relevant facts. Readers want information in a nutshell. They want to know how well the candidate is doing in the election. Where did he place? They want to know how well he did in the straw polls (not meaningless abstracts like "some"). A fact is a fact. Not even the most sophisticated twist of logic can change that. Readers want and deserve unbiased information, not abstracts - and certainly not censorship.

"While Paul won won 18 out of 37 straw polls, he has seen substantially less support in traditional phone polls. Paul has placed second among GOP candidates in two early primaries - the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses."

Undue emphasis? C'mon kids. Put away your hatchets. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, you want to talk extensively about straw polls, which have no actual value and, thus far, have not translated into actual votes, but try to hide anything that doesn't paint Paul in a perfect light. Straw polls are popularity contests among activists gathered for a specific reason. If you hold a so-called straw poll at a tax protestor picnic, of course Paul does great. Duh! But winning 53 out of 75 votes at the picnic doesn't make you popular when the REAL votes start getting cast. Didn't Paul win a straw poll in FL? Didn't he just get handed a 3% vote there? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, if it weren't for the Internet, Paul wouldn't have ANY light - much less "perfect light". The contempt of the broadcast "journalists" for Ron Paul, and the resulting blackout, has created an unquenched thirst for Ron Paul. The thinkers among us are lucky enough to have an actual source of information. This massive information void is being filled by the Internet (in case y'all haven't noticed). Those who know Paul (and read their Constitution), love him. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you want to sound smug, I'll play. Some of us not only read the Constitution, but understand it. There is a difference between reading it and comprehending it. And some of us actually have education on it that wasn't an elective while going to medical school. You can spin and spin and spin until you get dizzy. The fact is that this article and related ones will be moot points in a short time anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's go. Now why would it require special training to understand a simple clear and concise document that spells out the role of the federal government? Perhaps an "education" is required to learn how to "spin" it into something else. Anyone who speaks English is qualified. And a casual reading reveals that the Federal government is in violation of Article I Section 8 (the enumerated powers of Congress), Section 9 (the prohibitions of the combined states), and Section 10 (the prohibitions of the individual states), for starters. Shall I continue? JLMadrigal (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. No, you don't need to continue. I've heard the same rap from dozens of people like you. If it was near as simple as you paint it to be, we'd have no need for the Supreme Court. Discussing it with people like you is a fools errand. You think you know so much, but don't know the most important thing; how little you actually know. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki. Throwing in the towel, eh? Typical. And with a smiling retreat. Nice. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, J.L., do you really not admit that some people think your interpretation has been obsolete since before 1865? Or do you not admit the validity of, say, the 14th and 16th Amendments? Because that's where I just shrug and walk away, hoping your tinfoil is thick enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson made sure that the US Constitution would not be a "wax" Constitution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html I'd be interested in knowing how the 14th and 16th amendments invalidate my "interpretation" of Article I - and where "tinfoil" comes into the picture. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thorowing in the towel? Don't flatter yourself sport. But this isn't a debate forum and not the medium to have that discussion in. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Militia Movements

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning on the main page, I'll leave it to the other editors to decide, but Ron Paul has a strong backing by the militia movements, especially the Indiana Militia Corps. Their website, especially (and mainly) their newsletter, the Liberator, mentions Ron Paul multiple times as the candidate of their choice.

I'm not much of an editor, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be mentioned or not. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A candidate cannot be blamed for the followers he/she attracts. It's a corollary of the 16th of Niven's laws: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. Unless there is evidence that he is currently pandering to this crowd, it's not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone does find that he is pandering to them, then it probably should be mentioned. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's covered by the newsletters. He's been accused of pandering to militias in those. Bartleby (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section inappropriate for biography article

I am removing the controversy section from this article. The controversy is adequately covered in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, is inappropriate for a biography page, and properly falls under the campaign section. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and have reverted the deletion. The newsletters are far more pertinent to Paul than they are to his campaign. Devpty01 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please don't just do these things. This is a controversial article, so it's far more useful for us to discuss potentially controversial edits here since it helps prevent edit wars (to which you are no stranger, I might add). —msikma (user, talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the deletion. I can understand why the section would exist in the campaign article, but why here as well? -LisaLiel (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would probably agree to a properly discussed plan to move the bulk of this controversy to the campaign article (there is I believe a great deal of overlap and repetition), but this newsletter stuff has been dogging Paul for more than a decade and is part of his biography. And for what reason is a carefully cited and neutrally stated account of controversy "inappropriate for a biography page"? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This supposed "controversy" has not "dogged" Paul for about 20 years. It's only now resurfacing as a smear campaign to label Paul a "racist" by proxy, in order to block his momentum. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee have plenty of dirt on them - much darker dirt, I may add. But they don't have "controversy" sections in their articles. If editors of this article were fair, they would allow expose' of the fact that the broadcast media has been unfair in its coverage of Ron Paul - who, although he has been steadily beating Giuliani in the primaries, has been outraising the other candidates, &c, is still getting less coverage. THAT's newsworthy. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the platform on which to get the word out about Paul. We write what is reported by reputable sources.

Regarding the supposed lack of controversy in the articles you mentioned, please see the following:

• Rudy_Giuliani#Marriages_and_family
• John_mccain#Keating_Five
• Huckabee#Controversial_public_comments
• Huckabee#Wayne_DuMond_case

Also please note that this isn't a general "controversy section," but rather a section specifically devoted to the racist newsletter controversy.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to read up on your candidate Madrigal. It was an issue in his 1996 Congressional race. That was 11 years ago. So let's not act like it has been dormant for 20 years. And, like it or not, it is a factor. It belongs in both because it's not solely about his campaign, it's about the man himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that this is just a big smear campaign. The man let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years under his name, and still employs the person who published it (Jean McIver) even after finding out about it, despite telling everyone that he fired the people involved. And despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name—and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"—for decades, he continues to make the same kind of prejudice remarks. Didn't he describe those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked"? But no, apparently, to some people, any kind of criticism that refers to this is part of some smear campaign. Are you trying to imply that the people who want the newsletter section to remain in this article are part of that, too? —msikma (user, talk) 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I might have lost my WP:COOL with that last message, but I still find it deplorable that perfectly valid criticism is being deleted from an article for the reason that it's apparently "part of a smear campaign". I think it's insulting to those Wikipedians who are trying to make sure this article is at least somewhat balanced. —msikma (user, talk) 07:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is politics, so naivety can be left at the door. Of course it is a smear campaign - that's why we cover it on the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 page. The User:Msikma statement that "for decades, he continues to make the same kind of prejudice remarks" is completely unfounded. You have to look hard and apply imagination to find much (I have seen the attempts). Please be careful not to impose your prejudges on the page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, which is why we should focus on covering the controversies rather than attempt to emotionally affect our readers. Terjen (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I said "for decades" in reference to his newsletters. I didn't say "he continues to make prejudice remarks for decades", I said "he continues to make prejudice remarks". Clever way to twist a sentence.

Secondly, please don't say that we "shouldn't be naive"; it's simply not true that there's a smear campaign going on against an insignificant candidate who has viewpoints that a lot of people disagree with. He's simply being criticized as he should. I can't help the fact that there's a racist newsletter that was published right underneath his nose for 20 years. There is absolutely no excuse for this, and he's lucky that the media haven't made a massive deal out of this (of course, again, that's because he's really not very significant).

And lastly, you don't have to "look hard" to find these prejudice remarks at all! In fact, you don't even have to use your imagination. :) Like I said in my previous message, didn't he describe those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked," a while ago? He also sponsored legalization that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and another that would deny Iranian students federal aid. These bills are all real, and there is simply no excuse or explanation for these things. Why would anyone want to deny federal aid to Iranian students specifically? Did he conclude that "those Iranians" are bad news already? There's so much more, too. I'm trying to make a point here rather than posting links to material worth adding in the article, though, so I'll stop here. The point is that I don't find it very strange he has written (or was at least strongly involved in) a newsletter that advocated very narrow-minded views for 20 years. —msikma (user, talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"These bills are all real, and there is simply no excuse or explanation for these things." There very often is, because Ron Paul makes speeches about the bills he introduces. Here's one that has to do with students from terrorist sponsoring countries. MantisEars (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section should be removed from this article. This really has nothing to do with Paul personally. This seems like an attempt to link something to Paul for political reasons. This is a biography page about his life. 75.21.123.50 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the controversy portion is here. I came here for that very reason. Why would I ever look for information about Ron Paul under something like "Ron Paul's 2008 Run For President" or whatever. I check the contents...no controversy...back to the web to find it. If you are a supporter of Ron Paul, would you rather I learn about it from Wiki or CNN or a competitors campaign site? These questions are relevant to Ron Paul the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.208.44 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements misfiled in talk lead

Why the hell is the newsletter controversy section twice as large as his entire presidential election section? Pathetic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.9.231 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as angry sounding as the compaint above, but agree. Six paragraphs about newsletters, and the same amount in the "Political positions" section? I recommend going back to the "13:06, 8 February 2008 Pensil (Talk | contribs) (84,889 bytes) (Section too long, could constitute new article)" edit of that section and perhaps separating off most of the current content into a new page or something. 75.174.4.86 (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Preceding statements moved here by John J. Bulten (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

please fix

the link to amazon for Paul's new book doesn't work. Please update: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.149.85 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• We don't link to Amazon or any other retailer, per WP:EL; just link the ISBN, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, no delegates for Iowa have been assigned yet - the two that CNN gives him are merely a forecast from the number of votes he received on January 3rd. There are county and state conventions yet to take place, and the numbers of Iowa delegates each candidate receives will almost certainly change. Please reword that phrase accordingly.Stewie3128 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed statement - "but opposes a federal ban on abortion"

In the lede, there is a sentence which describes Ron Paul's pro-life views. Three weeks ago, on January 5, Terjen made an addition to this sentence. Previously, it had read: "Paul is strongly pro-life, and advocates overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion. Terjen's addition is in bold: "Paul is strongly pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion.

Terjen provided a reference from this document, in which Paul wrote: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." However, Paul has made another statement about a federal ban on abortion. In this document, Paul wrote: "an outright federal ban on abortion" can be "done properly via a constitutional amendment". Paul's statements directly contradict one another.

— Photouploaded — continues after insertion below I am sympathetic to Photo's concerns without wholly agreeing, and will comment more directly below, but wish to point out that (as later edits imply) this is not a contradiction: Paul opposes federal laws banning abortion per se, but supports Constitutional amendments effectively banning it. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Paul's opinion of federal regulation of abortion? As 71.145.152.70 noted in these edits, Paul voted in favor of a federal ban on late-term D&C abortions.

— Photouploaded — continues after insertion below Again, very interesting and relevant point, but it was not all late-term D&C's, but only events defined as partial-birth abortions. He opposes federal laws banning abortion per se, but supports (with objections) this federal law banning a particular form of abortion (PBA) that can be clearly distinguished. My suspicion is that, since Congress found as fact that the mother's health is not involved in PBA, that removes it from the category of (protected) "legal abortion", which can only include acts performed for a Scotus-enumerated reason. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the reference Terjen provided, Paul claimed that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." Yet Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which sought to federally define human life as beginning from conception.

Is it reasonable, then, to state that Paul "opposes a federal ban" on abortion, when he has already voted in favor of one, and has stated that a federal ban on abortion can be "done properly"? No. Clearly, Paul is of the opinion that embryos and fetuses are unborn children, and that the only appropriate course of action is to create legal protection for them as human beings. He has sought to remove federal protection of abortion, and to replace it with federal protection of fetuses.

Clearly there is no place in this article for a statement that Paul "opposes a federal ban", when he has spoken and voted in favor of a federal ban. The lede should give a more accurate picture of Paul's views and actions towards abortion.

I suggest that we state something to the effect of the following:

"Paul is strongly pro-life, has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn".

Opinions? Photouploaded (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with this edit suggestion, and think it is worded properly. Paul has been clear all along in his position, but some editors here have chosen to be somewhat less clear. And, if I recall correctly from earlier discussions, he has introduced the Sanctity of Life act many times - it's not a passing position, it is central to his beliefs. Tvoz |talk 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Photouploaded cites Ron Paul's essay Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle as main evidence, but takes the quotes out of context, saying that Paul wrote "an outright federal ban on abortion" can be "done properly via a constitutional amendment". He correctly assess that this directly contradicts the statement I quoted in which Paul makes it clear that he opposes a Federal ban on abortion.

This contradiction can be resolved by reading the source: "State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government." Paul is apparently not advocating a federal ban, but matter of fact pointing out that this is the alternative to the path he favors. Reading the rest of the essay makes this obvious.

Photouploaded also refers to Paul's explanation on voting for The Partial Birth Abortion Ban despite arguing in the essay that "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.[...] Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well." It is again obvious Paul favors that the jurisdiction remains with the states.

The Sanctity of Life Act includes some rather dumb language, e.g. "The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Duh. I believe the goal of the act was to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade, as it also removes Supreme Court jurisdiction over such cases. However, we should not get into legislative analysis, as that would be very much in the realm of original research.

Paul is very clear in opposing a federal ban on abortion and in promoting that the states should retain the jurisdiction. Our introduction had it wrong for far too long, and it would be a mistake to return to the old language now that it has been corrected to clarify that Paul opposes a federal ban. Terjen (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bill may contain "dumb language", but that's irrelevant to this discussion. It is a bill that Paul has introduced year after year whose intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. Photo's wording doesn't have the words "federal ban on abortion" and is much more accurate and true to what Ron Paul's position is than the misleading "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine its legality" which implies that whatever the states decide is ok. But his SoL bill speaks directly against that. Paul may technically favor letting states determine its legality, but he favors having a federal mandate which would by federal law prevent any state from affirming its legality and it is misleading and somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I've said this many times as this has been debated on this talk page over the last months: Ron Paul is clear on his position - it is we who muddy it up, perhaps trying to make it sound more acceptable to a broader base of people. Saying words to the effect of "Paul is strongly pro-life, has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn". is a lot more understandably accurate than what we now have. The current wording is carefully parsed, and not technically incorrect, but it is grossly misleading. Tvoz |talk 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you realize that the current wording isn't "technically incorrect". However, you are incorrect when stating that the Sanctity of Life Act's intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. This is not a place to make up your own creative interpretations of legislation. See WP:OR.

Paul explicitly states on the House of Representatives website that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."[5] This (and other writing by Paul) supports our statement that Paul "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion". Terjen (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, I think I set up the Sanctity of Life Act article, so I am somewhat familiar with what the bill says. I don't think we should be debating the subject here other than as it pertains to this article, but it's hardly creative or original interpretation to say that a federal law declaring that life begins at conception goes hand-in-hand with a position that such life would have to be protected by other state - and Federal - laws. And that is the intention of the SoL act - all I'm saying is that we should not be misleading here and give the impression that although he is personally pro-life, all he is has done legislatively is stated that it's up to the states. If he did not propose SoL, his position might be consistent with the way you represented it - his personal beliefs about when life begins would be separate from his view on what the Constitution says regarding state vs federal authority. But in fact he proposes the SoL Act in each Congressional session because he would like to see it passed as law, and that law would prevent the states from following their consciences, if they chose to protect abortion rights.

— Tvoz — continues after insertion below Actually, it does not prevent the states from doing anything, it prevents the feds. The state is free to protect "abortion rights" or protect unborn lives at its discretion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article should say that he supports a Federal ban on abortion, but I think it should be clearer about what he does support. The current wording does not give a clear presentation of the totality of his position. Photo's wording does - or at least it gives a fuller representation. This article doesn't have room for a long discussion in the lede about this, of course - but it should not give the wrong impression. Tvoz |talk 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating the Sanctity of Life Act stub article hardly gives you any authority on interpreting the bill. Besides, even that entry does not state anything like that its intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. I see a pattern in the discussion here. First the main argument of Photouploaded quotes Paul out of context, ignoring the rest of the source contradicting the position. Next Tvoz makes a layman's interpretation of a bill based on reading selected passages, conveniently ignoring contradictory parts. The latest interpretation of the Sanctity of Life Act: that law would prevent the states from following their consciences. Incorrect. That would be Roe v. Wade. I suggest you take the discussion about the real meaning of the bill to the Sanctity of Life Act entry and dish it out there, or perhaps better not. Bottom line: Paul opposes a Federal ban on abortion. Terjen (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I didn't claim any authority on interpreting the bill, Terjen, I was responding to your patronizing attitude where apparently you are free to interpret it, but I'm not: "The Sanctity of Life Act includes some rather dumb language, e.g. "The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Duh. I believe the goal of the act was to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade, as it also removes Supreme Court jurisdiction over such cases." You "believe" you know what the bill means, but I can't respond with what I think the words "sanctity of life" and the related portion of the bill mean. OK. And your characterization that I've made a "layman's interpretation .. based on reading selected passages" - do you have some reason to know what I've read or whose interpretation I presented? Are you providing some kind of expert testimony here that gives you superior knowledge of the meaning of the bill? You know - I see a pattern here too, but it's a different one. The pattern I see is the one I've seen for months editing this article, and that is the propensity for partisan editing, perhaps in hopes that some supporters will not completely understand what his positions - about which he is quite clear - are. There were attempts to distort the reporting of the newsletter controversy, and I'm seeing it here too. Yes, he says he opposes a Federal ban on abortion (despite voting for the Federal ban on late term D&C abortions) because he thinks it is a matter for the states to determine. But what he is in favor of is having a Federal law written which would be the grounds for defining abortion as murder which is illegal in all states. You seem to be the one selectively reading it - the name of the act indicates what its primary thrust is, and that is to define life - on the Federal level - as starting at conception. Not subject to any interpretation - read it yourself. There's no need to debate the "real" meaning of the bill - it's crystal clear. I've said before, you may recall, that a clear rendition of Paul's actual position on abortion would likely attract as many supporters as it would repel others, so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. But it would be accurate and complete, something you seem to wish to avoid. Were you here when there were debates about whether the words "pro-life" should be included at all? Final word: I don't appreciate your use of "dish it out" or your sanctimonious declarations. The "disputed" tag should remain - in fact it should probably be replaced with an overall tag questioning the neutrality of the article or sections of it - but out of respect for a lot of hard work that has gone into trying to keep this piece neutral - by multiple editors - I won't put it on right now. Let's see if anyone else chimes in here - so far, I see two editors preferring a word change in the lede and one opposing it. We don't have consensus here. Tvoz |talk 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, Terjen. Ron Paul is a vocal "pro-lifer" and has sponsored the according bills. Don't attempt to twist this; like Tvoz says, it's crystal clear what they were about. I'd explain in detail how one should read the titles of these bills, but there's no need to, as it's been explained already. —msikma (user, talk) 10:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Msikma, I am not disputing that Ron Paul is a vocal "pro-lifer" and has sponsored the according bills. But I don't think we should take your word for that it is "crystal clear" what the bills were about. You don't find the meanings of bills by reading their titles. Terjen (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It now reads that Paul "opposes federal laws regulating or banning abortion", which I think is accurate and complete information. The Sanctity of Life Act does in fact outlaw federal regulation (including banning) of abortion. It makes no mention of Roe v. Wade, as that is a Supreme Court decision and cannot explicitly be countermanded by the legislative branch. Congress can only make laws - if the Court decided that the SoL act was unconstitutional, they could rule it so, and we would have "Roe v. Wade" Part 2. The Act is mentioned in this article and there is a citation which includes the entire text of the bill. I certainly believe that Paul advocates overturning or negating the effects of Roe v. Wade, which is also mentioned in the article. Paisan30 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul does not oppose federal regulation of abortion! Before a federal bill restricting abortion passed, Paul wrote: "If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here. I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade." Clearly, Paul's dilemma was not with federally restricting abortion, but with voting in favor of a piece of abortion-restricting legislation that also federally protected abortion. Paul proved this to be true, by voting in favor of the ban. In the same writing, Paul voiced his support of an "outright federal ban" on abortion, stating that it could be "done properly". Paul is clearly in support of ending abortion, and has taken steps at the federal level to make this a reality.

The sentence in the lede was grossly misleading to the point of being outright false. I have rephrased it, according to the support for that change, here. The sentence now reads:

Paul is "strongly pro-life", has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn".

Please see the article itself to view the references for these statements. Photouploaded (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul explicitly states that he opposes a federal ban on abortion,[6] so it is not true when Photouploaded states that Paul does not oppose federal regulation of abortion. Photouploaded again quotes Paul out of context, apparently from the Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle, saying that Paul voiced his support of an "outright federal ban" on abortion, stating that it could be "done properly". The source makes it clear that this is not what Paul intends. Repeating already debunked arguments doesn't further the case.

I think the current language explains Paul's position well: Paul is pro-life, but opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine its legality. I would be fine if the middle part of this text just said opposes a Federal ban of abortion. I would prefer that instead of saying "its legality" it said the legality of the procedure to make it clearer, but neither is a big deal. Terjen (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read Ron Paul's Weekly Column on Federalizing Social Policy, he says "Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." He wants the state legislature, not the federal government, to handle ideas concerning issues abortion. The portion "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion" should be taken out altogether as it sounds like Ron Paul opposes all laws "regulating or banning abortion". The full sentence should read "Paul is pro-life, he advocates overturning Roe v. Wade which would hold the individual states' legislatures, not the federal government, responsible for matters concerning abortion."Nly8nchz (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It explicitly says "opposes Federal laws", and that can hardly be confused with "opposes all laws". The last part of the sentence already makes it clear that states can enact laws. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not "hold the individual states' legislatures....responsible for matters concerning abortion" - that's just confusing.Terjen (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, I hear what you are saying. My problem is with the wording. The wordking as it is does not make very clear that Ron Paul wants the states to handle laws on abortion, not the federal government. This might just be a personal preference, but I think the wording needs some help to cearly and concisely state Ron Paul's position on abortion and its laws.Nly8nchz (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my suggestion above might help, changing "its legality" to "the legality of the produce"? As in "advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of the procedure". That will eliminate the ambiguous "its" in the current version, which could be read as referring back to "Roe v. Wade" rather than "abortion". Terjen (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article as it is now written, it is clear that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but believes that it is a state matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that this debate (which sounds just like the archived ones IMHO) has quietly led to sorta consensus. Nly8nchz makes a key point, that the current language (quoted by Terjen) has all the necessary points, but is still lacking in wordsmithing. Prior to this debate, the points had been (1) strongly pro-life; (2) states' rights. Terjen wishes to make clear something relating to (3) federal laws banning abortion, which others have moderated into a somewhat more workable statement. My observation is that the evidence others bring (PBABA, SOLA, etc.) means that the fullness of point (3) would be very hard to state neutrally and briefly in the lead. We previously agreed essentially that this sentence should be short and sweet but should indicate that there's more to the story (a nuance), which can be found explained in the article below. Given that, I would only allude to (3) rather than state all its nuances, and my go would be: "Paul is strongly pro-life, and has introduced bills to negate" (not overturn) "Roe v. Wade, but affirms states' rights to regulate or ban abortion, rather than federal jurisdiction." Will probably go with that, this section may not be read much due to hiatus. In fact, "allow[] states to again ban or regulate abortion" are his words, from the "Pro-Life Action" piece. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve: illegal, counterfeiting money ?

Why does the article not explain his rather remarkable viewpoint that the Fed would be illegal? [7]

• Did you discuss this already? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the prohibition of gold money that is illegal according to Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6, and Section 10 Clause 1. Check for yourself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do so. You'll find that JLMadrigal isn't being 100% straight here. Section 8 says nothing whatsoever about the subject, and Section 10 only says that states can't use anything but gold or silver for paying their debts. So the Section 10 cite is iffy, but the Section 8 one is completely fake. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon; let's assume a little good faith here, Lisa! I'm assuming Madrigal is referring to Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the fifth and sixth clauses (not formally numbered), which read, *To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;" By his idiosyncratic interpretation that means the feds can't prohibit the use of gold as money. That's different from my reading, but it's not fake! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is. There's no interpretation that makes those clauses say anything at all about gold. Particularly when Section 10 mentions gold explicitly. Look, I think the Fed is horrible and should be done away with. But making false claims isn't going to help that to happen. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A little common sense, please. If states are required to make their payments in gold money (which they don't), then gold money cannot be prohibited. Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6 show that the federal government MAY coin money (which it doesn't), but it doesn't give it a monopoly on coinage. Dr. Paul would like to put competitive pressure on the private FED bank, by removing it's unlawful monopoly. His executive power would allow him to do this immediately, because it is already the supreme law of the land (AKA Constitutionally prescribed). JLMadrigal (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about Ron Paul's life, not the legality of the central bank. Bring your speculation and original research elsewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"speculation and original research" You obviously don't know what your are talking about. The FED is no more federal then "federal express" the central world banks are putting this country in the shitter, wake up! --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell did not write the racist newsletters. Here is proof

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/24/ron-paul-racial-issues-and-the-racists-who-wish-to-kill-the-paul-campaign/

The racist newsletters were written by Bill White. It was this man that Jamie Kirchick used as a source.

"Reason magazine identified then prominent paleolibertarian activist Lew Rockwell" is a lie. It's as if Reason Magazine has the authority to "identify" any truth! They do not have that authority.

Bill White hates Ron Paul because he thinks Paul has been corrupted by Jews. Paul's economic principles, are principles that White believes stems from Jewish economists like Von Mises, Rothbard, and others who have educated Paul.

I think the whole entry on the racist newsletters needs to be erased entirely, as they are a vicious fabrication of lies. Reason magazine is run by objectivists, who hate libertarians. They hate libertarians because they believe them to be a weak and morally corrupt group. Objectivists are similar to libertarians, except objectivists are more militant in their beliefs. Whereas Ron Paul may say that although some Arabs practice things that violate personal liberty like stoning, the wearing of burkas, hijabs, they have a right to live any way they want, so long as they do not violate other cultures. Objectivists on the other hand see this as the equivalent of "sanctioning" such behaviour by the mere act of not engaging in violence with them. The Ayn Rand Institute and Libertarians may appear to be allies, but objectivists make them like oil and water.

It's sad that nobody here can even see this.

THIS is why those at reason magazine and other extremists hate Ron Paul and want to destory his campaign. By having the racist newsletters section on Ron Paul's wiki entry, you are doing EXACTLY what the liars want you to do. You are assisting in the character assassination of a very moral and NON-racist man.

I thus call for the newsletter section to be erased in its entirety. The link I have given PROVES Ron Paul did not write them, it proves Lew Rockwell did not write them. talk 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your link doesn't prove anything and as a blog would be considered unreliable as a source in any case. And we're not here to discuss objectivism vs libertarianism, just the article. We specifically state that it is unknown who wrote the newsletters - we report that they were published under Ron Paul's name by an entity named "Ron Paul & Associates", and he has acknowledged this. Unless there is reliably sourced information that the pdf files provided by TNR were fakes - which no one has claimed to my knowledge - then our section is valid. We include Reason magazine's article and readers can draw their own conclusions as to its veracity - just as we include LewRockwell.com as a source throughout the piece for other matters. Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The link does discuss some of the background to the newsletters and the efforts of White to create a controversy, but Tvoz is right as far as its lack of standing as a solid source because it's a blog. Also, the assertion that reason magazine is a bunch of libertarian-hating Objectivists is grossly misinformed. Indeed, some of its founders, supporters and writers are interested in Rand's ideas, but both the foundation and magazine are explicitly libertarian and have no connection to Objectivist groups or orgs. Not to get too far into the discussion aspect of this, but their coverage of Ron Paul (including the cover story in February's print issue) has been favorable. The newsletter authorship coverage in their Hit & Run blog is more tough love than any kind of smear. You would do well to direct your attention to those actually guilty of smearing Ron Paul. Twalls (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait.... Is that talking about Bill White (neo-Nazi)??? Yikes! No wonder Paul didn't want to say who wrote them. I wouldn't want to admit it if I hired that guy either. Devpty01 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry if Ron Paul is accused of racism. That is actually a big plus if you are seeking the Republican nomination. --The Four Deuces (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Bill White was born in 1977 and the newsletters in question appeared starting 1989, he would have been twelve years old when he began editing the newsletter. --The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill White has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his newsletters; he was a source for Kirchick's piece. If anything, White dislikes Ron Paul for not being a racist. Twalls (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording his "oppositions"

I'm not a huge fan of politics, but I decided to read up on Ron Paul. Generally I've been told he's a nice, pro-life guy. (relatives knew him) Anyways, the way these views are stated seem to be somewhat bias. I just feel these views should be elaborated to a point that they reflect his actual views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.38.230 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more please? ~ UBeR (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that the article is biased. I guess he should have elaborated a bit more, but it doesn't exactly take a scientist to point out where this article goes much too easy on him (e.g. almost everywhere). —msikma (user, talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The guest above could of meant bias either way, either for or against Paul. Such statements without specifically identifying what they refer to, help little and indeed maybe a misunderstand of the guest rather then any bias within the article. If such a guest was being specific and providing sources of relevant reference it would help greatly. ChessCreator (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationist

Shouldn't somebody write about him being a creationist, that he doesn't believe in evolution? --ChristianKarlsson.se (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He has stated he is a Christian and that be believes in God - has that been taken to mean he is creationist perhaps? If not please provide some reference to your assertion. ChessCreator (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only source I've ever seen for this was a widely circulated YouTube video where he makes statements that could be interpreted as pro-creationist or at least anti-evolutionary. Placing this information in the article on that basis of that evidence alone would fail WP:RS and WP:OR. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking some other politicians, the wiki pages on George W Bush and Mike Huckabee don't say about them being Creationist. So it seems adding it to this article would be a level beyond the norm. Especially given that Paul is pro separation of Church and State. ChessCreator (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, under Huckabee's political positions, his creationism does make an appearance. If a politician takes a position on creationism, it is usually notable and should be mentioned if it appears in a reliable source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Have read the Huckabee article again and found it. Let's see if there is a source for Paul taking such a position. ChessCreator (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't directly matter whether other articles have such information. Maybe they don't, but should, just like this one. Ron Paul has stated that he does not accept the theory of evolution in the video. (Link points to the original blog article that was linked to on Digg.) While people with such an opinion are usually widely condemned, there was of course significant support for Ron Paul in this case. Here are some other sources: [8] [9] [10] —msikma (user, talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, shouldn't somebody write something closer to the truth about this guy? This site sounds as though he is the second coming; he has done no wrong. This entire article is written in a seesaw fashion, first championing him, and then defending him. Why is he treated as though he is a god? Why is he not written about in an objective tone? Why is he treated with such awe? He is a 72 year old with a mixed reputation. The fact that some currently want o venerate him should be irrelevant. The credibility of Wikipedia is in the balance.

When the reality of his Don Quixote quest is finally over, there must be a serious analysis of how his supporters have been able to "hack" dozens of web sites and write breathless articles about him, while "pretending" to be "fair." When they are addressed, and the unfair attitude about Ron Paul is pointed out, they uniformly are “shocked” that anyone could have misunderstood their very innocent motives. The Ron Paul supporters are so intent on forcing their “god” on the rest of society that they are willing to attest to any truth and deny any lie. Nothing is too good for their god.

This problem must be addressed so that systems can be developed and put into place in order to prevent the next cadre of devotees to adulterate an entire entity as large as Wikipedia. When the truth is told, there will be a shocking number of individual pages that have been corrupted by the idolatry of Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.0.213 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cite specific instances of the behavior you describe, or provide sourced information about the content you request. Until then you might be better off starting an article on political idolatry. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The closest we come at present is cult of personality. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That term doesn't seem to be entirely accurate, since there is no such effort being exerted by any official governmental or media organization. His support comes almost solely from online efforts. Apparently, more than two thirds of his record-breaking money bomb came from his online supporters. —msikma (user, talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CRITICISMS KEEP DISAPPEARING?!

<removing list of allegations that have nothing to do with improving article; this is not a forum>

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello new user, may I suggest an account first of all. Second, there are serious problems with your sources, not only with per WP:RS but also WP:BIO. Blogs are already poor sources to use; to use them as criticism would be intellectual suicide. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's true we can't use blogs as primary sources, they can be a very useful resource for further research (by us). It's possible to find sounder publications by use of these blogs. We should keep these links around on this talk page to see if they can be useful later. —msikma (user, talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: by the way, if you see someone removing criticism, feel free to let it be known, just like you have now. We can immediately do something about it if you detail exactly what was removed and why this removal should be reverted. —msikma (user, talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "pointers" from our guest per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which also applies to Talk pages. Terjen (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, WP:BLP is a policy with the purpose of preventing poorly sourced biographic text from being included in articles (and talk pages). It does not, and should not, however, prevent us from linking to blog articles on a talk page. A link to a site for the purpose of discussing this article does not equal "encyclopedic material". Besides, these pages may very well be based on truth, despite not sourcing the material in the appropriate way. Please remember that few bloggers actually use the scholarly reference style that we use here at Wikipedia. —msikma (user, talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a "discussion" page. You have no right to incessantly censor and remove material contributing to that discussion just becuase it does not satiate your prejudices, as a Ron Paul groupie.

Grow up. And stop obsessively vandalising critical discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Making spurious claims against a living person and/or using blog postings to support yourself is not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are removing anti-Paul material from this discussion page because it supposedly violates WP:BLP. However, these are just links to material which you haven't even proven to be needlessly biased or even defamatory. This (discussion) page does not even contain the material—only links to it. Please do not remove these links for the sake of preventing others from using them to add in criticism of Ron Paul; there has been a concerted effort by some of the contributors to keep this article free from criticism as much as possible, and the removal of these links seems to be part of it. I strongly disagree with that. —msikma (user, talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, saying things like "Ron Paul as embittered ideologue; venomous screeds for fellow Americans" is rather contentious and blatantly in violation of WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are many publications that write about him in a very contentious way. The articles that detail everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters, which we are already using as reference in this article, for example. So just the fact that an article is vocally in strong disagreement with Ron Paul should not matter. I think the problem is rather that the links that were given are not valid sources. But there is still a strong difference between keeping around a few links on a talk page and actually quoting material in an article and using the links as reference. Let's face at least that. I strongly believe that you'd rather not see any kind of criticism of Ron Paul creep up in this article; you are a pronounced Ron Paul supporter, after all. —msikma (user, talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "pronounced Ron Paul supporter." I'm interested in adhering to WP:BLP, which is a very serious policy. Negative material about a living person based upon unreliable sources like blog postings are not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

<Remove personal attack per WP:NPA. UBeR (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.6.84 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous guest, UBeR has followed WP policy, you have not. Please stop the personal attacks. Terjen (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, this comment is not just criticism towards UBeR. He criticizes the editors of this article who have actively engaged in censorship in order to embellish the image of Ron Paul. It's true that this has been going on. If I were you, I'd not complain about personal attacks like that's the most important thing in the world. Wikipedia's integrity is at stake here, as some people have been treating this article as their soapbox. That's far more important. —msikma (user, talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These links are inappropriate here, as is all the discussion of whether Paul is a viable candidate or not. If people want to discuss the inclusion of some specific fact or claim related to them, fine. The talk page is for improving the article and is definitely not the place to post laundry lists of grievances against Paul. If you all believe something specific is missing from the article, fix it or discuss it. This is not a forum.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, he already dropped out. Criticism is no longer necessary, mission accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.87.143 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Paul today has said he is still campaigning and going the distance in this presidential election. Consider this for your contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV ChessCreator (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mission accomplished." Where have I heard that before? JLMadrigal (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased. As ya'll have said previously, I'm sure legions of Paul supporters make this no accident. But sentences such as: "while some, like his term limits legislation, are considered 'ahead of their time'" is just pure commentary. Also, many of the facts listed throughout this page describing how wonderful Paul is are better suited to an election pamphlet than a reference article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.38.59 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No criticism section

This article has no section for criticism. It is important that we add criticism for his actions along every stage of his career in one section.--24.97.82.65 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to add in information about this man, as there are many people who (sometimes strongly) support Ron Paul. Many people are watching the article and removing criticism, as we've seen plenty of times now. You can scream all you want, but it's simply very difficult to do anything about this. It takes a league of editors who are willing to work hard on this article if one wants to balance it out. I agree that at this moment, the article is strongly biased, and needs significant work—I personally would like to wait until after Ron Paul steps down as a candidate, as then the activity will have died down a little. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Below this line is a discussion that has little to do with the original complaint.

It will not be much longer now, his voter turnout are so low it's almost funny compare to the amount of "support" he get online. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. It's "almost" funny that Dr. Paul is only talked about through the interactive narrowcast real-world media. Many unfortunate have-nots still haven't had the fortune of meeting their champion. Those sheep who are stuck behind the ol' talk-box will never know what hit 'em. Nyuk nyuk. They'll vote as they're told. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please dial it down a bit, JLMadrigal? Thanks. Bartleby (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite typical of Ron Paul supporters to blame his lack of support on his lack of media coverage. The reason why he was not covered by the media so much is because he is and has always been an insignificant candidate. Just like Mike Gravel and several others that simply never were able to make the cut. You cannot blame the media for this; either Ron Paul's message does not resonate with the voters or he cannot get his message across efficiently enough.

As for your comment about "those sheep", I suggest that you stop making fun of them like a child that cannot have what he wants. —msikma (user, talk) 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Paul Breaks Historical Fundraising Record" Now that's a headline and top story if I ever saw one. What happened? No headline. Fair coverage? Of course not. And Giuliani was given plenty air time while Paul was given almost none - long after Paul trounced Giuliani in the primaries. And Paul still earned second-place finishes in the primaries without the big media. Now that's impressive. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not so strange. After all, these are so-called "money bombs" we're talking about here, and most of the money comes from online supporters. Such things do not exactly represent the usual way in which candidates raise money for their campaigns. While these things do reach the headlines of some publications, I'm not at all surprised that it's shrugged off as an "oddball occurrence" by the serious ones. In the end, getting a lot of money from organized efforts that rally people to donate as much as possible on one single day is not an indication of him having a great amount of mainstream support. —msikma (user, talk) 14:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"oddball occurrance" Who are you kidding? The sensationalist media thrives on oddball occurrences - as long as they can spin them into "There oughtta be a law". JLMadrigal (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't find it very strange that they decided to ignore it. It's true, oddball occurrences are sometimes reported on in the media, but only if they're funny or otherwise interesting to the audience. A completely unknown candidate getting a record amount of funds in a certain amount of time because his followers decided to "bomb" him with donations, solely to get him into the media limelight? I'm not sure if that's interesting. Of course, it doesn't matter what I think, since I don't run a newspaper or a TV network. But what I'm saying is that I'm not utterly convinced that this is interesting news. It's such a transparent attempt. —msikma (user, talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that Madrigal. He's raised a ton of money and hasn't really spent a whole lot. Have you ever asked yourself what he will do with that money when the inevitable happens and he bows out? Nest egg anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He already got the nest egg covered. Invested in gold, of course... Terjen (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are his financial statements.

Gold? Hmmm. If I'd invested in gold (instead of worthless greenbacks) a couple of years ago when it was less than $300, I'd be wealthy. Too bad Paul's campaign is spending its record funds on expensive TV commercials as fast as they are coming in. He won't even move the money to his congressional campaign - much less keep it. No wonder he's so hard to criticize. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He's spending record funds on commercials? In Q4 he raised over a million for each delegate he's won so far. That's hardly what I'd call a sound investment. I wonder if he'd recommend an investment with that kind of return rate? And while it may be legal, I personally feel it is unethical to use money given to you by people nationwide for the purpose of campaigning for president and use it to retain your local congressional seat. At that point, you do not represent those "investors". To me, it is like giving money to a hurricane relief fund and having them convert it to building a parking garage for the foundation employees. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So if Paul can't be criticised for raising too little money, he gets criticised for raising too much. Interesting. He raised $20,000,000 in the fourth quarter - more than all the other current GOP candidates combined - and is completely in the black. Media darling McCain, on the other hand, is $5,000,000 in debt. What does that say about fiscal responsibility? JLMadrigal (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So? Does that answer my question? Nope. Why don't you give it a shot. Should I put the question in a different form? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is speculation, but who are you to say it is clueless? Have you discussed the matter with Paul? Do you know his plans? Or are you just speculating yourself with no more of a clue than anyone else? Don't act as if nobody has ever wanted more to retire on. What is he waiting for anyway? Half the primaries are over. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is slander. WP:BLP may apply. Terjen (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First, learn your legal terms. What you mean is libel. Second, I've made no accusation. I have asked questions. You've answer none, but they've been asked. Sorry you don't have any good answers, but trying to divert attention with a false accusation of your own (the only actual accusation made) is a nice try. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I used the term slander deliberately. This is a Talk page, sharing features with both verbal and printed media. But we can call it whatever makes sense to you. My point is that unfounded speculation about whether Paul will pocket the campaign funds for himself is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Terjen (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, you need to learn that the border between libel and criticism does not move depending on where you want it to be. For example, Ron Paul has 20 years' worth of newsletters published by an organization he was involved with. They had his name bannered right on top of them, every single one of them. And yet, you believe that he did not write them. For this reason, you might think that publication that name them "Ron Paul's letters" are either wrong or defamatory. That's not something you can decide on, however. You also should not throw around WP policy page links like red herrings. —msikma (user, talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have maintained that we should be neutral as to whether Paul wrote the newsletters, and that we should use the neutral "the newsletters" when referring to them. Others wanted to push their POV that Paul himself wrote the newsletters, explicitly labeling them "Paul's newsletters". Recent testimonials indicate that Rockwell wrote the content, substantiating that the POV pushers were jumping the gun. Terjen (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Testimonials from libertarians, some close to Paul, don't go a long way versus the fact that they were published by organizations in which Paul was either involved in or at the helm. They're the most biased people you could possibly ask. Plus, these are just testimonials. There is no hard evidence. —msikma (user, talk) 12:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence either way. Hence I was right in insisting on the neutral "the newsletters". Case closed. Terjen (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason you say "case closed" is because you ran out of arguments. I have not. You say that there is no hard evidence, I say that the newsletters were published by organizations that Paul was either at the helm or involved in for 20 years. There is no way he could have not known about them. Even if he didn't write them himself, it is obvious that he must have read them and approved of them. As said by numerous political commentators: there is no excuse for having this kind of homophobic, racist and in many other ways disagreeable content go published under your name for 20 years. This is not one or two articles that were submitted in order to discredit him, this is a two-decade-long career we're talking about. They also weren't published some place where Paul would never have found them, they were consistently being published by his own organizations. But no, apparently none of that matters, and you'd rather believe that it's all part of one big conspiracy against him. Isn't that true? —msikma (user, talk) 06:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not here to argue, but I think a couple observations are appropriate. It is not obvious that Paul approved of every word in every newsletter, but it is clear he approved of the general idea. It is also reported that he disagreed with and argued over the content at the time (i.e. whatever content he actually saw), but permitted it to go out over objection. Then we have a quote (Gergen?) that this should not be excused. Those things matter and can be reported neutrally. However, when we call it a "two-decade-long career" we enter into POV inappropriate for the article. First, it was no career, and second, the objectionable items are concentrated within a couple years in the early 90s. It is clear from the data that the newsletter always had an edgy style, but it only crossed the border into PI around 1991 and it appears to have been a gradual, poorly managed process (in fact, Paul's biggest mistake, which is saying a lot compared to the biggest mistakes of other players). Similarly, "conspiracy" has many meanings and is thrown about too easily; there is a clear tacit agreement by many media to downplay Paul, and another clear tacit agreement by many independent folks to play him up. So please try not to cross the line. Now this does matter; feel free to suggest sourced edits (although for weight concerns the section should still be shortened and unimportant detail moved to the campaign article, in proper WP:SUMMARY fashion, which I'm working on). John J. Bulten (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some things I'd like to note in response:

• The things I write here constitute my opinion, and not necessarily reflect what I think should be in the article.
• Naming it a "two-decade-long career" is something you can disagree with: no problem. This, however, does account for the fact the newspaper couldn't have gone unnoticed, even if the politically incorrect material is concentrated in the early 90s. It's an issue worth keeping in the back of your mind.
• The word "conspiracy" is used by those who believe that the media is taking part in an orchestrated effort to keep Ron Paul out of the limelight. Of course, the media will downplay whoever they disagree with—that's a simple fact of life—but it's a really big allegation to suggest that several or even all of the large media companies have agreed to keep him away from the American crowd as much as possible. You'd need very strong evidence to back up such a claim, and yet many of the Paul supporters do claim it and say that "it's obvious". Now, none of this needs to be written about in the article, since the entire thing is more or less ridiculous, but I'm not going to leave such allegations unanswered when they are made on this talk page.

Our discussion regarding the newsletters here shouldn't have a big impact on the article. After all, there are extremely few notable publications that state Ron Paul really wasn't involved with the newsletter content. Just about every single one calls them "Paul's newsletters". The only "evidence" that supports this is a series of testimonials made by mostly libertarians, some of them close to Paul himself. I don't think there should be a big argument over whether Ron Paul did or did not approve of the things that were written: in the end, he must certainly have approved of the content, since there were way too many of these politically incorrect articles for him to have missed every single one of them. —msikma (user, talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"permitted it to go out over objection"? That's pretty appalling. "Oh, yeah, it's racist and homophobic, and I don't approve of that sort of thing, but what the hey, the rednecks will eat it up, so I'll allow it to go out with my name all over it?" What does that say about Ron Paul's ethics? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If Ron Paul really had nothing to do with what was written, then it says nothing about his ethics or lack thereof. That's what Ron Paul supporters are suggesting. However, it's extremely implausible that this was the case. He most likely wrote every single piece of those newsletters, and even if he didn't, he was involved in (or even the founder of) every entity that published the newsletters, and given the fact that they all went out under his name, he certainly must at least have checked the pieces before approving of them. As stated before countless times, there is no real excuse against these facts—and that's generally the opinion of most big publications that have ran a story on the issue. —msikma (user, talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Paring down Newsletters section?

I agree with the criticisms of the length of the Newsletter section. It's obviously contentious and at this point in time it's hard for people to not edit with guns drawn, but I'd like to see if we can come up with something a bit shorter and more useful. I posted a starting point for discussion at User:Bartleby/Newsletters sandbox. Thoughts? Bartleby (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The newsletters section is the only bit of substantial criticism that this article has at this point. We should absolutely not start removing content from it because "it's contentious"—please realize that none of the claims are unreferenced or unfounded. Doing so would obviously be yet another attempt to tone down the criticism in the article for the sake of showing this person in a more favorable light. —msikma (user, talk) 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. As it is now, the section is unclear and confusing to a person wanting to learn about the situation. My reference to contentiousness was about the editing process, not the subject material. I don't advocate "toning down" the section or removing content just because it is controversial, but rather for clarity and usefulness. Bartleby (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone else renamed your page, and before reading this talk I redirected it back to the main article because as it stood it was rife for content forking. I agree this is a hard-to-edit section (which is why I've stayed out), but creating subdirectory (slashed) articles in mainspace is not the correct approach. Instead we should stick with carrying out the edits here, or in a userspace sandbox (though I don't encourage it). Right now it is still rarefied and there are easy ways to lose words without losing much else. I'll chip in eventually. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using a subpage to discuss a proposed change before incorporating it into mainspace. It wasn't at risk of becoming a fork as it was just a tool for talk. I recreated the page and I hope discussion will commence on the proposal and not whether or not creating it was appropriate. Thanks. Bartleby (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but per the bold language in WP:CFORK#Temporary subpages I am moving it to User:Bartleby/Newsletters sandbox. My edits, however, will be in mainspace. My first observation is that, in keeping with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages, the first task is to split the controversy section into the 1996 election and the current campaign. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is not where the article is, but how we can improve this one. Do you have any comments about the proposal? Bartleby (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I disagree with this proposal - the newsletter controversy should remain in this article, and it does not need further paring down in my opinion. As for splitting it up, I don't agree with that either - the publication took place at one time, the controversy was spread over time - this is a case where it should remain together for ease in understanding. The breaking down of controversy pages is a different matter - we're getting away from having pages or sections that are in effect laundry lists of various controversies that an individual has been involved in or accused of. This is one whole item, and meaning would be lost if it were split up into senate and presidential campaign - also it would become redundant. Tvoz |talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest moving it out of the article or splitting it but rather reorganizing it. I guess nobody is interested in trying to edit a proposal so I'll just go ahead and edit in mainspace. Bartleby (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter chrono

For reference, simple sorting of the sources already given for this article indicates there were 5 different newsletters with 2 different publishers, each with a distinct history and purpose and some simultaneous. In editing, please observe this disambiguation, which I am in process of carrying across the article:

• Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1976-1984, original individual rights report
• The Ron Paul Investment Letter, by RP&A, attested 1985-1993, investment report
• The Ron Paul Survival Report, by RP&A, attested 1985-1996, conspiracy and militia report
• Ron Paul Political Report, by RP&A, attested 1987-1992, politically incorrect report
• Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1997-2007, new series of individual rights report

Start dates are per mastheads; end dates may be later. Note that RPPR is the only one that appears to be deliberately in-your-face with political incorrectness, but the other 4 have at times each been implicated by their relationship despite their more neutral language. Particularly, TRPIL is clearly of better layout quality than the rest and has only one questionable passage, relating to coverage of the Trilateral Commission. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Add: there were also the undated subscription letters, which Lew Rockwell has admitted writing here; and there was a one-time special report in 1993 called The Ron Paul Survival Guide, which was fully and properly bylined to James B. Powell, and a 1984 fundraiser letter properly letterheaded from Ron Paul for U.S. Senate Committee (but both were still mentioned regardlessly by Kirchick). However, keep these each distinct. Particularly, widely circulating reports that Political was renamed to Survival Report are patently mistaken speculation (and are probably due to the disappearance of Political sometime after 1992-11-15, its last attested date). Survival Report mastheads consistently give volume numbers in a series starting in 1985, while the Political series consistently starts from its volume 1 issue 1 date of 1987; also, Survival Report specifically touts 1994 as "our 10th year" and 1995 as "our 11th year". Also, Political and Investment were touted in the same fundraising letter (which mentions another special report Surviving the New Money and refers to "metal and plastic threads", suggesting a 1991 date per History of the United States dollar); and the same two were mentioned together by Frederick Mann's site, Build Freedom, in a list dated 1993. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: the same fundraising letter appears to have been quoted in Barron's, 1985-07-29, not 1991. There is not a reliable source on the web though. Perhaps the print version could be pulled? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Newsletter controversy" section

Before reading this article, I didn't know anything about the "newsletter controversy". After reading the article, I get the impression that Paul was accused of having written something controversial, but I still don't know exactly what or when or in what context. This section would be more useful if it began with a few sentences describing the controversy for uninformed readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.124.17 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter controvery section has been repeatedly removed and eviscerated by Ron Paul's enthusiastic supporters, who want as little negative information about Paul as possible reaching the public. It's a miracle frankly that the section still exists, and the fact that it does is testimony to the tenacity and honesty a few hard working Wikipedians interested in preserving some semblance of balance in this article. Still, the section as it stands right now says almost nothing about the controvery. Laughably, it starts out with a DENIAL of the charges without first stating what the controversy is about. If you are retired and can spend 16 hours a day waging war with the Paulbots, or have access to a small army who can assist you, you might be able to insert some truthful details into this section. But if you try to do it while living a life on a normal schedule, you might as well forget it. With Ron Paul's political career ending and his campaign in a state of collapse, this wikipedia page is sort of a shrine for the Ron Paul people to gather around. And if it makes them feel better to build this little lonely island tribute to their hero, I'm inclined to let them have it. Ron Paul is a fringe figure fast fading from memory. Ultimately, it makes no difference if Nazi sympathizers build a tribute to David Duke, totalitarian communists build a shrine for Joseph Stalin, or the ultra-rightwing builds a temple for worship of Ron Paul. It's their business, their cult of personality, their obsession. I vote to let them delete the newsletter section completely so the fantasy feels even more real to them than it already does. -asx- (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, uh, Wikipedia is supposed to be non-biased as much as possible, so that's a pretty silly idea. I do agree that the section as it stands is pretty poor, more concerned with whitewashing Paul than even stating what the controversy was. --Tombomp (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I was being extremely sarcastic above. And you are right, without question: Wikipedia should be objective and fact-based, not used to build shrines for favored candidates. Unfortunately, I was despairing of any hope to rectify the problem on this particular page (or any other related to Ron Paul), simply because his supporters don't care about Wikipedia's standards and take a fundamentalist approach to enforcing a single interpretation of their candidate. You should read (if you haven't) some of the past discussion pages; the Ron Paul people have even been deleting DISCUSSION about the article if it contains anything they disagree with.

Or look at the edit history of some of the pages about Republican primaries: A seemingly unlimited number of Ron Paul fans have repeatedly falsified primary and caucus results showing Paul taking 2nd or 3rd place when he really took 4th or 5th. You could fix the vandalism, and within minutes another Paul supporter would come by and reinsert the false information. They are a swarm and represent an attack on the core principles of Wikipedia. But who can stop them? Who can protect the integrity of this article?

Another user just restored the long-missing introduction to the newsletters controversy section, without which that section made no sense (because the original charges were never described before laying out all the denials). Let's see how long it takes before that change is reverted. It won't be long. -asx- (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Just because a group disagrees with your edits does NOT give you license to accuse them of bad faith. Doing so is far more an attack on the core principles of Wiki than their actions. Buspar (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me your citations; they don't apply to me, and your waving them around has the effect of chilling debate while creating an authoritarian atmosphere. You are discouraging participation and discussion, especially by those who disagree with your POV or with the article as it is written.

Furthermore, it is you who are assuming bad faith. I told you what I witnessed on other pages. Despite not knowing any of the facts or details of these encounters, vouch for the good faith of the individuals I described. How can you vouch for their good intentions when you don't know who they are or what they were doing? I would suggest that I witnessed the behavior and you did not, so you are not in a position to pass judgement on them, or my characterization of them. I would further note an irony: You grant yourself the right to say I am acting in bad faith, by deny me the right to accuse the aforementioned editors of acting in bad faith. I would simply ask you to please stop violating Wikipedia's guidelines — the very same ones you are now waving around — and assume good faith on my part. -asx- (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No: lines like "They are a swarm and represent an attack on the core principles of Wikipedia" is clearly a violation of WP:AGF. It's no different than if an editor said "Muslims are a swarm" or "Liberals are a swarm." Such comments are rude and a serious breach of Wikiquette. Reminding another user to follow the principles of Wikipedia is not being "authoritarian" or "chilling." Furthermore, claiming that those rules don't apply to you reflects poorly on your quality as an editor. I did not say your edits to the article were in bad faith, merely your accusations and open hostility towards other users was unwarranted on a talk page. If you're going to discuss the article, discuss! Your POV breakdown below, for example, is fine. But the extraneous comments accusing Paul supporters of inserting false information don't belong. Buspar (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter controversy is already covered extensively in Paul's 2008 campaign article, so most of the content here is redundant and making the article overall longer than it needs to be. Since the section is a summary of his presidential run, I say the controversy should be trimmed to a few sentences. Readers can then use the "Main article" link to read more if they want. Duplicating info in two articles isn't good formatting. Buspar (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now completely eviscerated the newsletter section. The little bit that remains is written from an entirely pro-Paul POV. There are numerous problems with the pro-Ron Paul version you have posted.

— Your text mischaracterizes the controversy. It is not a campaign controversy, but a Ron Paul controversy. Though it came up again during his campaign, and therefore mention of it belongs in his campaign article, the story itself has followed him since 1996, at least, and it therefore should be fully explored on his bio page.

— You have written the section in such a way that suggests Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters. This is the official Ron Paul position, now stated by you as fact, while competing viewpoints are omitted.

— You suggest the controversy starts and ends with a single article in The New Republic. You have omitted both the locus and scope of the controvery. The locus is the newsletters themselves. The scope is not one article in The New Republican, but a series of press reports and interviewed published overa span of 12 years.

— Your text insulates Ron Paul from responsibility by saying they were merely published "under his name," suggesting he was uninvolved. Omitted by you is the fact that he was an owner and publisher of the offensive tracts.

— The first sentence as you have posted is a masterwork of POV, rife with transparent pro-Ron Paul bias. The full first sentence reads: "On January 8, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by Jamie Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul's name, mostly from between 1989 and 1994, a period in which Paul was not in office but in medical practice."

Let's take a closer look just at the POV contained in this sentence:

"the day of the New Hampshire primary"

The intended message: "The article was planted at a critical time to damage Ron Paul. The discerning reader will question the motives of the author and therefore the veracity of the charges."

Fact overlooked: This controversy has linged for 12 years and the newsletters themselves were published over a 20 year span. The date they were published is irrelevant to the controversy itself.

Do Both: The story appeared the day of the New Hampshire primary, and the rest of the media picked it up on that day. Both statements are correct, and both should be included -- the controversy first came up in 96, but it was revived on a day suited for political purposes. 66.162.82.154 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

— "quoting from selected newsletters"

The intended message: "These were 'selected' newsletters, carefully cherry-picked to harm Ron Paul."

Facts overlooked: (1) If you are writing an article about the racist, homophobic, and conspiratorial contents of Paul's newsletters, of course you will select those newsletters which contain that kind of writing. The fact that they were "selected" for this purposes proves nothing. (2) There were a significant number of newsletters containing hate speech and conspriacy theories. It was not as if any great effort was needed to find examples. They are rife through all of Ron Paul's newsletters. Even if we were to select from Paul's newsletters randomly we would find racism, homophobia, and conspiracy theories.

— "newsletters published under Paul's name"

The intended message: "Ron Paul had nothing to do with these newsletters. They just had his name on them."

Facts overlooked: (1) Only as of 2007 did Ron Paul deny involvement or awareness. In previous years, he openly admitted his role in developing the offensive messages. (2) Ron Paul owned and published the newsletters. They were not simply "in his name," but were in his own product, owned and published by him.

More: (1) reports from Reason magazine and Texas Monthly put the years of his first denials back at 2001, not 2007. (2) This should all be mentioned: "He owned and published newsletters with articles in his name". However, that's about as far as it can be taken on given information. Unless evidence can be cited that he wrote the words, supports the sentiments, or takes credit for them, it can't be suggested in wiki that he does do those things. Credibly accusing him of being an absent and incompetent publisher for not policing the stuff written in his name seems as far as the facts take us. 66.162.82.154 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

— "a period in which Paul was not in office but in medical practice."

The intended message: "He was busy doing other things and didn't know what was being published in his name. He can't be held responsible."

Facts overlooked: It strains credulity to believe that Ron Paul was oblivious, over a period of years, to what was contained in his own newsletters. The contents of the newsletters match the content in other correspondence distributed by Ron Paul, such as fundraising letters and promotional materials. Furthermore, Ron Paul did not deny knowledge of the racist content in pre-2007 interviews.

Personal credulity is not the criterium by which wikipedia articles are judged and should be left out of this subject altogether, so we can stick with facts, not our personal suspicions and judgements on the matter. 66.162.82.154 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion, someone needs to write an objective, fair account of the Ron Paul newsletter controvery, and it needs to be protected from the legions of Ron Paul surrogates who care more for the promotion of their favored candidate than they do for the standards of Wikipedia. Despite the overwhelming success of the Wikipedia model for content creation and management, I have little faith this article can be written fairly. There are simply too many activists and vandals who will refuse any criticism of their candidate to allow the article to contain a factual account of his life and positions. -asx- (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "eviscerate" it; I took sentences from the existing main section and highlighted the key points: Kirchik raised the point, Paul's campaign responded, Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters. If you follow the "Details" link I added, you'll find it leads to all of the information on the controversy in full detail. The section on this page is meant to be a summary only of his presidential campaign and surrounding controversies, not a full entry on the matter. If you believe the section on the controversy is biased, then you should discuss this with the editors at the talk page for Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and then come back here and re-edit the summary to reflect those changes. That would be more productive than going on about "legions of Ron Paul surrogates," which, again, is an unfounded attack on other editors who you just happen to disagree with. Buspar (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter controversy section has become Paul apologia

Congratulations. You've finally managed to do it. You've removed everything critical of Ron Paul in this article, including the crucial newsletter section. We can conclude the following:

• Wikipedia is unable to prevent protrusive bias from showing up in an article if enough people want it.
• As for the section itself, there is no mention of the terrible things that were published, and even the opening sentence contains apologia; it is immediately suggested that it is all untrue, and that it's "just an old political attack", and that "someone else probably wrote it".
• While some of the critical material still exists, it has been carefully hidden as a subsection of the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, despite the fact that it is not exclusive to his 2008 campaign.

I know that there are strongly biased editors working on this article, but I had no idea you would be able to go as far as blatantly removing everything critical of him. This isn't just improper conduct, this is a gigantic insult to Wikipedia itself and its editors, myself included. I take great offense in this, yet I know I probably am unable to bring back any of the critical material without it being removed shortly thereafter.

I've completely lost any hope of this article reaching a level where it can be called neutral anytime soon. And the sour thing is that despite such blatant and obvious shortcomings, it's still rated A-class in every section it's been categorized in. Again, congratulations: whoever was involved in this should pat himself on the back for having successfully beaten the system. —msikma (user, talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Welcome to wikipedia. Biased editing is not an insult to Wikipedia. It is wikipedia. The majotity rules rather it is true or not. Welcome to Mob-ipedia rules.) J. D. Hunt (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No information was lost; the edits here were because this article is only meant to contain a summary of the campaign and controversy. The entire section is where it's always been: Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Ron Paul newsletters. If you feel the main section needs work, please go there to edit it. Buspar (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it "had always" been right here in this article. Your summary completely removed anything that sounded remotely critical. It was misleading, to say the least. Tvoz |talk 07:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with my summary, feel free to change it - I make no claim of perfection with my edits, after all. I summarized it because the original entry was far too long to be considered a summary and largely redundant. It had to be cut so I stepped forward and did it. All these false accusations about "strongly biased editors" is counter-productive and bordering on personal attacks. If you want to improve the article, let's discuss points of disagreement with the summary and where it can be improved! Buspar (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The single negative paragraph from the campaign article (that Ron Paul has defended some of the newsletter's contents) is not included at all. The current section contains no mention of the contents of the newsletters or the fact that they had been bought up in the past, despite that the first is the most important thing and the second is relevant to a biography of him.--Tombomp (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend going to that page and adding those items in, then. It looks like the newsletter controversy is two parts: once back in 1996 (and through 2001) when the letters were first brought up and again in 2008 when Kirchik brought it up again. The current section in the campaign article covers the 2008 half, so putting the 1996 events here would be appropriate (but not in the 2008 campaign section which was a big mistake for whoever had that there). The 1996 election already has a section, so it'd work very well integrated there. The section in the campaign article could then reference the 1996 section here for "Details." Buspar (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you immediately revert your edits, Buspar. You can't be serious about them. The newsletter section documented Ron Paul's involvement with highly obscene rants that were published under his name. This is an extremely important point of criticism that's been picked up by all the large media. Pretty much everybody has condemned Ron Paul for it, stating that there is no political excuse for what has happened; there are a few who defend him and state that he did not write the offensive content, but these are mostly people close to him or people of the libertarian party. You have removed just about every shred of evidence that people could use to formulate the prevailing opinion: that he was involved in the writing (note that just about every major news outlet calls them "Ron Paul's newsletters", not "newsletters written by Ron Paul") and that he must have consented to the content to at least some degree.

HOW can you POSSIBLY suggest that you were only interested in summarizing it? You removed all of the critical material and turned the section into an apologia! This is highly flawed and biased editing, Buspar, and I simply cannot believe that you were only trying your best to help fix this article. If I'm wrong about this, that's too bad, but that's simply how it seems at this point. And I really have nothing against you personally, but if you really were the one who made these edits, you have done something terribly wrong that can only be interpreted as being very strongly biased. —msikma (user, talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you just stripped the only piece of criticism from Ron Paul's article and you seem to have been involved in some edit wars regarding Ron Paul in the past. So yeah, I will not believe you were simply trying to help fix the article, I believe you were only interested in removing criticism. Again, this is not an attack against you as a person, but a logical conclusion as a result of what I observed. If you disagree with me: fine, but if you stop blatantly remove important criticism of political figures you support, I'll gladly take back my words about your editing habits. —msikma (user, talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My previous edit wars with Ron Paul articles were mainly disagreements with formatting (lists vs. prose) and terminology (the difference between active and running). I am not opposed to the presence of criticism of Paul in this article or the other. Criticism sections are standard for political figure articles and the newsletters received notable media attention. Additionally, if I was really trying to "strip" criticism from this article, why would I go to the trouble of inserting a link to the full controversy section right there? Putting a link that says "Look here for more info!" is not removing critical info, nor did it turn the section into an "apologia." Your accusations are entirely inconsistent with my actions and not constructive to this discussion.

My main concern is the proper organization of this article. I'll restate my key objection again: the section that people keep trying to add the newsletter material to is a summary of the presidential campaign article only. So it shouldn't contain material not in the campaign article. Also, as a summary, it should summarize the material with weight proportional to the coverage in that article. Since Paul's presidential article is mainly concerned with his fundraising, primary results, and Internet popularity, those should clearly be given more weight than the newsletter controversy (though said controversy should be mentioned, albeit briefly).

Instead of placing the material in the summary section (giving it undue weight), it should instead be located where every fact can be listed: that is, the 1996 campaign section and accompanying follow up. These two sections, in fact, already have something about the controversy, though I think there's still more that can be added. If the controversy material was relocated there I would have no objections since it wouldn't be cluttering up what should be a brief and lean summary section. I also have no objections to expanding the controversy section in the campaign article if you think it's lacking.

Now, can we lay off the inflammatory claims of "Paulbots are invading Wiki!" and get to the business of putting information in its appropriate sections? Buspar (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the newsletters are an issue about Ron Paul himself. Whether you believe that they were nothing to do with him or not, a newsletter containing many offensive things was published for 15 years (? i can't remember) under his name without any action being taken. It's come up under several of his campaigns so it shouldn't be a solely 2008/1996 campaign thing. If you don't want undue weight, it's better to reference the earlier section about them rather than simply not describing them as readers might not be able to tell that information is included under seemingly unrelated headings --Tombomp (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Buspar) First off, it while you did offer a link to the full section, you did remove it from this article, despite the fact it's more relevant to Ron Paul himself than his current presidential campaign. It's not an uncommon practice to "hide" things in separate articles. This is done to prevent having the material on the most visible page (which is this one). So, yes, you could still call this a WP:SPINOUT.

Secondly, the newsletter controversy does not just pertain to his 2008 presidential campaign. Or any other single specific campaign, for that matter. It was brought up several times and does not pertain to any one event. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of the facts if you were to suggest that it does. Since there's no article dedicated to the newsletters, it should remain in this article and nowhere else. Yes, you can make summaries in other articles that point to here, but you should not move the newsletter content someplace else.

As for the "Paulbots are invading Wiki" suggestion, perhaps if people would stop removing critical content from this article (which, for some reason I cannot comprehend, is still listed as A-class in every category it's in), I'd not suggest such things. But this has really, really disgusted me thoroughly. The newsletter section already wasn't balanced. And now you've maimed it in such a way that a casual reader could only interpret this as "just a dirty trick against a decent man who had nothing to do with it". This really, REALLY proves that if given enough editors, you CAN grossly distort reality on this site. —msikma (user, talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The above point by msikma is exactly correct, and why this material has to be in this main article: it is not at all only about the presidential campaign. This material is relevant to his entire career and will remain relevant beyond the end of this campaign. At one point, a while ago, the section was balanced - unfortunately partisan editors were unwilling to allow it to remain so and have peppered it with text that is not directly relevant. So not only should the section remain, it also should be brought back into balance. Tvoz |talk 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz: if msikma was only making points about matters related to the article, this discussion would go better. However, lines like "This really, REALLY proves that if given enough editors, you CAN grossly distort reality on this site" are personal attacks and will NOT be tolerated. Say something like that again, msikma, and I will bring you to WP:ANI for disciplinary action, both for that and for your general lack of civility and good faith in this discussion. Not every editor who puts something in another article is trying to "distort reality." You have been warned. If you want to discuss where the material should be located, then discuss that without stooping to childish insults of other editors. Buspar (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well kind of new here but I can see the obvious is overlooked Ron Paul has been re-elected as congressman for a VERY long time, so he MUST be doing something right. He votes consistent even when the Polls says vote otherwise. So he's a "No Sale" to the lobbyist whuich they won't tolerate of course. All I see on this page looks like a CNN or FOX raid which would not surprise me since they've sold to corporations with interests of their own. Fact is this country needs a President to reign in this corporate sell-out Federal Government..A SUPER HIGH PRIORITY I say. But all I see here is slam work. I suggest a reset of values is in order. Or stay on CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS and keep this child's play up until the light go out for good. I'm out-a here.. Serfwrite (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)serfwrite

This is the kind of demagogy I was talking about. "He has been re-elected as congressman, so he must be doing something right." This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. —msikma (user, talk) 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"CNN or FOX raid"? You're clearly not assuming good faith and you seem highly biased. --Tombomp (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Rolling eyes) Can we please keep in mind a couple general-content points here?

1. Newsletter controversy is mentioned four times prior to its 2008 eruption (1976, 1984, 1996, 2001), and so discussion of the 2008 eruption should be limited basically to what is new about it; anything old should appear in one of the prior sections.
2. Since the 2008 controversy is a summary section, details should be relegated to the campaign article.
3. Y'know, my impression was that even this was pretty stable up until a few days ago, so it's not like this has been unresolvable ever since Jan 8.
4. Tvoz is right: some months ago we worked out a nice, well-balanced section for the controversy as it stood then. It mostly still exists in the 1996 and 2001 sections. It is really only the 2008 section that needs balance.
5. That being so, the use of multiple tags (one in lead and one in section) is, as usual, overkill. I wrote a fresh article just before this weekend and I came back and found five different kinds of tags in it, besides the WP:AFD. Would msikma please indicate, right here, any complaints observed about any section other than the 2008 newsletter controversy? If not, let's move that tag down to the section instead of the article. Thanks.
6. The overall main points of the controversy obviously belong in both this article and the campaign article. However, as to details, there seems a pretty clear division between pre-2008 details (belong in this article, with summary in campaign article) and 2008 details (belong in campaign article, with summary in this article). This seems to naturally and easily resolve the apparent conflict above relating to placement, as it places the details most relevant to each subject (the details a person looking for each subject would most be interested in) in their appropriate place. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To make clear, in an initial pass I have just deleted a few sentences from the controversy, as well as cleaned up the cites and links. Everything I deleted was repeated in the prior newsletter coverage earlier in this article, sometimes verbatim (or, in a couple cases, fleshed out by my edit of the prior coverage). There are a couple more sentences that would go neatly in the earlier coverage; a couple that would go well in the campaign article; and a few clauses that can be cut back. Then I think we'd be done. But what do you all think needs to be done as well? What criticism remains to insert? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter section

Whoever split the newsletter section off: good job! I like the new formatting. It unclutters the 2008 campaign summary, allows all the facts to be expressed without being redundant, and is good for readability (which were my main concerns with how this was originally). A good resolution to the problem. Buspar (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 4 victories by McCain

After last nights victories by McCain, will Ron Paul finally be dropping out? 207.190.244.74 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but Mike Huckabee did. Ron Paul has been asked to drop out since he started running, and his lack of media coverage has lead many to believe that he has. Early on in the campaign, he stated that he would go on as long as his supporters wanted him to, and evidently his supporters have not given up yet. When Mitt Romney "suspended" his campaign the question arose once again. This was his response.

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get...

...It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace.

From the Ron Paul Blog Archive MantisEars (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about, Anonymous. Paul just won an election this Tue with a landslide 70% of the vote-- where's McCain? Oh, and as for popular votes for president itself, Paul has already received 400,000, McCain has received 0. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/41819 I suggest everyone read this, it is from Ron's son, Rand. Ron Paul did NOT DROP OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.152.184 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense anyone, but I wish the Congressman would be clear on his statement. He seems to be saying he's 'sorta running' or he's not actively running anymore. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Today he went on CNN's American Morning to clarify that he is not dropping out of the race. ^{[story] [video]}

I've removed:

On March 9, 2008, a few days after John McCain formally secured the Republican nomination, Ron Paul announced his withdrawal from the presidential race.

Because it is an inaccurate statement from an article with a misleading title. The article in fact alludes that he is 'winding down' not dropping out of the race. If someone wants to replace this with more accurate phrasing please do so. -RebelWithoutASauce

Remove navigation box that does not point to this article

{tl|editprotected}} Please remove the following navigation box from this article {{2008 U.S. presidential election}}. It does not point to this article, but rather Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TableManners (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 January 2008

Adding signature to this comment. I believe the navigation box should remain, if it did not point briefly it does now. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tagging

This article suffers from serious neutrality issues. I could take much of the article to task, but I’ll point out the most glaring as Ron Paul#Newsletter controversy. First off, it doesn’t explain how some specious articles Paul may or may not have written are so important, and certainly not seven paragraphs including “Ron Paul wouldn’t do that” and then a summary of his positions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I believe the articles are important, but the second sentence of the section tries to explain: "The story said that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry."" If you read the article you will see that the accusations come mostly from Guilt by Association with certain individuals and organizations, very little has to do with the newsletters. Nevertheless, Kirchick tries to piece it all together in typical conspiracy-theory style, implying that because Ron Paul doesn't speak about these associations because they're secret, instead of their being unimportant. Guilt is also implied because he does not denounce the support of these individuals, though no mention or criticism is made of his rationalization for it (skip to 3:00 in this video for it).

Prominent characters in the story were David Duke (former Ku Klux Klan member, colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives) for publishing an article that congratulated him on his Senate run and William Dannemeyer, (Dannemeyer said that he would like to quarentine those with AIDS) for a page in the newsletter congratulating him for speaking out against the influence of Lobbyists in Government. These characters have not formally endorsed Ron Paul, putting information about him on Duke's website seems to be enough to Kirchick to imply a reciprocal relationship. The John Birch Society and Alex Jones were also mentioned because Ron Paul granted them interviews, calling them conspiracy theorists for criticising organizations that openly call for World Government.

Consistent with WP:UNDUE, the newsletter section documented a short print response, a longer interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, and one high ranking NAACP witness to Paul's character. What's the problem? MantisEars (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because not only are the attacks not worth giving such a long among of time to (we are not trying to document every single controversy, let alone one is great detail) but it also dissolves into media personalities vouching for Ron Paul's character. I could sum up the entire section in two paragraphs, max. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section altogether. This does not mean the newsletters will not be documented in the article; it just won't attract as many trolls, as Criticism sections usually do. There exists a short mention of the "controversial" newsletter in the 1988 campaign section, in the context of Paul's many other publications in his post-Congressional career. It suffers from some of the same POV issues as the controversy section did, but most of it is based in fact, and it makes sense as part of a historical timeline. MantisEars (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If the section remains gone, then my major POV concerns are addressed. I mean, this is an encyclopedic article; we shouldn't be dwelling on minor controversies when we're summarizing a man's life and actions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if Chinesearabs and Newsroom hierarchies could get here to talk about it, I'd rather not edit war. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a deadline, so I'll not be able to get too involved. Let me just say that I generally support integrating sections titled "Controversy" into articles where possible. This, however, is not a catch-all "controversy" or "criticism" section as described above, but rather a section about a specific controversy. It would be inappropriate to simply delete the text and scatter the information throughout the article. I had to hit ctrl-F "newsletter" in the version you left us with to read about controversy, and what remained was a disjointed and confusing account.

Finally, please note that I'm all for reforming what we have here to be more neutral. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was not a catch-all criticism section, but because it was a main section under "Ron Paul", instead of a subsection for "1988 Presidential Campaign" where he actually wrote the newsletters, and 2008 where he was criticised for it, it functioned as one, trolls and all. Putting the text in their respective sections is very appropriate, and the account was not "disjointed and confusing". The letters were written at one point in his life, and he was criticised for them in another. As I pointed out before, Kirchick's article quotes, which editors use inappropriately and often were not only about the newsletters, they were about Paul's "connections" with groups Kirchick considers conspiracy theorists and extreme right. You cannot respond to that criticism without first explaining how Ron Paul was or was not connected to the group, and if the group has motives ulterior to their mission statement, a matter of opinion. I suggest the quotes be removed in favor of a factual account of the most verifiable items*, the newsletters. For this it is imperative you read what scans of the newsletters Kirchick presents, because his highlights are cherry-picked for maximum emotional impact. An example from the section is one of the newsletter quotes used in the article:

"only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

If you are given only this quote, you might assume that the author went on a black-bashing tirade. If you had a bit of context, you would see it is just about the opposite:

"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."

Let us also not forget what a controversy is. “A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.” A single article by James Kirchick, and a press release response is not a controversy. Any other major news outlets that carried the story reported on Kirchick's reporting, possibly the other side for balance. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is a better home for the section, because this was not a major event in the campaign that merits a mention on his personal article. At the time of this writing, a section exists in both these articles with duplicate information, referencing each other for more information. If the section is to exist in this article, it should be a <2 paragraph summary, not a day-to-day chronology of events. It should be integrated with the 2008 Presidential Campaign section, as not to tempt expansion, and to keep information relevant. This event is the most carefully detailed in all of the article's history. It cannot remain as-is.

*The accuracy of the contents of the newsletters is dubious. These are scans that Ron Paul has claimed never to have seen before, and the sole source is James Kirchick.  MantisEars (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So I just checked the articles of some other candidates in this election and noticed that none of them had this sort of controversy section on the candidate's main article. Always this sort of information was included in the 2008 Presidential Campaign article instead. I recommend that it be moved there. Enelson (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already a section in the 2008 campaign article, that goes into as much detail as anyone would like. Yesterday, the section was trimmed back some, but made up for it today with an resurgence of hateful quotes from political satire blogs. I have removed the section, as it has yet again proven itself to be an outlet for anyone with an opinion on the matter instead of an objective account of the facts. This is not a problem with the editors, it is a problem with the formatting of the section. All the relevant facts are either in the post-Congressional career section, or the 2008 presidential campaign article, and the energy put forth by editors to advance their POV in the controversial section would be better put to use striving for a NPOV in those sections with proper integration. MantisEars (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mantis! Rest assured that I too am a strong Paul supporter who believes in WP:NPOV; if I had realized the quote I selected was from Wonkette instead of New York Sun I would never have included it. (But please don't pluralize "quotes" or "blogs" if you don't need to, or cite a "resurgence" of something I haven't seen previously in this article; thanks.) My intent with that lead-in was merely to demonstrate that there was plenty of 2007 exposure, but I can see the phrase was too charged to accomplish that. I hope you would permit my observations that (1) the 2008 flareup is appropriate and significant content for this bio and the 2008 campaign section; (2) a one-paragraph "objective account" is all one needs to provide the 2008 facts; (3) the significant 2008 POVs should be represented by another paragraph; (4) a good mix of POVs is: a critic, a prominent supporter, the NAACP, and Reason as the Rockwell namer. (I had also hoped you recognized that, when I was the one who moved the seven-paragraph version to its proper place in the campaign article, I was in fact carrying out the trimming you had previously requested.) You suggest there are alternatives to these observations (not mentioning the 2008 flareup at all is acceptable to you here), but I don't think the risk of opinion outlet is strong enough to overcome the notability issue. I also like your hint that Kirchick being a "sole source" might vitiate his credit; got a reliable source that says that? But here I see the spectrum of POVs as having you on one side (0 to less than 2 grafs), then Fuchs (2 max), then me (2 but open in both directions), then Newsroom (up to 7 OK, plus content from elsewhere in article); so when you edit, you really will want to work on being suitable enough for Newsroom, not me, and you'll be likely to get me thrown in as well. On a side issue, I take it that everyone can agree with the details section remaining in the campaign article, and thus that existing redirects like Ron Paul newsletter controversy should point to the campaign article rather than this one? John J. Bulten (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I used the plural "quotes" is because I noticed a trend of editors using quotes to avoid WP:NPOV, not making clear who said what, confusing the reader into possibly interpreting it as fact. For example: The letters contained "bad bad things" instead of Kirchick writes the letters contained "bad bad things". When you made the summary, you changed this for the better, but it is still an issue.

(1) You say the 2008 flareup is appropriate and significant content for the bio and the 2008 campaign section;

(1)(a) I went to some other candidates' pages, and after seeing those, I agreed, provided the controversy is reported the same way. I still don't think they are on the same footing, as Ron Paul did not think it was important enough to call for a press conference, responding to it only in print, dismissing it as a rehash of old attacks. Reporting it would give undue weight to the accusers. If you notice how the Wright controversy was covered on Barack Obama's page, the editors did not quote FOX News or Rush Limbaugh giving their POV on how "anti-American" and "racist" the sermons were! They gave Barack Obama's response a good full sentence as they should, because the article is centered around Barack Obama, not the accusers. That style of writing is one we should all look up to, as part of a featured article. John McCain's campaign section, on the other hand, has more of a POV using phrases like "All of this paid off", still made mention of the criticism with class, leaving the reader to check the references if they wanted the news writers' opinion. What makes Ron Paul's situation any different?

(2) You say a one-paragraph "objective account" is all one needs to provide the 2008 facts;

(2)(a) I agree, with some reservations. If you are going to mention 2007 reports, you should have no objections with bringing back Ron Paul's 1996 response to the Morris attack, as the Kirchick attack is a different spin on the same content. The newsletters are always brought up in the Congressional race, and Ron Paul has always said said his Congressional constituency always knew of the letters, and voted for him anyway. I believe this contributes to Paul's unwillingness to make a big deal of this, and rehash the decades old defense. Making an appearance to address this would also be out of character, as he never sacrifices principle for politics, even if it may cause his popularity to suffer.

(3) You say the significant 2008 POVs should be represented by another paragraph;

(3)(a) This is a good plan, but there is an even better one in response (1)(a).

(4) You say a good mix of POVs is: a critic, a prominent supporter, the NAACP, and Reason as the Rockwell namer.

(4)(a) I agree, which is why they are all in the 2008 campaign article. For what this article needs, only the critic and the official press release is sufficient.

I was not sure if what you did was the trimming, because it was done so rapidly after I replied. I was so satisfied with the summary that I considered removing my message, because most of the criticisms did not apply anymore! This changed when I saw the New York Sun mention. Perhaps unfairly, I questioned your motives after I saw the inappropriate use of quotes, and the New York Sun's references returning 404s.

The controversy, as you say, *is* a notable event — for the 2008 campaign article, not for his biography. To clarify, the individual events, such as the writing of the newsletter, and the new accusations are notable, but only as part of the post-Congressional career section and the 2008 campaign section, not as a part of a controversy section. As with all things in the 2008 campaign section (post-Congressional career section is more relaxed) there is a lot of information, and it should be summarized. The newsletter section should not be copied whole to the 2008 campaign section, because it retains the weight it had when it was its own section. To remedy this, I propose a final trim, making the coverage akin to the other controversies I explored in response (1)(a). If background information on the newsletters and Paul's career is needed, the 2008 summary may link to the post-Congressional career section.

The primary reason I mentioned the single source was because I was wary of the use of

• Direct scans of the newsletters as reference to what was written,
• The "selections" page with Kirchick's own summaries, and
• Stories on Kirchick's story

as if they served as reliable secondary sources, or to create the illusion of several independent media investigations. This wouldn't be done to John McCain, though many newspapers reported on The New York Times' reporting of the lobbyist scandal. Much of the material used in Reason magazine's investigation was on old newsletter content from Morris' attacks, not Kirchick's new ones, where Paul's older congressional campaign response as per (2)(a) would apply.

“ If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. ” — Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

I understand that some editors would like nothing less than a book written about this controversy, but I also understand that the status quo only exists because Ron Paul supporters, sometimes too much like Ron Paul, were not bold in the face of the tired attack politics of the past. Finally, yes, the redirect should point to the campaign article's section, as if someone is looking specifically for this controversy, they will also be looking for detail, and the section's legitimacy is not being disputed there. MantisEars (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul acknowledges conventional non-victory of his 2008 Presidential campaign

Note his acknowledgement of this under the appropriate section. Source is here—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.222.115 (talk)

Ron Paul actually quitting would be notable, this is not. Hinting that he will quit is a bad interpretation of the video. The relevant line is from when he acknowledged that "Though victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the Presidential race" (because of McCain's projected 1,191 pledged delegates) he would not need to run as vigorous a campaign. "Elections are short term efforts, revolutions are long term projects." He will continue to campaign to promote his ideas, and other like-minded candidates for public office, the "next phase". Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) wrote a letter to clarify what the video meant and to respond to the Mainstream Media's reporting MantisEars (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So note his acknowledgement of non-"victory in the conventional political sense" ie. defeat, including not having the support to be elected President or even GOP nominee, under the 2008 Presidential campaign section of the bio. If it's not notable then why's there a news story + source video to confirm it? If the article wasn't locked, I'd be making this update myself rather than adding this comment to remind the rest of you to do it.AllPerspectivesAccomodated (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul did not say he didn't have enough support, he actually said that the support for his campaign exceeded his expectations and dreams. Isolated, "victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the Presidential race" would implying he was going to quit. If you look at it in the context of the whole video to understand what he meant by saying conventional political sense, you will see something else.

This video was a response to John McCain's passing the "magic number" of delegates; Ron Paul's addressing his supporters with the direction of the campaign as he would at any major event in the campaign. When Mitt Romney suspended his campaign, many interpreted Paul's letter as a sign that he was quitting, too. This is a mere projection of what the mainstream media wanted all along, with their asking him to run as an Independent or telling him that he cannot win. Ron Paul speaks about his Presidential campaign as something bigger than an election, something of exposing the public to a message. A message that they were starved for, he notes, evidenced by his support.

It is key to note that the video is a message to his supporters, not to the press. He has always said that his campaign was bigger than him, that it belonged to his supporters and he was only a part of the revolution. He asks for their continued financial support to spread his message, and appreciates the grassroots efforts. If the supporters cut him off or ask him to drop out he will. Until then, he will fight for every last delegate all the way to the convention. This is what he has been saying all along. MantisEars (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"non-victory" means loss. Why not call it what it is? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because for the True Believer, this is merely a signal that "the media" have won another round; but The Truth can never be defeated, only concealed. They have The Truth; so by definition there is never a loss. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It always makes me uneasy when a group claims to know "the truth" that nobody else knows. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Why not call it what it is?" Fine, call it "loss 'in the conventional political sense'". No need to trim necessary words.

Yes, if something is The Truth, not only is it undefeatable, but someone else will know it too.

BTW, heard the new rumor? Paul delegates may obtain or coalesce a majority in certain states sufficient to initiate a vote on the state party rules and overturn the winner-take-all rules in those states. May become notable yet. John J. Bulten (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

call it "loss 'in the conventional political sense'". LOL. There IS a need to trim words from that. 5 words to be exact. It's a loss. Pure and simple. He got his butt handed to him. Everyone except McCain lost the Republican primaries. How can someone talk about "the truth" and try to dance around that fact? Considering Paul was presented as an alternative to "politics as usual" calling it anything but a straight up loss sounds like typical Washington political doubletalk. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of trimming words, I'm following WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material in response to the mild obscenity in your comment. Please do not reinsert without providing a source, or a rationale that countenances the policies linked at User:John J. Bulten/Friends#WP:BLP and talk pages. To answer your rhetorical question, there is no dancing: the truth is that Paul never expected to win conventionally, because he is playing a completely different game, a game in which his victory will not be finally adjudicated for some years. But this is all vanishingly tangential to improving this article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You consider "butt" an obscenity? I'm not going to restore the comment because I do agree that it's not particularly relevant to improving the article, but could you please stop abusing WP:BLP to change other editors' posts? Please? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Communications Commission considers "butt"s obscene. MantisEars (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The FCC considers SHOWING a butt obscene, not saying the word. As for you Bulten, I could sit here and list the wiki-policies your deletion violates, but it's not needed. This is the DISCUSSION page and I do not need to provide a source for my opinion on what the appropriate wording should be. You can agree or disagree with my opinion, but you can't censor it. Refer to WP:NOTCENSORED and learn. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in Pennsylvania

There should be something on his popularity in pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.65.226 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What popularity in Pennsylvania? --Tombomp (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite web tag

I just made an edit diff where I made an external link into a reference, using the cite web template. I'm not sure if the publisher/title/etc. is really correctly titled, as I'm not so familiar with working with the cite web tag. If someone who knows about this would rename the titles in those parameters to something that's more typical when citing sources, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, --JamieS93 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to copy just the title instead of "main website > sub category > sub category > title". Look for a header instead of copying the actual title of the HTML document. In this case, it would be “Issue: Border Security and Immigration Reform” MantisEars (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better title than what I had before. I knew it would be better to abbreviate it somehow, just didn't know exactly how to title it. I've made the edit now, assuming that "Ron Paul 2008 campaign website" is a fine enough title for the publisher? JamieS93 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be better for the "work" field; that is where the name of the larger website or newspaper goes unless the websites are publishing others' work (as some news organizations do with the Associated Press or Agence France-Presse). Publisher is for the company or group that publishes the article, in this case the "Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee" MantisEars (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the alteration. That makes more sense, especially after further reading about some of the citation tags; most of the time I use the basic format of <ref>[http://url.com Title of ref]</ref> as opposed to the templates for citations. Thanks for the help, MantisEars! JamieS93 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"supports freedom of the Internet"/my mistake

The phrase is nonspecific, non-neutral and sounds like campaign ad copy. From my POV, it is also untrue because it conflates his positions on free speech online with his opposition to net neutrality.

The first time I reverted, I failed to notice that the sentence was about support for "Constitutional rights", which of course renders my revert to the term "deregulation" nonsensical. Having now realized that, I would propose we move the line about the Internet eleswhere, or leave it out entirely. Freedom of speech or religion are constitutional rights. But "freedom of the Internet"? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of the Internet = an Internet free of regulation or filtering by the government = Freedom of speech, expression, and assembly on the Internet. MantisEars (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That borders on WP:SYNTHESIS. Not to mention, it's still POV, given that Paul does not support net neutrality (and no, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about whether that actually evidences Paul's struggle for "freedom of the Internet"; it would just be simpler to reword neutrally and factually). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Net neutrality is tricky. Paul did not say he was opposed to the principle of net neutrality, which is what the wikipedia article is about, but he is opposed to government regulation of the internet. Net Neutrality does not require government regulation of the Internet, just as discouraging illegal immigration does not require a Biometric National ID Card, but they are all too often bundled together by legislators with agendas.

Perhaps his position is better suited for the fourth paragraph, near his free market position on healthcare. He could be quoted as saying that should the problem of neutrality arise, it can be handled through contractual agreements — not government regulation as he is in the main political positions article. That nicely sums up his position. MantisEars

(talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good to me. If you don't mind, I'll let you or John handle the phrasing as I'm sure you'll do a better job of stating his specific position than I. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, based on the above I would favor keeping it out entirely. Personally, I consider it an easy subset of freedom of speech, but for WP, I recognize that he has made nuanced statements about net neutrality (which I don't understand fully), which have engendered this topic being about two full sentences previously (way too much). Since it's complicated and a relatively minor issue (if we're not net-centric), it is a prime candidate for trimmability because we would be overweight to summarize everything in the subarticle. We need to leave it at the, say, top 20 or 30 political positions, not the complex minor ones. Even the hard-money talk it a hair overweight, but I'm comfortable because it's arguably his one strongest issue. I am not policing the Positions subarticle closely so Mantis may feel free to put any sourced summary there. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. From what I've read about Ron Paul's position on the matter, he doesn't consider it particularly important either, and didn't bother to follow both sides' arguments. This may change in the future as the Internet plays more of a role in peoples' everyday lives and a proposal comes to the House, but it can be left out for now. MantisEars (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's articles continues to be a black eye to Wikipedia's creditability!

The rest of Wikipedia has standards for NPOV so high, that the entire text of this article is shocking. Until you wrest control of Wikipedia back from the Ron Paul cult of personality, and discuss Paul with the same neutrality afforded, for instance, to Lyndon LaRouche, the entire operation cannot stand up to scrutiny.

I say again, there is no psalm in the Bible as worshipful of God as this article is of Ron Paul. And considering now that the entire campaign is derailed while the cult talks of founding a "Paulville" compound in Texas, it is now clearly evident that neutrality in Wikipedia has been stomped to death here.

Hosiah (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you name something specific? The above isn't helpful and is just likely to start fights rather than actually do the article good. Wrad (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations continue to be a black eye to Wikipedia's credibility... 137.22.25.154 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Hosiah! Would you mind commenting on this section? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not even a criticism section on him. No mention of his numerous publications describing blacks as "fleet footed", among other insults. No mention of his attempts to eradicate separation of church and state, or any mention of his supporters being fucking insane. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Criticism sections are discouraged by Wikipedia policy; criticism is integrated.
2. There is mention of such publications in the article.
3. Ron Paul has not attempted to "eradicate seperation of church and state". If you believe he has, you will need to source that assertion.
4. Civility, please.

Thrilltalk 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet support

In the introduction: "strong Internet grassroots support was indicated by his popularity as a web search term" makes no sense. Britney Spears has been consistently more popular than Ron Paul in web search term popularity throughout Ron Paul's campaign, don't see her running for president.--Sir Anon (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

of course you are ignoring relevancy -- does it come as a surprise that "sex" is also a very popular internet search term and "sex" is not running for president of the United States in 2008? qualify the phrase "strong internet grassroots support" with the phrase compared to other 2008 candidates or compared to any candidate who has ever attempted to elicit support on the internet, and then perhaps you will see the notoriety and relevancy. further, i do not see how searching on an engine constitutes support of a candidate. Ron Paul raised money using the internet. does britney spears gain support for her alleged 2008 presidential candidacy with an internet website? -- 128.128.98.46 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Obama, Clinton and McCain still got more Google searches than Ron Paul, and since when is Googling someone a show of support? I know all about the Internet support for Ron Paul, but Google is no evidence of it.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The source provided in the article demonstrates that last year Paul in fact exceeded Paris Hilton (and presumably Spears) in web searches. Your statements of "consistently more popular" and "still got more Google searches" may have resulted from a one-time test today, but last year the search popularity was noted by many reliable sources, some of which have been backed out of this article. So even if you were to source something today, it would not affect the article's correct, sourced statements about notable search popularity during the campaign being a useful measure of supporter enthusiasm. JJB 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Popularity as a search term merely demonstrates curiousity, not support. I google for people I oppose or dislike fairly often. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes, but source USNWR says otherwise. Also if you don't mind I'm moving your observation downwards because it's too much detail for the lead and it also suggests Technorati is the only evidence of web search strength. Some detail should be one level down in Ron Paul#2008 presidential campaign, and the rest two levels down in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Internet popularity, where you hear of Hitwise, ClickZNews, YouTube again, and formerly Alexa. JJB 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this, the linking of "strong Internet support" to YouTube subscriptions and searches seems to me to be pretty clear original research. Maybe it indicates strong support and maybe not. I'm not sure what "source USNWR" is (it would be helpful to link to these sources when referencing them on the talk page). If there is a source that corroborates this link, could we discuss it here, please? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it, I think. [11] My opinion: Some guy's musings on a blog at US News & World Report can't be restated as fact in this article.

On the other hand, it seems pretty evident that there was a lot of Internet activity associated with the RP campaign as well as a lot of grassroots support. Perhaps someone can tweak the wording so that we do not imply a clearcut association between YouTube subscriptions/search terms and RP's grassroots support based on this "evidence". --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, man, Newsroom, we've been doing so well at keeping this article out of controversy! WP:V has long said, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which means this is not "some guy's musings" but a (non-OR) analysis by a reliable source. Respectfully, of course you must be aware that your statement that maybe it doesn't indicate support is the actual OR here: we may well posit our own views of linkage or not based on our research, but the reliable source has reviewed linkage evidence and deemed it printworthy based on its own research, which generally takes precedence. (We don't know what research led the source to so conclude, but in good faith we can presume evidence for linkage is reasonable.) There had formerly been other links on this point, which were pared back; would you mind waiting until we can see what other sources have to say on the matter? JJB 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really planning to make a "thing" over this, but it's always kind of bugged me a little, and since someone else brought it up... Anyway, it's not the fact that the source is on a USNWR blog that is problematic (and I agree on your point about MSM blogs); it's that we can't restate that linkage as fact without attributing it to some source. I'd say the same thing if it were an op-ed columnist or some other sort of news analyst. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, then the solution per prior consensus is that the lead should only be footnoted for statements which seem to need the most qualifiers, so I think your (plural) concern would make it fine to add a third footnote (brought up from the subsection). Note how the other two footnotes were similarly promoted to answer calls for qualifiers. However I will keep this on my list of points where additional sources (in the subsection) could help. JJB 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the largest fundraiser in one day anymore

This was an ify call at the time, if I remember, but in any event, I just heard that Hillary Clinton raised 10 million in one day after winning Pennsylvannia. As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per sources this is an unverifiable self-published claim of HRC, and Politico found several gaps in it. Further, per moneybomb and its history, HRC has prior history of very poor sourcing of claims. Please advise. JJB 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that the $10 million claim had panned out, but I'm content to wait until someone provides some links or other evidence to look at. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Politico piece John referred to. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When will we be free of the lies and distortions?

Consider this bit of complete fantasy that is on the protected page:

"While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in various primaries."

This "information" reflects the Ron Paul web site and is (1) not objective and (2) not true.

The Republican Party conducted 3,077 legitimate polls among the members of the Republican Party. Ron Paul won a single poll! In fact, Ron Paul LOST 3,076 polls to Romney, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson, Giuliani, Gingrich, and McCain. Ron Paul has chosen not to list the 3,076 polls that he lost, but instead lists 60 (questionable) polls. The 3,077 were conducted by the Republican Party, in person, with assigned ballots at the rate of one-person-one-vote, and the ballots were strictly accounted for by separate security. The 60 (questionable) polls that Paul supposedly won, were manipulated. Some were boxes set up at county or state fairs where the Ron Paul supporters stuffed them by putting in 30 to 100 votes at a time. (I observed this myself, at my own fair.) Others are at parties, where items are purchased that count as votes. Others are radio call-ins, and computer voting on-line. There are instructions at some Ron Paul web sites telling the supporters how to “cheat” to win, and explaining that the end justifies the means. All 60 were manipulated, yet the Ron Paul people are using them! The 3,077 were legitimate but they are not using them. This says a great deal about the character of Ron Paul and goes a LONG way to explaining why the Republican Party voted 3,076 to 1 against him. Incidentally the 3,077 official Republican polls represented from 500,000 to 750,000 people. Some of the 60 manipulated polls involved as few as 4 voters; others had 6 or 10. Some had 15 or 20. There is nothing comparable in the polls; the official Republican straw polls are substantial and legitimate; the Ron Paul straw polls are shameful.

The disclaimer about “landline” opinion polls is complete nonsense. I have worked for the Republican Party for decades and we do NO "landline" opinion polls that could ever be construed as straw polls. The Official Republican Straw Polls were done in person, and with assigned ballots, for the very reason of avoiding the corruption of Ron Paul’s supporters. For the author now to come around and say they were done “on landlines” as though that held some great message, is just nonsense. So much of this information is available straight from the Republican Party, but the author of ALL these Ron Paul warm and cuddly sites, does not work with the Republican Party, he works for Ron Paul and it shows. They want Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee yet they treat the Republicans with disdain and even lie about how the Republican Party does business. We want ACCURATE information. Ron Paul manipulated numbers ARE NOT HONEST. These numbers are WORTHLESS to us, but they seem to be GOLD at the Ron Paul site because the "little old ladies" who write checks to Ron Paul believe the dishonest (manipulated) polls. Suttonplacesouth (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, do we actually have a reliable, independent source that isn't run by some guy in South east Asia (*cough* usastrawpolls.com *cough*) that notes Paul's overall performance in straw polls vs. opinion polls? Burzmali (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is an essential WP:SPA on this issue, yet strangely never produces the requested documentation of the 3077 polls (always the same number), nor ever comments on the fact that what the user has produced was already present in the opinion polls articles because that's what it was. JJB 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

We have been using using this article -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273302,00.html -- as a source for the statement that the Ron Paul "campaign has very strong grassroots support, as reflected in dozens of wins in GOP straw polls, [and] his lead in web searches." This article does not say this. Instead, regarding polls it says that "In most Republican presidential polls, Ron Paul appears well behind the front-runners." As far as websearches, it quotes the Paul camapaign saying Ron Paul is a popular search term, not that he leads over any other candidate. I've corrected the article to say what the source material actually says. It is highly unethical to misrepresent these sources this way, and it is either extreme carelesseness or vandalism. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That FAUX News story was not the source of either of these assertions. Regardless of what value I place in straw polls (I believe the early strength of people like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in such polls demonstrates how worthless they are in actual politics), both the web search data and the straw polls information have been thoroughly sourced over the past few months. Your accusations are both incorrect and incivil.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That foxnews.com story was the source used in the footnote directly after those assertions. Following a statement with a footnote to a source which does not support and even contradicts that statement is completely innapropriate in respectable writing, and I see nothing "incivil" about pointing out such obvious errors and correcting them. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also please see WP:SUMMARY. Every item not sourced in this summary is fully sourced in the expanded subarticle. Also, your edit here made mincemeat of the last 50 footnotes. Please preview the full page before committing to intense edits. Rearranging, or reimporting the sources from the expanded subarticle, is fine. JJB 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the problem with the footnotes because they didn't show up in the preview. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it for you. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The incivility was in your edit summaries, as well as in the phrase "either extreme carelesseness or vandalism" in this very thread. The appropriate thing to do would have been to place a "cite needed" tag in place of that to the FAUX News article, stating in the edit summary that the removed citation did not support the assertion(s) in the article and requesting more appropriate citation(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the appropriate thing to do is to correct the mistake, rather than place a tag saying the mistake needs to be corrected. I also think I'm stating the rather obvious when I say if someone who continually attributes things to sources which those sources do not say, then such a person is at best extremely careless and at worst intentionally vandalizing this article. But if such obvious statements have hurt anyone's feelings, I sincerely apologize, as that is not my intention. My intention is to make sure this article contains facts supported by sources. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to realize, this article is monitored intensely by lots of editors, many of us non-fans of Ron Paul. Your mistake was in failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. There was not, as your edit assumed, a falsehood, but rather an imprecision in footnoting some statements. You've taken a "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach which has engendered considerable unnecessary ill will. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm franky insulted that you have described my insistence on some proper sourcing standards as some sort of crazy "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach. That doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith to me. That sounds like a personal attack against me where you are atttributing beliefs to me which I have never expressed. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And now we're back at the version which attributes things to sources when those sources actually contradict the article. Could someone else who believes that Wikipedia should be based on the accuarate use of source material consider correcting this article? Orange Mike informs me that I can only correct misinformation in Ron Paul's biography and misrepresentation of news reporting a maximum of 3 times per day or else I will be banned from Wikipedia for insisting on accuracy. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's source every statement in that lede, so when Mountains comes off his 24-hour block for 3RR violations, he will have nothing to complain about. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mountains hasn't been messing with this lead. The prior consensus was that there is no need to have many footnotes in the WP:LEAD, as they are usually redundant. Everything you tagged is already footnoted in the article. While I just added a third footnote to the lead earlier due to someone else's challenge, I think six is excessive; they should only be reserved for the most controversial parts of it. Also FA's like to have lots of nbsp's. However I do not have time at the moment to press details, please see what you think is best. There may be a need to pull some footnotes from the campaign article into this campaign summary and re-sort there. JJB 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here's a new significant source: Boston Globe. JJB 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls

I'm still leery of that statement about straw polls. Unless the source supports it, it sounds like WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE to me. Burzmali (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you about the WP:UNDUE issue more than the SYNTH one. Paul did win several straw polls in the early days of the campaign. Paul advocates have been clinging to it because (to be blunt) it's one of the few places where he did at all well (on a few occasions). I'm sure Duncan Hunter fans are the same way about that one straw poll he won. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, no time. As Burzmali has noted, 100 sources support it, and math is not synth. But this is not a case of just "several" and "early days" and "a few occasions", either. JJB 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, in absolute terms, there must have been more than 1,000 straw polls of varying sizes and validities so far during the election season. Most are never reported on, and the significant differences between the results from official opinion polls and straw polls listed here on Wikipedia strongly suggests shenanigans from RP supporters at some point. Treating our collection of straw polls as if they are reliable enough to make a statement about the campaign at large is a mistake. Hopefully an independent source could be found, but Googling "Ron Paul straw polls" isn't exactly helpful. Burzmali (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Caveat to Best selling author claim

Interestingly, the New York Times article used to demonstrate that RP's latest work is a best seller carries the notation that "some bookstores report receiving bulk orders" concerning the book. Now, given the discrepancy between RP's showing in straw polls and opinion polls, and this note, it seems likely that some group is astroturfing the book on to the best seller list. While my logic is WP:SYNTH, has any reliable source cared enough to notice? Burzmali (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times clarifies that there are multiple POVs about the essential point of this dagger notation and that Burzmali's POV is not the only one. Since this page is not the place to take sides among these POVs (nor is the notation notable in this context), the question might be better moved to Talk:New York Times Best Seller list. JJB 15:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the NYT isn't the only source skeptical of RP's book usnews took a shot at him for exhorting his followers to buy it. Burzmali (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The #1 best-seller status of Revolution is notable but so is the notation that accompanies that status. I'm open to discussion about how and where it should be included (I could see it being most relevant in the article The Revolution: A Manifesto, for instance) but there is little legitimate reason to exclude entirely this statement from a WP:RS. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the NYT statement is really a primary source, its their list after all. I would rather have a good secondary source to support the assertion that RP supporters padded the score than the unsupported insinuation we have now. Burzmali (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Honest question, not meant to be snarky: While I see your point, is this really a question of WP:PSTS? We'd actually only be repeating what the NYT is reporting that bookstores have told them (i.e., treating the NYT statement as a secondary source). I'd see this as more of a WP:PSTS problem if we used the bookstores as a source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it is a primary source, we really shouldn't use it to do anything other than state a fact, but stating the fact in that manner gives undue weight to the phrase "some bookstores report receiving bulk orders". As John points out, that could mean many things and it isn't honest to toss that in there without the counterpoint. It's like pointing out that point out that someone placed third to last in a race without mentioning the number of racers. Personally, I believe that Paulites took steps to ensure that it made number one, irregardless of its actually popularity, as indicated my their pattern-of-conduct from straw polls and general disregard for the mainstream media. However, I don't support adding unproven insinuations without a reliable source. Burzmali (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a simple, neutral statement of fact. Nothing wrong with it. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So is the statement that someone placed third from last in a race, that means they won a three-person race... Burzmali (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your example is misleading without noting the number of people in the race. What is also misleading is stating a book made a best seller list without noting this was due to bulk orders. So if this were an article about your race, we should mention the number of racers, and similarly we should mention the bulk orders here. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the statement fails to address why the distinction needs to be made. If I say that Jesse Owens was the best black runner at the 1936 Olympics, the reader makes the natural assumption that since I qualified the statement, some non-black runner must have been faster. Therefore, while what I said is technically true, what it implies is not. In our case, we are accurately saying that the book received bulk orders, but since we don't explain the statement, it implies that the book's bestseller status is lessened by this fact, which the NYT article does not support. I support finding a WP:RS that supports the conclusion if possible, and leaving the qualification off if not. Burzmali (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What do we need to explain about the statement? It is very straightforward: This book's place on the best seller list is based on bulk orders in some bookstores, rather than the much more commonly expected form of simply a lot of people buying the book. To avoid misleading our readers, we should state this fact. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The NYT itself footnotes such cases, where a book's sales seem to be unusually influenced by bulk purchases; it is done whether the book leans left or right or whatever. There is no NPOV violation in noting that fact.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is if it's given undue weight, as if it were a rebuttal to the previous sentence noting the best-selling status of the book. ⁽Дҭї₎ 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't think most readers will confuse context with "a rebuttal." This statement provides needed context; it does not however rebut the statement regarding best-seller lists. Of course, if information did rebut the previous statement, than it would be even more necessary to include it for the sake of balance. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they will. I don't see how it provides 'context', though I can see quite plainly how it can be used to illegitimize Ron Paul's achievement and insinuate there was manipulation of the statistics. ⁽Дҭї₎ 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Buying in bulk in the United States is a very common responsible, legal business practice rather than something considered illegitimate or manipulative. Perhaps a link to Bulk purchasing would help readers who might think buying in bulk is an ilegitimate practice. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

←The point is that even the NYT states that the caveat is inconclusive. Including it without further explanation or substantiation from a reliable source is WP:UNDUE and leads to the WP:SYNTH drawn by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Burzmali (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and your choice of abbreviations over actual words probably isn't helping. That statement seems totally clear to me. In what regard do you think it is "inconclusive"? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The cause of the bulk orders is easy to explain if you look at the current grassroots efforts: on May 24, Paul supporters are planning to donate quantities of the book to local libraries across the country (it's being called a "Book bomb"), so people are buying extra copies for this effort. I saw this advertised in one of the Paul Meetup groups. Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable sources, so this explanation can't be included. One point, though: why mentioned "bulk orders" without even mentioning what that means? It's confusing, otherwise. Also, I don't think the caveat belongs here, but on the book's page, since it's a relatively minor detail in regards to the Ron Paul article as a whole. Buspar (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike's latest edit

Orange Mike's latest edit attributes the statement "Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian" to a source which uses neither the words "conservative" or Constitutionalist." He also totally broke a footnote later in the article. I'm in favor of using sources that actually say what we claim they say, and I'm for footnotes that don't contain big red "Cite error" text in them. So, let's have a hearty discussion where we debate the pros and cons of accurate sourcing and big red busted footnotes, shall we? I'm firmly in the "pro" on using sources that say what we claim they say, and "con" on big red busted footnotes. Where do the rest of you stand? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One of Mountainsarehigh's edits both created this particular cite error and removed a long-established accurate source for this particular statement.[12] JJB 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This "long-established accurate source" is "Pastor Chuck Baldwin" of "newswithviews.com". I'm sure we can do better. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I thought Mountains was asking for a cite on Paul being called a libertarian, so that's all I provided. I did not mean to bust another link. 2) As to the other two adjectives, I actually agree with Mountains that we need a less POV source for those; but I believe it will be ridiculously easy to find such sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I was talking about all three, which is why I put a separate request for citation after the word "conservative", and another after "Constitutionalist." But if it is ridiculously easy to find sources, let's get to it! I've found one from LA Times and added it, so we've only got one more. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My citation to a widely-read, well-respected source has been removed and replaced with a much worse one from a tiny little newspaper. Let's use better sources people! I'll see if I can find an even better one. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is way too long

This article is way too long, so long it looks like a windy speech written and delivered by Ron Paul. If it were compact, say 1/3 the size it is now, it wouldn't have the appearance of having been written by the Ron Paul public relations office. As the article is now, all it is missing is a picture of a tree stump. Kidshare (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what ought to be cut? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can start hacking if you wish but I'm not a Ron Paul expert nor do I wish to be. This article is longer than the GHW Bush article and GHW Bush won a primary or two and was president of the USA. Ron Paul has done neither. Please compact the article instead of stumping. Thanks Kidshare (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article A Foreign Policy of Freedom is little more than a stub and is likely to remain so. The sources talk more about the phenomena of political candidates writing books than about Paul's book in particular. I would recommend adding the bulk of the text from the other article to the bottom of the Books authored section, together with a quick blurb about The Revolution: A Manifesto as they seem to be his best received works. Burzmali (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger. Your reasoning is sound. Unless the article on the book can be legitimately expanded beyond a stub, it seems pointless to have a separate page for it.--JayJasper (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your going to merger proposal rather than straight AFD this time. Under WP:BK, the question is whether we have multiple, nontrivial, independent, general-audience, critical sources. On first pass the two discussions on the "Tonight Show" (one also mentioned by Reason magazine) and the reviews in New American and LewRockwell.com should be considered. The Australian Libertarian Society also mentioned it while reviewing The Revolution (book), and Mises Institute cited it significantly while reviewing another author. (WP:BK contains conflicting footnotes whether the barometer is "independent of the book itself" or "independent of the subject itself".) Current Amazon stats are #588 in Books, #10 in Economics, #10 in Government, #4 in Economic Policy & Development (formerly as high as #93 in Books, #1 in Economics, #1 in Government); a WP:EL is RonPaulForeignPolicy.com. EB cited it and Freedom Under Siege as Paul's cornerstone books. I grant that several other sources focus on 2008 presidential campaign books rather than on any particular book (perhaps three in article plus [13][14][15]), suggesting potential for a move, which would also accommodate several books that are clearly nonnotable on their own. Another move target is Books authored by Ron Paul in true summary fashion, which would be easily populated. On the whole the book seems to meet independent notability, and it seems it would be unwieldy in this article given its bio style and FFAC status, but I'd like to hear discussion about the move or merge options. JJB 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like List of books authored by Ron Paul then? I think the book's notability is borderline as I haven't noticed much in the way of the critical analysis one would expect for a notable book of this type, but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. Burzmali (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes except it wouldn't be a list because that's what we already have here. I'd take that as a compromise. Affirm JayJasper below also; it keeps me from having to work too hard on the Freedom Under Siege article. JJB 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger, too. It will make things much more reader friendly. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Books authored by Ron Paul article. As JJB points out, it would be easily populated. I also think it would be more reader friendly than having separate articles, and it would provide an opportunity to give expanded info on the books without creating stub articles.--JayJasper (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. Instead of giving up we should be working to improve the books article.Zack Brown (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem becomes whether it can be improved to meet necessary criteria. Paul's latest work, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," clearly stands alone. But I can't find similar sources for Foreign Policy of Freedom. I support an article about all Paul books, with Revolution allowed to stand alone and the others being split off when or if secondary sources present themselves. Buspar (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the idea by Buspar.--JayJasper (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the merger. Why? Just look at any musician... they have individual articles for all of their albums. Why would this by any different for authors and books? --StormCommander (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1) That's a separate problem; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for the retention of any given article.

1a) Musicians are famous for their work; therefore their music has notability (although I personally reject the "all albums by notable musicians are inherently notable; again, that's a totally different problem)

2) Plain and simple, the book is not inherently notable; it has gained support from Paulistas, but the attention it has received in the press is all attention to Paul, not to the book in and of itself as an actual book (der Buch an sich). If it were by J. Random Pundit, it would have disappeared into the echoing void which absorbs most of the tens of thousands of new books issued every year in English. Notability is not inherited. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may attempt a close, and bypassing the original question, it appears that "MOVE to Books authored by Ron Paul and EXPAND" is compatible with the comments expressed by everyone above, except the single-purpose account. JJB 14:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to call other people names. I think you owe StormCommander an Zack Brown some apologies. Just because they disagree with you and I when it comes to merging this book to another article doesn't give us license to call them names. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the MOVE and EXPAND proposal by JJB.--JayJasper (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Jay! I'll be likely to go ahead with it Pretty Soon Now. JJB 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan in 1976.jpg

Image:Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan in 1976.jpg has been tagged as lacking sufficent information on source and reason to support the tagged public domain status. If anyone has information to add, please do so at the image description page on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Running for President

Is he still running for president? I have seen no mention of him stopping on his website or others, yet people insist on telling me that he has stopped running? What is going on?MattTheMan (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's telling you that? He's not dropped out of the race, officially; he's just spending his money making sure he gets re-elected to his seat in Congress. I don't think Dennis Kucinich has officially dropped out of the Democratic race, either; but his people aren't quite as fanatic (this year, anyway) as the Paulistas. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul won his Congressional primary in early March and is running unopposed in the general. He did not use funds from his Presidential campaign, that would be illegal. MantisEars (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703061.html OK I'm officially confused. Dennis did officially drop out though, to concentrate on Congress. MattTheMan (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paul.campaign/index.html#cnnSTCVideo Paul explaining after the story that he is still in the race and that he did not drop out. MantisEars (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that Paul was shifting money unlawfully between accounts. I meant only that he's encouraging his followers to donate money to his political action committee and his "educational" (i.e., propaganda) nonprofit now. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many links!

There are far too many links in the article. Nearly every date (like May 2007 then May 22, 2007 all linked in the same parahraph), all cities and states, all words over five characters are pretty much linked. Not to mention every time the word is said, so it gets linked several times. I went over 3-4 sections and removed some of the more ridiculous ones (shrimp? common). Somebody else will probably have to help with this.Virek (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done, removed ~100-150 links. Please add links back if you feel they are needed but don't revert as there were far too many Virek (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear enough here or on other pages where I've posted this. People have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support brief explanation of up to a couple sentences, with link. It's case by case, but the general answer must be middle-of-the-road as you suggest, unless (for example) criminal charges link the two. Perhaps by this standard Lew Rockwell has too much coverage in this bio article. However this is not a matter of "equal treatment" per se because, say, does Mike Gravel really have any controversial associates? It's a matter of nominal "equal treatment for equal circumstances", and since no two circumstances are ultimately equal, proper weighting in each case. Some associates will need more space than others. Balance is determined by building local consensus and staking out NPOV and POV positions through a group redistricting procedure. JJB 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is too long and has too many quotes and needless detail

I came here to get an overview of this candidate, but I am informed about petty details, like his wife raising collies, the number of guests at his wedding, the number of grandchildren, and I am sure that there is more like that further down, which I did not bother to read. I suppose there are some supporters of RP around: Do that guy a favour and make this article more concise, because it is close to unreadable in the present state. Thanks Jasy jatere (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My friend, this is a biography and much of that was added per consensus and will get restored. Perhaps you wanted the campaign article instead, Ron Paul 2008, and perhaps there should be a hatnote to that effect. But please don't delete sourced biographical details in a biographical article, thank you. JJB 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rosa Parks?

Didn't he vote against federal funding for a statue in her honor of something. I remember seeing it in here earlier. I guess some Paul enthusiast must have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is that significant? He has explained his vote on national television, and it is consistent with his philosophy; taking taxpayers' money to award celebrities with gold medals is not authorized in the Constitution. Дҭї 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per-capita, Ron Paul has brought home more pork than any of the candidates this election. He has inserted millions of dollars worth of earmarks in bills, which he then votes against in order to keep his "Dr. No" status. A win-win situation for him. Ron Paul has voted to honor sports teams, which the Constitution mentions nothing about. It's clear that Ron Paul picks and chooses when he thinks the "general welfare" clause should be enacted. His claims of things not being "Constitutional" is not accurate as the things he claims aren't Constitutional fall under the general welfare category; something which, he himself, invokes when he inserts pork into bills and when he votes on honoring sports teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitargod82 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul knows keeps his constituents happy with pork, while keeping his donors happy by voting No on everything and proposing legislation that has no chance getting passed. Are you surprised that Ron Paul is just as pragmatic as other politicians? Burzmali (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. But it's just funny because he presents himself as the champion of integrity and accountability, someone who would NEVER compromise or flip-flop on ANY of his moral principles, the ultimate Mr. Smith who's gone to Washington. So I find great humor in discovering that he's a fraud in addition to being a joke. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul answered some of the criticisms about his earmarks on Meet the Press (starting from 5:30). Remember, the talk page is for discussion about improving Ron Paul's Wikipedia article, not about whether or not he is an honest politician. MantisEars (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ending his Campaign for President

His website was updated (at least as of today, Friday June 13) and it announces that he's officially ending his presidential campaign. Visit http://www.ronpaul2008.com to read the full details. He's going to announce it at a rally in Texas tomorrow too I believe.

I believe he suspended his campaign to promote his movement. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Add category

The category Category:Libertarian politicians should be added to this article Dylan38 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Has he used the term to describe himself? MantisEars (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul is widely recognized as a libertarian, and he is clearly a politician, having served multiple terms in the U.S. Congress. No less than four other existing categories tied to this article identify him as a libertarian. Yes, he has used the term to describe himself in many instances, though finding a specific instance is difficult because doing a Google search for "Ron Paul libertarian" comes up with nearly half a million hits. Adding this category should be self-evident, based on the existing content of the article. Thanks. Dylan38 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. MantisEars (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More on newsletters

It should be noted in defense of Paul that aspects of the newsletter don't match his own actions. For example, in the newsletter, the author brags how he (presumably Paul) voted against that "fraud," MLK's holiday. (1) But in reality, Paul twice voted for the holiday and its reauthorization. (2)

[[16]]

2- [[17]]

Also, in another newsletter, the author (again, presumably Paul,) notes that his medical training makes him more aware of "cheap gay tricks,"

But in this interview, Paul says that his medical profession has made him more tolerant of homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

Objectively, he either had a personality transplant or didn't write this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seiferalmasy12 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that his Campaign Manager, Kent Snyder, was openly gay.[18][19] I think that undermines the idea that Paul wrote that or even believes it. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

featured status candidate?

i dont see anything significantly wrong with the article that would hinder its potential as a featured candidate...

it's sourced well, prose is beyond satisfactory, and the overall feel of the article merits at least a proposal for featured status. im not familiar with the system and am to lazy to go through the hoops to get this nominated, but id thought it'd be fair to mention it here. so? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's well sourced, but I'm not confident in the reliability of some of the sources. That will definitely be looked at in the featured article candidacy discussion. MantisEars (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section?

Wow, this page is really biased (as said below). It doesn't mention he's a raving nutcase, it's poorly written, and totally not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.221.206 (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not NPOV? I see. And what makes you think "He's a raving nutcase" is NPOV? Ericster08 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This page on Paul is way biased. Paul can't be called a libertarian, nor can he be called an honest politician in a sea of dishonest politicians.

How is it biased? The honest part is (and yes I know this is odd) factually proven by stated stances actually matching the voting record, I believe this is stated in the article. He IS actually a libretarian; he ran as libretarin in the presidential campaign of 198...8, was it? But whatever year it was, it was on the libretarian ticket, and even though he has stated he is Republican, many people, supporters and non (the latter group often disliking libretarians; saying "libretain" is a biased opinion is actually being biased against libretarians). And there is a criticsms section, which mentioned people calling him crazy (in a more heated way).Rayvn (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul missed the FISA reauthorization vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

He voted against sending aid to New Orleans (claiming libertarian values of small federal gov't): http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16191&can_id=296 , yet voted for funding various projects in his own district with federal funds http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8Q0K7EO1.html

He said he favored impeachment of Bush (www.infowarscom/articles/bush/impeach_bush_over_north_american_union_agenda_ron_paul.htm ) but then he voted to table the issue, justifying his stance by saying there "wasn't evidence for it": http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/67308/why_did_ron_paul_vote_against_impeachment/

Paul has said he opposes the Afghan war (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html), yet he voted for it http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-342

Paul posed with the white supremacist leaders of Stormfront: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront

Paul held a large convention on August 2, 2008. One invited speaker was John McManus of the John Birch Society (a white supremacist group).

He says there should be no separation of church and state and the founders wanted us to be an expressly Christian nation: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

As a Christian, he co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, to prevent the courts from considering constitutional appeals against the Defense of Marriage Act which financially penalizes gay couples. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-3313

He said he wants abortion to be a state issue (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html) but then he co-sponsored a federal partial-birth abortion ban (not very libertarian of him): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-760

--Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources above. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you didn't read any of those pages, because they all cite reliable sources. But for your benefit and that of others, I've updated and added links which are more direct on each issue. Also found him posing with some nazis.--Joelrosenblum (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Posing with some Nazis"? Oh come on. Anyone who goes to a fundraising event has even odds of getting a picture with the guest of honor. Here he is posing with a Korean woman: Image:RonPaul-June07-NHdebate.jpg. He must be an ally of Kim Jong-il! DickClarkMises (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, posing with Nazis. Specifically he's posing with the owner of stormfront and the owner's son, stormfront is a popular racist website, and those guys endorsed Ron Paul. Posing with a Korean woman is not the same as posing with a leading white supremacist, and the mere fact that you assert any Korean is the same as Kim Jong-il makes you sound like a racist yourself. It is possible that the stormfront people didn't tell him who they were, so yeah, it's one of the weaker points about Ron Paul, though he did know that stormfront had donated to him and supported him, and I don't think he refused their support. Oh, and the fact that he invited the John Birch Society to speak at his huge convention today is more evidence of his racism. Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--Joelrosenblum (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now lets examine some of your claims.

Claim A: Ron Paul was running for president at that point in time. If you do not remember. He returned to the hill to vote quite often during that time. But that particular voting instance if you remember was infamous as a suprise vote; sprung onto the Democrats at the last second. Ron Paul neither knew, nor had any indication that vote was going to happen that day.

Claim B: Ron Paul has explained this many times: even on Meet The Press with the late Tim Russert. He did not vote on that bill, he, and more specifically his aides who have a open book policy on those kind of things: inserted those earmarks. But he did not vote for the bill. There is a further explanation from Ron Paul in the Meet The Press interview.

Claim C: Frankly, I don't have evidence that shows he voted against these measures. InfoWars and Alternet are hardly Evidence or Trustworthy Sources

Claim D: Ron Paul opposes Nation Building. He's explained this quite thoroughly. He was for going into Afghanistan to stop Bin Laden. But against spending billions of taxpayers dollars to rebuild the country.

Claim E: Guilty by Association? Pitiful at best. This reminds me of when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attack Obama for some coincidence that he bought his house on the same day as Tony Rezko. Then the next day a picture of Hillary Clinton and Bill standing with Rezko appeared. At political rallies and event frankly anyone can take their picture with them. These figures are not very well known outside their circle. Ron Paul most likely did not know they were racists. Althought it is true that racists support Ron Paul. He is a avowed defender of their rights just as much as every other americans.

Claim F: The John Birch Society is not a White Supremacist group. Not even close.

Claim G: Yes Ron Paul is very much a christian, and usually when he speaks like that he's talking about state level goverment. There is a very big difference for him between state and federal goverment.

Claim H: Looking at the wording of the piece; its most likely Ron Paul was against States being forced by the Federal Goverment to recognize Marriages from other States. But he was against the constitutional amendment that banned marriage that was in the text of the MPA.

Claim I: Yes, Ron Paul has a specific statement on his congressional site adressing the issue. I reccomend you look it up. He is very much pro choice despite beleiving it should be a state issue. And he will often vote for pro-life measures because he does happen to beleive abortion is murder. Taking a bigger look at your implication. There are no specific stances within the libertarian community on Abortion. And the feeling are split down the middle very much. --Electronicmaji (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LoL, I'm so sick of these demented demagogues that don't explore the issues before slandering Ron Paul. OH he voted against Katrina, why don't you read where he wanted the money to go, here is a quote:

"Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it."

Was he right? We know how FEMA performed, the money should be locally distributed. And btw, when his district was hit with the recent hurricaine he voted against FEMA aid too. You lose. This article is fair and he's earned to have a decent wikipedia page. Go jerk off to the encyclopedia dramatica article on him if you want to see bashing points. And he didn't author the newsletters, he's not a racist, that's why you see him on Wolf Blitzer long after he broke that old and gone controversy, and why media always asks his opinion. Why there is no quote of him ever saying anything racist in person. You fail.

Agreed, this ought to be NPOV flagged, too many ron paul supporters on wikipedia to maintain neutral articles.Icarus999 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Puff piece much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.115.94 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You don't mention anything that is fallacious in the content, or where it's supposedly not nuanced or has unreliable sources. To you it's a "puff piece" because it doesn't incorporate a few controversies that have died away a long time ago and that havn't stuck. Please, illustrate where in this article there is not valid and researched information or admit you are calling it a puff piece because it doesn't have a racist charge. By the way, go look at Obama's wikipedia page. There is no "controversy section" on his loony pastor, or connections with that building developer in Chicago, etc. Does an article become an instant "puff piece" because it focuses at the biography and positions of a candidate? No. The wikipedia pages should be clean from controversies that are flimsy, and that's all they are. Long gone. What's funny is this Icarus999 really showed his lacking neutral sentiments, practically calling for a purge even though the article is well within TOS and multi-sourced. And that other random person can go channel his vendettas to slum pages like encyclopedia dramatica as I stated above lol.

John Birch Society

While I personally wouldn't want to be associated with the John Birch Society, known for far-fetched conspiracy theories about the influence of shadowy world Communist organizations, Joelrosenblum's characterization of them as "white supremacist" and "more evidence of [Paul's] racism" cannot go unchallenged. Oh, there are probably racists in the JBS, formerly including one of their founding members, Revilo P. Oliver, who split from the JBS possibly largely on this issue. But I see no evidence that the organization as a whole is racist. It's always been my understanding that they've steered well clear of that. --Trovatore (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Why isn't he on a respective religion category? I usually check the categories and didn't see one there, and the article states he's a baptist? 68.205.231.242 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

I'm aware that exciting things may be coming up for Ron Paul, however until they come to pass, it isn't proper to include them in a Wikipedia article. That's essentially what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. —  X  S  G  07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "exciting things"? The high point was the primaries, if he retains his seat in congress he will make some more great floor speeches but he is too old unfortunately to run for president again in 2012, and I doubt with the new revamping of a democratic majority congress his legislations will get anywhere, just like now. If he stays in good health he will continue to speak sense about national issues, but that's more of what he's always been doing than "exciting".

Bob Barr offers Paul VP position

Announcement's on Bob Barr's website. You can even view the letter there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.103.108 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

now

RP would commit suicide if he is paying attention to what is going on now with the federal reserve, inflation and huge levels of regulation and beurocracy.

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.39 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

... Jason (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to be quite on top of it and is all over the media. See e.g. this interview. Terjen (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not a forum on Ron Paul. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

Why is there no mention of Paul's controversial position on the separation of church and state? --76.243.208.110 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Secondly, a political position can't really be controversial, only controversial to the other side of the argument.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---So a position to allow NAMBLA free access to children wouldn't be controversial? Not to say that's what Ron Paul stands for, but an issue is controversial is the majority of the population agrees with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.80.194 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a great argument, since that would not be a political position, but political suicide and advocating harm to children-- in other words, something that no politician who holds political positions is going to endorse and therefore no political position at all. Please find me one elected politician in this country who holds that view. I can certainly find you many elected politicians who hold the views of Ron Paul on separation of church and state, whatever they may be.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's position on the separation of church and state is that the Constitution's 1st amendment does not completely separate church and state, but rather only prohibits Congress from making laws regarding any establishment of religion. Although it is up for debate whether this position is controversial or not, it is his position and I believe that it belongs in this article.--71.167.231.165 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What does NAMBLA have to do with the separation of church and state? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's residence

Ron Paul's residence is not in Surfside Beach. It is in Lake Jackson. I can verify this because I have his address, but I will not release his address here because that would be a violation of his privacy. --71.167.231.165 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to him "going home to Lake Jackson on weekends". It states that Paul moved to Surfside Beach in 1968, but does not state that it is his current residence. --JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policis is that articles should be referenced by reliable sources. No offense, but we cannot simply take your word for it. It has to be backed by a reliable reference. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)