Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 4

message: I've fixed the part about Ron Paul's position on gay marriage to be more factually accurate.  Apparently, BenB4 (or someone) keeps trying to vandalize this part to be misleading.  At least now it's factually accurate.  If BenB4 continues to vandalize this article, I think we should ban him from making edits.  Wikipedia's job is to inform, not misinform. 24.14.76.94 04:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was probably me. This is a summary section for a whole article. It's supposed to be short. If you make changes keep it the same length and number of paragraphs. I just changed everything back. If you need to change things go ahead, just try and keep it short. There is a whole article intended to explain the nuances of his political positions. Turtlescrubber 05:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh OK, sorry.  I trimmed it down a sentence.  Hopefully, that does the job.  If not, let me know.  24.14.76.94 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without mentioning the vote against same-sex adoption along with the "understandably fear" and "profoundly hostile to liberty" quotes, I do not believe any description of his stance can be accurate. ←BenB4 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it can.  He's talking about federal usurpation of state's powers, not about gay marriage. 12.10.248.51 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usurpation on states' powers to restrict personal liberties.  And why do Americans "understandably fear" nationwide legalization of gay marriage? ←BenB4 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Ron Paul is a libertarian and as such, is against big government.  So when said "fear" he wasn't talking about fear of gay marriage, he was talking about fear of big government, specifically a big federal government overruling what each state wants.24.14.76.94 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are reading too much into those comments. My recollection (don't have a cite) is that most US voters do oppose gay marriage (although I am not one of them), so it is quite understandable that Americans fear it. It's quite clear that Paul is concerned about federal intrusion into state regulation (which fully explains the vote), and it seems like you are doing original research to theorize on ulterior motives that Paul may have about the issue. Best regards. Jogurney 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fear" is substantially different than "oppose." ←BenB4 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does what Americans "understandably fear" (whether true or not) have to do with a summary of Paul political stances?--Daveswagon 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess only people in the "secular, pro-gay left" understand this problem. ←BenB4 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if Congress passed a law banning all gay marriage, the "secular, pro-gay left" might then come to "understandably fear" federal intrusion, right? ;) He is talking about federalism and the federal government overruling what states have set out for themselves as laws.--Gloriamarie 10:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed Gay Marriage Again 

message: There is no policy or guideline stating that disputed sections should be censored from an article while a dispute is ongoing.  I will allow a day or so for people to find such a policy or precedent if it exists, but if there indeed is no such thing I will be replacing the disputed sections.  The censorship of them amounts to more de facto bias than inserting anyone's compromise proposal. ←BenB4 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, removing the newsletter section was the ONLY way to get YOU to actually DISCUSS changes. Sorry about the caps for emphasis but I think it was quite productive in pulling your proverbial teeth. Anyway, when you do put it back in use the most recent compromise version. If Marie makes her changes before then, than we can talk about that. Before you put it back in we should also nail down where it should go. Also, it wasn't censored and there was no bias, you still can't help but use loaded and inflammatory words huh? The only reason things were "censored" is that you had no inclination to compromise. Glad to see you have come around a bit. As for the other section, shouldn't you guys discuss that? As far as I know, you are the only editor that likes that section. Turtlescrubber 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm the one that suggested this, and perhaps it's not compliant with all Wikipedia policies. As I said before, I had seen other editors do this where there was edit-warring over disputed content (as we experienced with this section). I think it has served us well, and there is no need to make claims of "de facto censorship". You are free to replace the section in the article if you are so bothered by it's temporary absence. Best regards. Jogurney 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in support of putting in the section currently under the "Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)" it seems to be a good compromise which can be edited over time and has no major complaints/agreeable counter suggestions that I am aware of, I feel it is important to get something up soon and to get the neutrality flag off the top of the page. Enelson 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing disputed sections 

message: I think we have made good progress.  I think the removal of all political positions from the intro satisfies my concerns about the way they are presented, so I moved the  tag down to a .  I still think we should have a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as possible are mentioned, and all of those should be supported by one or two positions per sentence in the intro.  I realize this position is not supported by everyone, but again I ask, is there any argument against it apart from WP:OTHERSTUFF?  There are plenty of arguments for including such a summary on this very talk page where people report that is what they have come looking for.
Also, someone needs to get the Barbara Jordan apology quote in the newsletter section as we agreed, I don't have time to find it right now.  ←BenB4 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so this is where you mention the lead. I am absolutely against, "a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as possible are mentioned". There is no reason to do this at all. Turtlescrubber 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a couple of paragraphs in the intro on his political positions for the past four months at least. ←BenB4 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with anything? Turtlescrubber 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section neutrality 

message: JLMadrigal has inserted the following position sumamry:
Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record. He is an advocate of states' rights, free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, strong national sovereignty, and non-interventionism.[2]Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget and has also called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax.[3] Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress.[4]
This is an improvement over one that I removed before, but it still suffers from many of the same deficiencies I described above.  While this may be "factual" as JLMadrigal argues in his edit summary, so are many advertisements, and the tone of this is nearly indistinguishable from that an ad or a website bio.
A couple of specific examples:
*Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record.
Says who?  This seems like original research to me.  I think a better approach here might be to note that he has a history with the Libertarian party or a relationship with libertarians.  
*Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress.
Respectfully--so what?  Why does this get a spot in the lead?
*As congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget
Overall, I'm not opposed to a position summary, but would it be possible to write one that sounds less like a press release?
--Proper tea is theft 22:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody has ever accused me of being pro-Paul, but I think those statements are accurate, not particularly biased, supported by sources in the article, and important enough to go in the lead. ←BenB4 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object more to the tone than to any perceived lack of factuality, but fair enough.  Maybe it's just me.--Proper tea is theft 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many ways he is a remarkable politician, and plain statements about him often end up sounding like boasts.  The word "strong" for example, but "strong constitutionalist" has a specific meaning and gets more than 1,000 ghits. ←BenB4 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we remove the blasted POV flags already? JLMadrigal 11:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd prefer to hear from some other editors. --Proper tea is theft 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove the tags as this is a content/style dispute and is in no way a pov issue. Anyway, I just removed a second paragraph of political positions from the intro, there is No reason for there to be two paragraphs. I also think the Proper Teas has some valid points. I think it would be easier to remove the political postions summary from the lead entirely as it really isn't necessary. Instead, we could summarize his life and career. Crazy huh? But as PT has mentioned, the version that is currently in the lead is a bit fluffy and really should be worked over before it's finalized. Turtlescrubber 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reasons to include both paragraphs:  In addition to those that I have listed, others have expressed concern that including the small number in now is cherrypicking.  I wholeheartedly agree -- look at what's in there now, hagiography about his proudest accomplishments and very little on what ordinary people care about -- so am replacing the other paragraph. ←BenB4 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the answer to reducing concerns about pov is to add more contentious material. There is no agreement to have any positions and now you add a second paragraph. Why don't we actually summarize the article?Turtlescrubber 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Put up what you think summarizes the article, and we'll compare your preferred comprehensive summary and my attempt at covering the political positions. ←BenB4 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have the time and don't really care that much. That's why I said "we". I was just pointing out the proper way to write an intro and maintain npov. Your "preferred version" is very suitable for the Political Positions of Ron Paul article. Why don't you add it over there. Turtlescrubber 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been there for three weeks now, and I've been updating it as objections were raised here; others have been editing it, too, and I've merged their changes back here.  I moved it down to the positions section where I hope you don't object to it.  The problem now is that there is nothing controversial in the lead, and WP:LEAD says we are to touch on major controversies, and that the lead for an article this size should be three paragraphs.  How do you propose that we balance that? ←BenB4 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What major controversies has Paul had?--Gloriamarie 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the newsletter thing, but I've always thought that his positions have been more controversial which is why I've been putting them in the lead. ←BenB4 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newsletter can't be classified as a "major controversy"... and all politicians' political positions are controversial.--Gloriamarie 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. ←BenB4 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the words "constitutionalist" and "libertarian" have pretty clear definitions. Cannot we also not say he is non-interventionist, pro-life, or pro-gun either because such claims are "original research"? For one thing, the way to prove Paul is not a constitutionalist is to cite evidence where he advocated or voted to violate the constitution. Does someone have such evidence?--Daveswagon 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OnTheIssues identifies him as a "Moderate Liberarian"--Daveswagon 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty easy to find sources saying that Paul is a libertarian. Here's one:  Operation Spooner 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times also says this.--Gloriamarie 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, what do finding sources for libertarian have to do with anything? Isn't the dispute over the phrase, "strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record." Apples and oranges. Turtlescrubber 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the NYT and probably many other sources are available to corroborate that, but the wording now is better anyway so the point is irrelevant.--Gloriamarie 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  position summary 

message: Does he really vote against almost all federal funding?  The source cited in support of that doesn't say it.  It says he votes against almost everything he sees as federal "overreaching" or that interferes with the free market.  Other sources only say he votes against expanded spending, increased taxes, and unbalanced budgets.  Is there anything that says he actually votes against almost all spending? ←BenB4 08:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his voting record here, he seemingly votes "no" the majority of the time on everything. There was a defense appropriation (for construction) and some border fence/security things he voted "yes" on but not a lot of other federal spending that I could find.--Daveswagon 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The gist is that he thinks almost all federal spending is "overreaching" what the federal gov. should do-- which is basically, defend the country and provide for military veterans and everything else should fall to the states.-76.182.88.254 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't include gist, we need a reliable source that says it. ←BenB4 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "votes against almost all federal funding" 

message: Can you people not decide on which picture of RP's will grace the top of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs) 
:The other ones got deleted because they were uploaded with uncertain copyright status.  I tried to save the one before last which I thought looked better but someone apparently speedied it as uncertain status, possibly replaceable fair use. ←BenB4 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the last one before this one is much better but seems to keep getting deleted. However, it seems to be an official Congressional portrait and at the very least, released by his campaign, so I'm not sure why it keeps getting deleted.--76.182.88.254 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because whoever uploaded it last time gave a source which (1) was copyrighted by the campaign, and (2) did not actually include the picture they uploaded.  I tried to save it with  but some admin obviously didn't think that was good enough (because it's replaceable, almost certainly.)  Does anyone have the real URL to the better previous pic? ←BenB4 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I know this might be a sore subject, but I nominated this article on behalf of the neutrality standard. I feel like this article was written by a Ron Paul supporter. That in itself isn't a problem, but I some aspects of the author's bias show in the writing. I wanted to nominate it for a neutrality check because, as we approach the elections, it's important that we use Wikipedia for unbiased information, not political stumping.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.133.184 (talk • contribs) 
We do still need a third paragraph in the intro for an article this size, according to WP:LEAD.  Since the 2nd paragraph of the lead at present is nothing but the accomplishments of which his supporters are most proud, I think we should summarize his controversial positions such as the Sanctity of Life Act, his comments about gay marriage, the fact he wants to pull out of NATO and the UN, the federal agencies he wants to dismantle, and the newsletter remarks incident, in the lead, too.  What do other people think? ←BenB4 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no to more political positions. There is a whole article on political positions and a summary section in this article. There is no reason to have a two paragraph summary of the three paragraph summary of a different article. Turtlescrubber 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A third paragraph could consist of what college/universities he attended, his medical and maybe military career, etc., to summarize what the article consists of. I agree, no more political positions.--76.182.88.254 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's the consensus I'm going to insist on a lengthier exposition of his contoversial positions in the summary section.  ←BenB4 02:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to take your ball and go home too? They are summary sections. Balance the positive and negatives and keep the section short. You might want to propose changes on the talk page so only the bare minimum of reverts happen. Turtlescrubber 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose to satisfy the instruction in WP:LEAD that controversies should be summarized in the lead? ←BenB4 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newsletter controversy? Turtlescrubber 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been of the opinion that his positions are more controversial than the newsletter dust-up, because I believe him when he says an employee wrote it without him reviewing it first.  A lot of his positions are in the 0-5% support range.  If we can't agree, and I'm willing to drop it if you're sure we shouldn't have any more positions in the lead, then I guess we should add the college, his medical, and military career stuff instead as suggested above.  But if we do that, I think we should mention at least the Sanctity of Life Act in the intro with all his proud accomplishments. ←BenB4 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again? The "neturality" issue has already been decided. Shame on you Ben and Turtle for not removing the illicit tag yourselves. JLMadrigal 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have been reading this page you know that I still have neutrality concerns.  Let me ask you:  How would you satisfy the WP:LEAD instruction to describe the major controversies in the lead? ←BenB4 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (No notable controversies) "...The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article..." (Since the disputed summaries are nuanced, as you have said, they would do just that.) JLMadrigal 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying there are no notable controversies?  The newsletter thing has appeared in major reliable sources.  Saying "Paul was criticized when a newsletter article was published under his name with derogatory comments about African-Americans and other politicians" isn't a tease. Withdrawing from NATO is controversial because it has essentially 0% support in the US.  Articles have appeared in major reliable sources about treating embryos as people. The list goes on. ←BenB4 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ron Paul media blackout. Now THAT'S notable, and well documented. Would you object if it were mentioned in the intro? JLMadrigal 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Neturality
 Neutrality 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  MrPrada 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Type out what GA means, you lazy fool 

message: In the summary, can't we just say that he's opposed to abortion, without getting into nuances that he thinks it's not a federal issue, except he voted against partial-birth abortions in Congress and wants to define embryos as people at the federal level?  All of that is explained in the Political positions section below, and we don't spend near as much intro text on any other position. ←BenB4 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that understanding his position requires expanding on the megaissue of states' rights. If the federal government is limited to certain issues, the other ones are irrelevant. The Iraq issue has the same dilemma. Advocates of the war can use "ends justifies means" arguments to make the war palatable. Dictators exist. But the Constitution does not grant "democracy building" functions to the federal government. Likewise, the Constitution places states above the federal government on any nonenumerated powers. Simply saying "Paul opposes abortion," would make the majority of readers think that he takes the standard Republican approach of federally prohibiting to all states. Nuanced. JLMadrigal 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does defining embryos as people at the federal level show any respect for states' rights?  How is voting for the partial-birth abortion ban consistent with avoiding nonenumerated powers?  He has stated that abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights. How can you possibly say that is inconsistent with simply being opposed to abortion? ←BenB4 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether he favors or opposes abortion is irrelevant, since he respects federal lack of constitutional jurisdiction over abortion. Out of respect for the Constitution, he has explicitly stated that the federal government has no jurisdiction to enforce abortion restrictions or protections. In the wake of Roe v. Wade, he has attempted to patch a gaping hole by which the federal government would have guaranteed the murder of late term babies (not embryos, BTW). That's consistent. Again, the ends do not justify the means. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to enforce or prohibit abortion in the same way that it does not allow nationbuilding. Surely a Libertarian would not override the Constitution, would he? Those who do are no better than Fascists. "Paul opposes abortion" is far too simplistic for the intro, and turns readers with a centralized view of abortion (like yourself, apparently) away without reading the article. Editors of this article should have at least a rudimentary understanding of Constitutionalism as applied to the "enumerated rights" issue. JLMadrigal 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your own source contains, "Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.... Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade." However, his Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, and his We the People Act, would both have removed jurisdiction over abortion prohibitions from the federal courts, effectively overturning Roe'. ←BenB4 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say Paul thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law. It's also apparent that Paul is in favor of allowing states to restrict the availability of abortion. Is the phrase "Paul opposes abortion" a fair summary of these views? Perhaps, but more a more nuanced comment would be better. Best regards. Jogurney 13:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion again 

message: "...which he would replace with a national sales tax," is inaccurate - at least according to the cited source. The Caucus states that it would consider a sales tax among other tax reduction alternatives. The cited document reads as follows:
:"There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation." JLMadrigal 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: So, apparently the New York Times says he's a Baptist, and NPR says he's an Episcopalian.  What do we say? The NYT puts it this way:
:"His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one."
I'm inclined to say Baptist, given that. ←BenB4 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also go by what the NYT says.--Daveswagon 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe y'all should ask him. The NYT article with a disparaging title would need a subscription to be read. It can't be used. JLMadrigal 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are supposed to use secondary sources when available. Do you personally know where he worships? Why  do you think the NYT article title is disparaging?  The NYT is a reliable source, and you can get the article for free by registering (no subscription required) but if you don't want to, then use http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com ←BenB4 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I can't find any Wikipedia policy of omitting sources that require registration. Just a pesky inconvenience for our readers. NYTimes Online is OK. Maybe their more recent articles about Paul are less disparaging. BTW BugMeNot requires registration too. JLMadrigal 11:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only can you use articles that require registration, but you can use articles as references that aren't even online.--Gloriamarie 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Proposed Resolution: add footnote to Pew from wpmno to the word "Baptist". John J. Bulten 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I don't feel strongly one or the other about the mention of this in the intro, but as it is worded now:
Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative,[3] a constitutionalist,[4] and a libertarian,[5] and a classical liberal [6] (as distinct from modern American liberalism).
it fails to conform to the cited source, which is a rating of his voting record that falls into the "liberal" range according the National Journal.  That is not quite the same as calling him a "classical liberal" or (as it read earlier) "a liberal." --Proper tea is theft 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, User:Operation Spooner was on this, it seems. --Proper tea is theft 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...and a classical liberalhttp://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47088 (as distinct from modern American liberalism)." is a perfect compromise regarding the "liberal" label, and succinct enough for the intro. Many sources for this catagorization are available if necessary. JLMadrigal 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source says he has classical liberal views, not that he's a classical liberal.  If you want it in, say it like that.  I think calling him a liberal just confuses things. 209.77.205.2 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that he is a classical liberal, but I don't think it clarifies anything these days because too many people think that classical liberal means FDR, not Jefferson. Life, Liberty, Property 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Proposed Resolution: Up to Madrigal, because I wouldn't adjust the current text without a better source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Bulten (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That source doesn't say he's a liberal.  209.77.205.2 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul the liberal 

message: Yes, people refer to Ron Paul as a liberal, and the cited source, the National Journal Vote Rankings, gives him a composite liberal voting score of 61. I could add other sources if required, but the label "liberal" is an accurate use of this reliable source. JLMadrigal 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source doesn't say he's a liberal.  209.77.205.2 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: After reading those positions and claims in the intro, it's not hard to imagine why he hasn't got further in the polls even after "winning" debates. He's the conservative Dennis Kucinich! Rompe 08:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but unless you can find a source that says it, we can't put it in. ←BenB4 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps he's not, since he has around 100 times the support Kucinich has.  And yeah I don't see where to put it in either.  Megastealer 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For values of 100 approaching unity. ←BenB4 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I happen to agree with this assessment, but without a link to a credible source making the connection, it would have no place in the article. Even then, I'd be wary since it's often better to let positions speak for themselves. Narco 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kucinich 

message: As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I gotta say, this is a very well done article, certainly deserving of its GA status. (Especially with a few minor....adjustments i've made :D ) I've got a few comments though, there's some things I can't fix easily, (Especially because i'm not amazingly familiar with the article and how it has been constructed/referenced) and because the article is so expansive, I figured it wouldn't hurt to bring them out in the open. First of all, I notice there's at least one YouTube video as a reference. I don't know exactly how the YouTube or video website as a source thing works, but last I checked, things like that are never to be used as a reference except in the most amazing of circumstances, and I don't know if this is one or not, (It looks like a very well done video) but if there's no justification for it, the three instances I saw it cited need to be covered by something else. Also, ref 54 seems to be a blog, but the magazine this website apparently prints isn't, is this particular link to an actual blog post, (Which would make it a very poor reference indeed) or to an excerpt of an actual article from the magazine? The distinction is important, if its just a blog post, it should be replaced by something better. And that was about all I noticed on my look-through. Homestarmy 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall, for the YouTube interview we had a few alternative news article sources (one was an NPR piece) which said pretty much the same thing but weren't as direct.  Since the YouTube ref is a recording of an interview, it counts as a primary source (as opposed to just someone vlogging which wouldn't be acceptable.)  Ref. 54 is a blog, but the policy in WP:RS says, "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; that is, when it isn't really a blog." Since the author of the post is an associate editor of Reason, I think that applies. ←BenB4 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're using You Tube as a source and have another one like NPR that backs it up, I suggest you add the other one as a second footnote - so if the You Tube video disappears, you have an additional source right there.  Multiple sourcing be good anyway. Tvoz |talk 02:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather nice article 

message: How about it? Does somebody want to give it a touch up and then submit it for FAC?
Miserlou 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but fix this first: Early in the article it says he has 18 grandchildren, later on it says "accompanied by one of his 17 grandchildren." --Golbez 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy to explain: The article that mentions that was written in 2001, when he did indeed have only 17 grandchildren. The 18th didn't come along until this year, it seems.  It could be changed to just "grandchildren" or "one of his 17 older grandchildren."--Gloriamarie 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, that might be a bit of a problem, as I understand it, people at FAC tend to get real skeptical when it comes to articles that have the potential to rapidly shift in content in the near future. I'm not saying you can't try it, but I don't think it will be a shoe-in either. Homestarmy 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's not that there's anything wrong with the article (far from it), but stability is one of the criteria used when judging FACs. Barack Obama is a featured article because it became one waaay back in 2004. And I can guarantee it wouldn't be on the main page until about 2010 if featured to avoid the appearance of bias or an attempt to influence the election. Narco 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It can't hurt to try.  The worst that can happen is you get suggestions for improving it. 209.77.205.2 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidacy 

message: This article is looking pretty decent. Maybe it can be a featured article? Operation Spooner 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't hurt to try.  The worst that can happen is you get suggestions for improving it. 209.77.205.2 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: Does anyone have a date for this interview?  Presumably it was this year(?) ←BenB4 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the filename for the mp3, looks like it was broadcasted the 25th of August 2007. --Bruce 12:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital punishment and various religious topics 

message: The article says Paul spoke at the libertarian convention, did he endorse the Libertarin candidate? Did he ever endorse George W. Bush?
Hoponpop69 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 election 

message: Get to work folks, =)--0pos0sop 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned above that featuring this on the main page would be inappropriate until the election cycle has finished. It may be possible to promote the article once disagreements are resolved, but probably for the same reason you want it on the main page (more attention for his campaign), I think that would be the wrong thing to do since WP is supposed to be neutral. Narco 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are with the amount of time it takes to improve an article, go through WP:FAC, and get on the list for the main page FA, the election would be over. Good luck though, its always tough to improve an article on a person in the public spotlight. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get this article featured on the main page =) 

message: Paul recently said capital punishment is okay for some crimes, without saying anything about the "federal level."  However, several sites refer to Paul as anti-capital punishment but without a source, including LouDobbs.com.  Is there such a source? ←BenB4 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he specifically metnioned in that interview that he doesn't think the federal government has it together enough to be administering the ultimate penalty, and states should be able to decide for themselves. In other words, pretty much his decision on everything.--Gloriamarie 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital punishment 

message: This link doesn't make perfect sense, since the main definition of "hard currency" in its article includes the U.S. dollar as an example. Clearly, Paul means something like a metallic standard (right?), so I wonder if a different link would be less ambiguous. "Hard currency" does say it can also mean a metallic standard, but that is not the main subject of the article. I don't know enough about Paul's politics to correct it, but perhaps somebody else could, if he has made a more specific statement regarding it. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  We share the blame for not reading hard currency while linking to it. ←BenB4 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[hard currency]] in second paragraph 

message: I know this is speculating into the future and such, but if Ron Paul was actually elected president, would he be called "Dr. President" instead of "Mr. President"? TheUncleBob 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt it. I never heard of any such honorific being applied to Woodrow Wilson, for example. Mr. President is a fixed phrase (except that if Hilary wins she'll presumably be Madam President). --Trovatore 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dr. President" 

message: I still do not think that a paragraph devoted to one piece of legislation is warranted.  Mentioning it with a link to its article is fine of course, but a whole paragraph in a section that's supposed to serve as a summary just doesn't seem appropriate.--Gloriamarie 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were upset that abortion was mentioned four times.  The work "libertarian" appears 15 times in the article, mostly in ways that imply Paul ascribes to the libertarian philosophy. The We the People Act is essential to balance that, showing his relative values of states' rights and individual liberties.  Plus, it is the only piece of legislation he's introduced that we have an article on, and we've had it since January 2006. ←BenB4 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, considering that two days ago I came across two articles from as far back as 1988 that said that Ron Paul was the "standard bearer" for the Libertarian Party, and basically any press done on him at all mentions that he is libertarian, the word "libertarian" should actually be mentioned a few times more. The same does not hold true for abortion; he is not considered the "standard bearer" of the anti-abortion movement (and actually ranks a 65% with at least one pro-choice ratings group) because he votes against some things that someone who is "pro-life" usually would not vote for. What does "relative values of states' rights and individual liberties" even mean? The Act in question would allow states to decide for themselves on these issues. If you are trying to make the argument that he should not be considered libertarian, you will find few supporters, either among the media or among "little 'l' libertarians" in general. (Also, to keep things factual, abortion was mentioned more than four times in the article; it was mentioned four times in that section alone, including two full paragraphs-- plus a few sentences on it in the opening paragraphs and a mention in the "1988 Presidential Campaign" section.) Can you say for sure that this is the only piece of legislation he's introduced that has its own article, or actually in this case, a near-stub?--Gloriamarie 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, the bill "would allow states to decide for themselves" on questions such as prohibiting abortion or sex acts, abolishing current federal precedent which holds that individuals' own rights on those matters are superior to the will of the state.  I could not have made the point any clearer. ←BenB4 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why there's only a description of the bill, and not any discussion of its obvious implications.  The text inserted doesn't say that the bill would allow states to uses taxes from Jewish people to put a nativity display in City Hall, but that's exactly what it would allow, because the only precedent against that is federal. It doesn't say that the bill would allow the states to ban abortion or sex acts or same-sex marriage, but that is exactly what it would do.  It is all too obvious why you are opposed to the single, factual sentence describing the bill.  You are a proud Paul supporter, and I respect that, but by letting your support for Paul influence your editing judgment as you have, you are violating Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. ←BenB4 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were editing with an agenda, I would want the article to focus completely on abortion to appeal to Republicans since he is running in the Republican primary. Other editors, on this very page, have asked why you edit without citing reliable sources and why your edits are not neutral. I consider the allegation that I let anything "influence my editing judgment" to be untrue and not backed up by the evidence of my edits.--Gloriamarie 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it focused more on abortion, it might put off the libertarians.  We all have to call them as we see them. ←BenB4 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the Act is covered in the lead right now, although it was previously; the full paragraph on it in the Political Positions section has been removed. I don't think it's important enough, either, and I can't find any sources on it. It never got out of committee. I'll keep looking, though.--Gloriamarie 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legislation is in Legislation which is where it belongs - not the lede, not political positions. We have to assume/hope that people can and will read the whole article. Tvoz |talk 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions 

message: The opening has been changed to read: "conservative, constitutionalist, and neolibertarian" rather than just libertarian. He may be neolibertarian, but it is certainly not as well-supported by reliable sources as "libertarian" is. The reference, the Nancy Snow book, was also not changed, so it's unclear whether it's supported by that reference or not. If there are sources calling him that, it could be mentioned in the Political positions section or in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had quickly read the opening to the article, but yes, from what you say, he definitely does not fit into that categorization.--Gloriamarie 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neolibertarian? 

message: The new "Actions in Congress" contains a single paragraph describing a 1999 lawsuit about the Kosovo war which was dismissed before being heard. Wouldn't it be better to put this in the positions article alongside his opposition to unauthorized war instead? ←BenB4 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actions in Congress 

message: The statement that Ron Paul worked for $3 an hour is misleading.  In today's terms. that would be something like $18 an hour, and my guess is that with overtime and such, if it really was an hourly wage, he was making the equivalent of $40K a year.  Given the cost of medical school then and today, I doubt that the two years of intensive experience based training was as much as a hardship as one might believe.  At least that is my interpretation.  Don't get me wrong, of the people in the Republican party, Paul is in top several on my respect list.  Mulp 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, there is almost no adjustment of money figures for inflation anywhere on Wikipedia, so it's kind of the default standard to not give any.  There would be no problem if you wanted to add "($18 per hour in 2007 dollars)" after the figure. ←BenB4 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation adjustment or remove? 

message: Would we be interested in using the more recent (and better executed) official photos [e.g.:  ] from the presidential campaign? (As I write this, the one in the article is last year's congressional photo.) I could find out if we can get a free or freeish license for them. Let me know. —RVJ 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are released by the presidential campaign, they are for publicity purposes and can be redistributed freely. The current photo is from the 109th Congress, so there should even be a new official photo from the 110th Congress (maybe that one is even it, I suspect that it is). I think that is a better photo, more updated, and it has been added a few times, but perhaps the uploader doesn't say that it's a publicity photo, so maybe it gets deleted. Is it actually located anywhere on his presidential campaign site?--Gloriamarie 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Ron Paul does not advocate a gold standard. He's said in interviews that a gold standard has problems. He's said that he wants to do is legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on it so that it can compete against fiat money. These Wikipedia articles seem to mistate his position. Operation Spooner 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? ←BenB4 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have heard most of this in one interview as well; not the part where a gold standard has "problems," but just that a gold standard would be a hard transition for those used to fiat money. I think it's not that he doesn't want to go to a silver standard or hard money standard, but that his first (and likeliest to succeed) step would be to treat gold as any other currency, removing sales taxes on its purchase or sale. It's now treated like a stock when he would like it to be a legal tender currency. Again, this is better explained in the longer Political positions of Ron Paul article than the limited space we have in this summary article.--Gloriamarie 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold 

message: :"Despite having won four out of five of the 2008 GOP debates according to the results of online polls by the debates' sponsors, he has received relatively little name recognition from the mainstream media."
There are two things wrong with that.  The first is the extent to which it elevates online polling; I don't think that an online poll for any other major public figure (absent other data supporting it) would be considered reliable or meaningful enough to include in their article at all, much less in the intro.  But the second, much more serious problem with this construct is the way in which it juxtaposes the results of a handful of online polls with media coverage "despite having won..."  This implies that the two things should be connected, and that winning these online polls ought to have earned Ron Paul more recognition in the media than it did.  That is an extremely serious statement, implying a very strong POV, and cannot simply be dropped into the article text directly; it would be acceptable to describe that as the opinion one person or a group of people, but simply saying it as fact is not encyclopedic. --Aquillion 18:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your points, and it's pretty easy to reword this in an NPOV manner. Many people have commented on the "media blackout," including Paul Levinson, a communications professor from Fordham University, who even gave a talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meetup group concerning what he thinks is a media bias.--Gloriamarie 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: These are probably valid points.  I always liked that sentence though because it is subject to multiple interpretations; depending on one's POV, it describes either the "blackout" or evidence that Paul's online support doesn't translate into "real world" support.--Proper tea is theft 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sentence in intro. 

message: Why do people think that
# saying someone uses cocaine
# saying someone has illegitimate kids
# saying someone is a fraud
# saying blacks are 95% criminal
isn't disparaging?  I suppose next we'll be hearing from this crowd that burning a cross on someone's lawn is just a friendly welcoming gesture. 209.77.205.2 14:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the adjective "disparaging" is being removed. It appears to be a valid description of the comments. Jogurney 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Tvoz |talk 03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the comments are disparaging, but I also see the other side.  It is arguably a violation of npov to state that they were disparaging, but no reasonable person could read those comments and think otherwise (however, "reasonable person" is a Supreme Court-like standard, not a standard for content on Wikipedia).  I also believe Ron Paul's story of how the comments ended up in his newsletter (well, it is obvious that the comments are out of touch with the rest of his record, though some reference to the comments needs to be included because his opponents have brought this up constantly throughout this campaign). Life, Liberty, Property 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather just block you so as to still allow other unregistered users the ability to edit the page. El_C 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you edit from your account while the IP is blocked, that will be block evasion, and your account will be blocked as well.  Just wait it out.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the semiprotection template that's on George W. Bush because the RuPaul vandal doesn't seem to want to go away. Hopefully it won't have to be permanent. But to address the original question, I think it's four days an account has to exist before you can edit semiprotected articles? Rompe 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cocaine, fraud, and 95% criminal are allegations of crimes and therefore impartially described as "disparaging". However since Gloriamarie's page recognizes the original source language is "derogatory" instead, that might be preferable. John J. Bulten 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparaging 

message: This is an obvious attempt to add some irrelevant piece of information to try to tarnish Paul.  The article is from 1992, and as admitted later in the paragraph, Paul didn't even write it, apologized for it, and never has he said or written anything remotely similar to this.  The paragraph is really useless, and a lame use of wikipedia to try to make some political statement.
I vote for removing it.  Should I go ahead and do it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.217.125 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I say keep it.  If this is the best that the anti-Ron Paul people can come up with, then it actually makes Ron Paul look better.  He didn't have anything to do with it and was still man enough to accept responsibility.  It makes him look better.  Now if you want real scandals, just look at Hilary or Guilinni! 199.102.39.65 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the Talk archives, you will see extensive discussion of this point. The conclusion was that the newsletter represents a notable controversy, and the short summary currently included in the article does not place undue weight on it. If you disagree, I'm open to further discussion on the matter. Best regards. Jogurney 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think it's a notable controversy.  But I (and probably others) went along with it because it makes Ron Paul look even better. 24.14.76.94 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This section is highly wordy and would benefit from straight Reader's Digest condensation. 4.5 sentences from a racist on race is a bit too many. John J. Bulten 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter discussion 

message: In the political positions section, it says "During the September 5, 2007 Republican debate, the CIA was included in a similar list cited by moderator Chris Wallace. Paul did not refute the allegation that he would eliminate it if given the opportunity."   The word "allegation" gives a negative connotation to eliminating the CIA and violates NPO.  This sentence should be revised or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.76.94 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The new focus of this section is perplexing at best. Jogurney 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly, the statement, "He supports revising enforcement of the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy to expel members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues," is incorrect.  The only context in which he has discussed changing the enforcement of the policy, and not the policy itself which he calls "decent," he was complaining that expulsion was too harsh a penalty.  Moreover, the UCMJ already has penalties for sexual behavior since the 1800s, so saying he wants to add them is redundant. Secondly, the statement that he supports "forms of free speech such as voluntary school prayer" is unsupported because we have no source for him supporting another "form" of free speech.  Thirdly, we agree that we don't understand what "defederalizing health care" means and it is not supported by any source.  Fourthly, "he says such issues should be handled at the state level," referring to abortion, conflicts with the federal legislation he has introduced. ←BenB4 11:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any facts that are incorrect.  If he says expulsion (the current penalty) is too harsh, he's wanting to change enforcement. He also said it should focus on behavior, which it does not, and it should apply to both orientations equally, which it does not.  At the very least, it is evident that he wants to change enforcement. He's mentioned this multiple times-- in a debate, at Google headquarters, and there is at least one other time. Whether it's redundant or not, that's what he says, so that's what his position is. Whether you agree with it or not is not the case at hand. There are many cases of him supporting forms of free speech even if he does not agree with what is being said-- examples would be the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act and a proposed flag-burning amendment]. Whether it conflicts with his legislation is your personal opinion; others may not see it that way, and the legislation in question allowed states to decide rather than federal courts.--Gloriamarie 13:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source saying he wants to change the expulsion policy?  The only source mentioning it says he thinks it is too harsh, not that he wants to expand it. ←BenB4 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said nothing about expanding it. He in fact said that expulsion solely on the basis of orientation was not something he would support. Unless changing it to behavior-based would cover more people, he didn't say anything about expansion.--Gloriamarie 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul did not refute the allegation that he would eliminate it if given the opportunity 

message: Not entering into the merits here. Whatever happens, please, in any case let's use the word refute correctly. Refute does not mean deny; it means prove false. I suspect that the point being made is not that Paul failed to disprove the claim, but only that he did not deny it. --Trovatore 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: refute

message: The Roe v. Wade link in the Legislation section needs to be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.96.164 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix Link 

message: Proper-Tea-Is-Theft accuses me of cherry picking in re the lead's closing line of "never above 4%". I wrote: "He also places in the top tier in Republican straw polls, but, among phone polls of voters leaning Republican, has never exceeded 4% nationally (Gallup) or 5% statewide (Bloomberg)." Is-Theft, however, deleted my link to 62 straw poll results (every one I could find), and trimmed the rest to "Paul has never polled higher than 4% among Gallup samples of voters leaning Republican." I'd like to point out before my next revision that:
# the accusatory nature of "has never exceeded" already implies that that maximum will never be raised; a more impartial phrasing would be "polls only up to", but I let the accusatory character stand and worked around it (for one lousy percentage point, BTW);
# further, the "has never exceeded" has been an accusation well-touted by most all media most all year against Paul, but oddly the number keeps changing (I remember when it was 1%, 2%, and 3%) and maybe it's time to drop the facade altogether;
# when one deletes a link to a thoroughly impartial presentation of every 2008 straw poll available, even those where Paul scored 0%-1%, of the same kind as Is-Theft advocated including while simultaneously deleting their link-- well, one is not taking a very strong stance against cherry picking; and
# when one acts as if Gallup polls are the only type of phone polls and Bloomberg phone polls are deletable, or as if national phone polls are more worthy of presentation than primary-state phone polls, it appears to me that one is "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict" one's apparent position. John J. Bulten 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like your latest version.  I was objecting to including one state poll that exceeded national polls in a way that implied that it was a high mark that could be meanigfully compared with national standings.  It wasn't giving Paul his due for scoring "one lousy percentage point" that bothered me so much as the apples and oranges aspect of earlier attempts to insert those state polling data into that sentence.--Proper tea is theft 16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry picking?