Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 3

message: I feel this article is losing focus in a major way. It is supposed to be about Ron Paul the person, but more and more of the article seems to be devoted to other people's opinions of Paul instead. The Election and Internet popularity sections in particular offer very little concrete information about the person himself. As for the Election section, most of that information should be put in its relevant subpage, but a lot of it is spilling over into this one instead. I'd urge everyone to begin scaling this material back and showing more restraint while editing. We'll never make it to good or featured article status like this.--Daveswagon 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pared down the intro to the Presidential campaign section yesterday, took out some of those opinions and moved them to the Presidential campaign page and I think it's a lot better after that.  I feel there are also getting to be a lot of pictures which distract from the text.  Do you have any other concrete suggestions?  The first and third debate sections could also be shipped over to the Presidential campaign page and the second debate section summarized...  I do believe that the second debate incident should be included since that is what he has gotten a lot of attention for, probably more than anything else he's ever done.  I'll try to work on it a bit.--Gloriamarie 10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took an axe to it big time. Hopefully it stays lean this time.--Daveswagon 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did like the American Conservative cover, though.  Don't you think it would still work in that section?  Or, at least some picture, it seems so bare now.--Gloriamarie 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article losing focus 

message: I reverted a change that removed external links to archives of essays published under Ron Paul's name. There is no reason why these archives (whose counterparts are certainly linked at other articles) should not be included for the reader's reference. It isn't as though the article, in the encyclopedic voice, is asserting anything that violates WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should like to publicly available work by Paul that would allow readers to further explore the positions Paul has taken in the past. DickClarkMises 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of weblinks. Wikipedia is not web directory. People may use google themselves. Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website. Also pease be advised that linking from youtube, myspace, etc., is strongly discouraged in wikipedia.  `'Miikka 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't say he was linking YouTube or Myspace-- I have restored the links to these archives of articles.  An archive of speeches or articles are exactly what external links are designed for and is very encyclopedic.  There is nothing commercial on the sites, and they are collections of Ron Paul's words. Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of weblinks, I don't believe anyone is going to argue with that; however, that doesn't mean that informative links should be excluded because Google should be used instead-- that's a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. "Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website." No, they are not. Lew Rockwell publishes many essays by Paul that only appear on that site. --Gloriamarie 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay archives, etc. 

message: It seems like the Ron Paul internet meme (or whatever that is) is as popular as the O'RLY Owl and LolCats (both are hobbies of fat people who have no life). What is the historical account on this popularity?
:Please sign your comments with four tildes.  I'm not sure what you're referring to, you'll have to elaborate.--Gloriamarie 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Internet Meme 

message: Since the debate, Ron Paul and his position have also been defended by Lew Rockwell,[82] Pat Buchanan,[83] Accuracy in Media,[84] and other conservative and libertarian as well as more liberal commentators, including Bill Maher[85], Joy Behar on ABC's The View.[86]
I can't put my finger on it, but something makes this sentence sound very awkward - especially the end.  Can someone please re-word this? --CommonSense101 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Re-Word 

message: Was this deleted or integrated into the article or moved somewhere? Turtlescrubber 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter section on race 

message: There is only one source for this section where allegedly something which could have been considered racist relates to Ron Paul; hence it's a misnomer to call this a controversy. Furthermore, with only one source citing remarks and no sources citing Ron Paul as a racist, it constitutes original research on the part of wikipedia editors to claim that there are controversial racial remarks. The section needs to be deleted lest we run afoul of BLP guidelines and original research guidelines. On top of that, Ron Paul's cited political position with respect to racism need to be moved to the page which cites his platform and other positions. It doesn't belong here. 
Not one noted political pundit or editor or news program has declared any kind of controversy exists or that Ron Paul has even been accused of being a racist or saying anything which has been definitely declared as racist. Until such time, the section constitutes original research, since Wikipedia editors are the ones calling the speech racist. Ikilled007 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is probably right. WP:BLP does require multiple, independent sources for such controversial claims. This isn't a libel issue per se since Paul is a public figure, but I think the WP:BLP policy is about more than just potential libel liability. DickClarkMises 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul himself acknowledges the controversy in the Texas Monthly magazine interview - this is in no way original research. Tvoz |talk 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "controversy" is not used by Ron Paul... he doesn't say anything describing it.  "minor sensation"; "racially tinted remarks"; "controversy" are used by the magazine itself.  Texas Monthly is referring to it as a controversy in the context of the original election, when he had not yet issued a denial; they don't refer to it as that way afterwards.--71.65.202.41 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to note that the current description (which I'm changing now) of the 'controversy'  doesn't actually mention anything he said. Perhaps 'controversy' is an inappropriate description, but it's an issue nonetheless. One that doesn't seem to be treated fairly.  Rather, it includes explanations on Ron Paul's behalf with regard to the comments, but little discussion of the nature of the 'sensation'. Perhaps the entire section ought to be deleted (though I don't think so), but it's also unfair to simply cite the source of the controversy and then provide Ron Paul's arguments to discredit the issue. Benthepanda 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the "alleged racist remarks" section is being given undue weight. We had a good discussion of Barack Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama article, and it was decided that to give the controversy proper weight it should be mentioned within the footnotes (something on which I agree). I propose the same here. There appears to be a notable controversy about the alleged racist remarks but it is given the same weight as his 1988 campaign for the Presidency (which is ridiculous). I ask anyone to explain why this controversy needs a full section (not to mention 3 paragraphs of it). Best regards. Jogurney 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely right. I originally wrote up a short 3-5 sentence paragraph on the topic, which apparently angered his fans. In what I suspect was an attempt to obfuscate the allegations, they put in paragraphs of defense and hearsay, and even *removed* the actual allegations in the process. Then a few other editors got involved, putting them back in and adding more information on what he said. In the end, to make everyone happy, we have the mess of a section before us. Good luck fixing it, you will have several angry editors quickly changing whatever you do to it. Rm999 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was Tvoz who moved the quotes to the footnotes...  The allegations are still there, in the first paragraph of the section.  Jogurney, how would the situation be handled by putting it in the footnotes?  I may take a look at the Obama article to see.---Gloriamarie 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose restoring the previous version of this section with the quotes left in the footnotes to avoid given them undue weight (compared to other sections such as his Congressional career). I believe user:Tvoz created a nice way to deal with this here:  (similar to how the Obama-Rezko controversy is handled in the Obama article). Hopefully, this version will reduce the amount of blanking of that section. Best regards. Jogurney 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I follow up, I blanked the other accusations of racism section since it is redundant. I don't think we need a second mention of the controversy (and out of order). Best regards. Jogurney 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I restored a version close to Tvoz's of above that should be good; we may need to lock the article to keep the vandals away because it's annoying to constantly restore that section to the article.--Gloriamarie 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Racial Remarks 

message: I feel we should archive some of this page I say anything over 2 months old anyone disagree? Gang14 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Getting far too long. 68.99.14.82 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 months old still leaves this to long I'm changing it to 30 days Gang14 06:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Several days age I put the official links back in place after they had been deleted.  They have been reprioritized and btter descriptions added given the quick changing, online nature of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign.  Please do not be destructive or revert these links to the previous non-descriptive listing.  Anappealtoheaven 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who has been making those reverts. Only one of your descriptions of those links is accurate. With the exception of the Meetup page, each of those links goes to Ron Paul's profile on those services, not solely to a list of "supporters", "subscribers", or "friends" as your edits claim. Please justify the reasoning behind your edits, as you have not done so in your edit history.--Daveswagon 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official External links deleted/put back 

message: A large portion of the article is based on this source  which is written by his wife on his website. This is not a reliable source. I propose that material that is sourced solely on his wife's article be removed from the article.--Agha Nader 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article loses significant credibility when it has sections based entirely on the unreliable sources. Please read WP:V. It states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How is his wife a third party source?--Agha Nader 12:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-reading it, that section does include claims that he beat a kid in track who later went on to the Olympics, etc.  That can be taken out if you wish since the only source is his wife.  The article also relies on his official Congressional bio, which is not a third-party source, and many articles rely on the subject's own memoirs, certainly not a third-party source.  Official bios are often used for politicians' articles.  What specific assertions do you object to?--Gloriamarie 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source 

message: TO those adding the word "alleged" to the phrase "Sudan's human rights violations": who alleges that Sudan isn't committing these acts?  If there is a legitimate debate, then site it.  Otherwise, don't add unnecessary weasel language... Adam Holland 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other side on the Darfur issue refers to it as a Civil War.  I can provide a few articles by libertarian opinion website lewrockwell.com.       A Google search of this site turns up 59 results critical of intervention in Darfur and not referring to it as a "genocide" or "human rights violations."  A search of the neo-conservative National Review website also turns up many articles critical of that viewpoint on Darfur.   There definitely isn't a consensus that a genocide or human rights violations are occuringn in the Sudan. Life, Liberty, Property 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure human rights violations can occur during wars.--Daveswagon 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question to Mr. Life, Liberty, Property (nice name, guy) still stands: who says that Sudan ISN'T violating human rights in Darfur?  Now, I think I need to restore this entire subject which has mysteriously been deleted.  
Adam Holland 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.--Daveswagon 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "alleged" added to Sudan's human rights violations 

message: I Was watching people get all excited over this guy on Digg.com, and his economic ideas seem nice, but mysteriously, there doesn't seem to be anything here about his views on social things, like Abortion and whatnot. I don't actually know his views on those kinds of things, which is why i'm bringing it up here, because it seems like a hole in coverage in this article that'd be nice to fill. Homestarmy 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe he is pro-life. --BlarghHgralb 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a little more nuanced than that.  He believes that abortion is wrong, but that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to rule on it.  He becomes definitely pro-life at the individual state level, so if a referendum were raised in Texas to ban abortion, he would vote for it as an individual.  He would vote *against* a similar law in Congress, for a perceived lack of jurisdiction in the matter. 68.211.49.245 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct he is pro-life and does not belive this is up to the states but he never says he is neutral he has always said his is conservative Gang14 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social issues? 

message: The racism section amounts to a political hit piece on Ron Paul. It constitutes original research, since Ron Paul has never been accused of being a racist or of making racist comments. An article citing comments which no one outside of wikipedia editors has even claimed are racist comments does not warrant a section on the topic. Now if some editor can provide a source which calls Ron Paul a racist or claims he made racist comments, then that is another matter; however, to date no such source exist, and the interpretation of those comments as racist speech is being made solely by wikipedia editors and thus constitutes original research. Ikilled007 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the title of the section and reworded a sentence.  The Houston Chronicle article did not say anything about being a racist or quote anyone saying the same.  There were some blog posts on the Daily Kos and Wonkette saying that, but the text as printed was not exactly right because the word "racist" was not used in the original Houston Chron article.  Since this did get mainstream attention from blogs and the like, it is appropriate to include it-- the section includes the allegations and presents a fair view of them.---Gloriamarie 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Section Constitutes Original Research 

message: Several sources show that Paul was born in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa - not Green Tree, Pennsylvania (southwest of Pittsburgh)
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000583
Is there a way we could verify this?
:Greentree is a township, not a city. Many people not technically in Pittsburgh, but who are in allegheny county, list either "Pittsburgh" or their township. It's the same place, just a different name. I live very close to Greentree, in Upper St. Clair, put one could send a letter to my address in "Pittsburgh" and still have it arrive.
:To clarify further, Allegheny is a county, which contains a number of townships, some of which are Pittsburgh, some not. Hope this helps. 71.60.182.186 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania? 

message: "He is strongly Pro-Life and opposes abortion, gay marriage, the Federal income tax on individuals, the Federal Reserve, foreign intervention, capital punishment, and the war on drugs." -- That makes it sound like he's against abortion, gay marriage, etc, which isn't true. I think this needs to be reworded.69.208.218.100 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that whole paragraph out because it simply reiterated what was already said in the summary and, as you wrote, gave a misleading impression.--Gloriamarie 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is he not against abortion?  And here's his stance on gay marriage. BenB4 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between a personal opinion and a political stance. Rudy Giuliani, for example, opposes abortion personally but supports it politically. Paul, I believe, also opposes abortion personally, but would like to let states decide the issue on their own (hence, overturning Roe v. Wade).--Daveswagon 08:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposing Roe v. Wade is opposing legal and safe abortion de facto, regardless of the stated motive. BenB4 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So prior to Roe v. Wade, no legal or safe abortions took place?--Daveswagon 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in nearly two-thirds of the states except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother. In those states it was legal, it was only available under very limited circumstances. Women who wanted to terminate their pregnancy often sought illegal, back-alley abortions. It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion yearly and that botched illegal abortions caused as many as 5,000 deaths a year (NARAL). During this period, illegal abortions were often performed by an untrained physician in unsanitary conditions using primitive methods (NAF)." (First google hit on "Prior to Roe v. Wade")  It is completely disingenuous to say that anyone who is personally opposed to abortion and who wants to roll-back Roe v. Wade is not opposed to abortion in general. BenB4 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So letting states decide on abortion is "anti-abortion" because some state would make a pro-choice pro-life decision?--Daveswagon 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean to ask about their making a pro-life decision, and, apparently. BenB4 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, good catch. Yes, that's what I meant. Still, my argument stands. I'm not saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would be good, I'm saying that it doesn't constitute full opposition to abortion unless Paul says "I completely oppose abortion".--Daveswagon 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That's the only point I wanted to make.--Daveswagon 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: His personal opinion is his stance.  Whether he thinks the decision is state or federal is a lot less important than the kinds of people he would appoint to supreme court vacancies, in the case of abortion. I am very upset about this attempt to whitewash. BenB4 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has said many times that while he may have a personal opinion on a subject (for instance, burning the flag is bad) he has gone against it when it might infringe on others' rights or goes against the Constitution (in that example, freedom of speech allows flag burning as a Constitutional right).  Many politicians go by their personal opinions or what gets them elected, but there are few if any examples of Ron Paul doing so.--Gloriamarie 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BenB4: No, as I explained with the Giuliani example, that is not true. Granola Bars: That's speculation on your part.--Daveswagon 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He opposes what? 

message: In several parts of this article there are facts that are not terribly relevant to the biography; they seem to be more propaganda. This may or may not be related to all of the Ron Paul supporters who have been spamming other user-content-submitted sites such as Digg and Facebook.
Bovester 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be a bit more specific so those parts can be fixed or eliminated Gang14 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So would many Republicans say that many Republican candidates support "socialized health care"? I haven't heard many calls for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, but perhaps I haven't been listening thoroughly enough..--69.210.9.100 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response on your talk page.--Gloriamarie 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The Barack Obama article has a description of the Rezko house purchase controversy under "personal" life but it is hidden in the footnotes and in extremely small print.  There is no mention of the controversy in the article, just a footnote.
In the Ron Paul article, there is mention of the Barbara Jordan controversy and further explanation in the footnotes.  It is also longer than the 1 sentence used in Obama.
Should the article use the same tactic and remove the Barbara Jordan mention in the main article and hide it in the footnotes as a 1 sentence summary and then put it in tiny print (like the tactic used in Obama)?
Or should the Obama article be more honest?  I did not think of this, SteveDufour gets credit for it as explained in the Barack Obama talk page. Feddhicks 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck out comments made now blocked sock of community banned user.Tvoz |talk 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, coming here to canvass for your POV in a disagreement that you have on the Obama page is not proper.  Second of all, the subject here was not "the Barbara Jordan controversy" - reference to her was just a part of it.  Much of the newsletter matter in this article is covered in footnote, which you would know if you had read the article or worked on it in the past as it was a subject of some discussion here among the editors, and this solution was deemed a fair way of handling it, as it was in the Rezko matter.  So I return to my first point - canvassing for your opinion in a dispute on another article is bad form.  We're doing fine here - why don't you accept that you don't have consensus there and move on.  Tvoz |talk 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other article's tactics 

message: I think we need to reach a census on whether or not include certain external links, because some keep being re-added after other editors and I remove them. This should be done under the understanding that the external links section is intended to provide useful information about Ron Paul not found in the article.
Some links I object to are:
Grassroots support sites - this article is supposed to be about Ron Paul, not his supporters and not specifically his election bid. Furthermore, this is intended to be an encyclopedia article, not a campaign resource. I'm also afraid that if we include some sites, people will try to include much more.
America: Freedom to Fascism video - this is a two-hour long video that contains tens minutes or less of Ron Paul reiterating information already present in the article. It is probably the clumsiest link for learning about Paul on this page. Yes, Paul may share the video's general opinion, but this article is about Paul himself, not people who agree with Paul.
--Daveswagon 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For grassroots, I would say all. If they aren't officially affiliated with Paul and have no encyclopedic information to contribute on the subject, I can't see why they should be included.--Daveswagon 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that I think about it, what do those Internet TV sites offer to the article that Ron Paul's official YouTube channel doesn't?--Daveswagon 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official YouTube channel doesn't offer up all media or TV appearances, just a selection of ones that the campaign particularly likes.... so that's probably good to stay.--Gloriamarie 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron Paul's campaign may not be about himself, but this article is. I'd also like to see a citation for your claim that Freedom to Fascism is the source of Paul's popularity and not, as Paul himself says, his message.--Daveswagon 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No one's said they're against it, it just shouldn't be an external link on the page. A link could be given, for instance, if there were a Media section as there are in some political articles, but I'm not sure whether that's appropriate yet.--Gloriamarie 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for hearing me out. I'm glad you're excited about Ron Paul, but understand that here on Wikipedia, not everything is decided by discussion. There are rules that really must be followed.--Daveswagon 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links not to include 

message: While the WSJ source mentions that Paul was outspent 2 to 1 in 1980, I'm not quite sure how accurate that would be. Political Moneyline says that Ron Paul spent more than Mike Andrews in 1980. Anyways, the 1980 re-election was already mentioned, and further note seems to be intended only to overglorify Rep. Paul.
As for his departure in 1985. While Ron Paul's bio doesn't mention his Senate candidacy, saying that Paul "voluntarily left his seat" in 1985 seems a bit unnecessary. Especially since it's not a remarkable event that someone who chose to run for another office decided to leave the House.
--RobbieFal 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980 election and his departure 

message: I believe the section on political positions was just fine the way it was for months: abolition of the IRS, Iraq, border security, abortion and then recently there has been a paragraph added about health care.  Recent edits have put abortion and gun rights at the top and taxes and Iraq and immigration near to the bottom.  I believe the section was just fine how it was before, and seemed to represent Paul's ideas in order of importance... small government, non-intervention, defense and border security, and then abortion and health care.  He has not made abortion a huge issue and is more into small government.  The recent edit summary by Anappealtoheaven undoing my restoration of the original layout reads "Conservative voters are most interested in border security, right-to-life and second amendment in that order. Reprioritized same text."  How can an individual Wikipedia editor speak for all "conservative" voters (and not all reading the article are conservative, so it should not be directed to a certain subset of readers anyway)?  Instead, we can only go by the priorities that Paul himself has set out for himself in his political career.  The original layout served to do this and the new emphasis on abortion does not. I agree that perhaps the Second Amendment should be included (although it gets a bit long that way), but it seems clear to me from polls that the top issue in the minds of most voters is Iraq and from his appearances, first in Ron Paul's mind are lower taxes and Iraq.  The section should be structured to reflect that.--Gloriamarie 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Paul seems to talk about non-intervention (esp. pertaining to Iraq), small government, and low taxes the most, by far. Also, targeting this article towards what "Conservative voters" are supposedly looking for is not how Wikipedia works.--Daveswagon 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of political positions 

message: These two sections look like they are dealing with similar content.  Should they be merged?  -Gomm 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say "yes".--Daveswagon 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge Political Positions and Principles sections? 

message: It seems like every candidate has a spot for criticism of the candidate, except Ron Paul. What the hell?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.39.221 (talk • contribs) 
:Can you suggest any notable criticisms/controversies other than disagreements with his views (which every politician has).--Daveswagon 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, controversy sections are okay but criticism sections should be avoided on all bio articles. Just my opinion. Turtlescrubber 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the "Criticism" Part? 

message: Why was the picture switched from the newer one that has been used for awhile?  The one that currently is at the top was previously in the Congressional career section.  The newer picture should be used.--Gloriamarie 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to be deleted now (), possibly because it was orphaned.--Daveswagon 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added this back as the main photo after after having confirmed copyright.--Ronpaulnation 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better! Good work.--Gloriamarie 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Here's one the problems faced by libertarians and third-party candidates.  Often times, their views present a third way of looking at things that don't conveniently fit into conventional schools of thought.  Gay marriage is a case in point.  Most people think that either you're pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage.  And that's it.  There are no other possible view points.  In fact, the very idea that there could be a third way of looking at issues doesn't occur to some people.  As best I can tell, Ron Paul's view is that marriage is not an issue that the federal government should decide.  It's a state issue.  He is neither pro-gay marriage nor anti-gay marriage.  He has a third way of looking at things that does not fit into the two conventional camps.
:He says that "Americans understandably fear" national legalization of gay marriage. Frankly, I think it would be more understandable to fear nationwide recognition of drivers' licenses issued to senior citizens under the Full Faith and Credit Clause than marriage licenses, but I am probably more part of the "secular, pro-gay left" willing to "give up" than a religious person who wants to "save freedom and morality." BenB4 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if Paul said "Americans understandable fear chocolate ice cream" then it means he supports the execution of anyone caught with Rocky Road. Sheesh.--Daveswagon 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BenB4: "National legalization" are the key words.  Again, he's talking about state's rights.  He opposes federal intervention into the issue and believes each state should decided for themselves what their own policy will be.
Yes, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he just doesn't think this should be handled at the federal level.--Gloriamarie 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Way 

message: Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick  --  Zanimum 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: Not to diminish Paul's achievments, but I don't think the Awards and honors section is notable enough for inclusion (nor do many other candidates seem to have such a section in their articles). Most of the groups that gave Paul these awards have very specific agendas, so it's not terribly surprising that Paul would win their awards (like from the Mises Institute, for example). I think a few of these should be worked into the article elsewhere and the rest should go.--Daveswagon 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Awards and honors" section? 

message: Given that there is a very healthy Political positions of Ron Paul page that is well linked from this page, perhaps we can reduce the Political positions section on this page to a simple summary, so interested readers can follow the link to the full blown discussion on the other page.  -Gomm 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the other frequent editors of this page please acknowledge this goal? Users like BenB4 in particular seem to want to expand this section rather than scale it back. This is getting ridiculous, especially considering Hillary Clinton's political positions section is only five sentences long.--Daveswagon 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce size of Political positions section? 

message: According to the Liberty Political Action Committee, Ron Paul is no longer associated with The Liberty Committee.
65.37.163.132 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliations 

message: The last sentence of the Military and Medical Career section should be revised. Medicare is an "insurance" program for people over 65. Generally speaking, there aren't many 65+ women having babies. Including Medicare in this context is irrelevant and weakens the argument.
:An OBGYN deals in large part with child birth, but not exclusively. Women over 65 still have reproductive organs, even if they aren't using them.
It says "Medicaid and Medicare" and there are many, many women having babies on Medicaid.  Medicare actually also applies to people younger than 65 who have certain developmental disorders.--Gloriamarie 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicare 

message: Does anyone know Dr. Paul's position on Brown v. Board of Education?  75.35.108.23 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an official stance has been made. We know he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and many of its regulations on the state Educatino Boards, but in the context of BvBoE I don't think there's an official stance. 209.159.98.1 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown? 

message: Seeing the new edit, I looked at the political positions page and linked to the source claiming that Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. Turns out that the vote cited for this claim is H.R. 2587, which is later mentioned in the article as not doing that at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like either the ACLU or wikipedia's editors are misrepresenting the contents of H.R. 2587. Granola Bars 05:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He voted for an amendment to that bill that would have prohibited gay adoption, but it failed 213-215. OnTheIssues.org is not run by the ACLU. BenB4 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amendment would not have prohibited gay adoption; it just would not have provided federal funds for it.  That is quite a difference.--Gloriamarie 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit!  He voted for the final appropriations bill.  You can't have it both ways.  ←BenB4 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to burst your bubble, but that roll call where he voted "yes" is from July 1999.  This roll call is from October 1999 on the same bill, and this one is from yet another roll call on the same bill a few weeks later.  He voted "no" both times, the same vote as Dennis Kucinich. In any case, a glimpse of the text of the bill can find that nowhere is the word "gay" mentioned as related to adoptions, and the bill merely provides federal funding for adoptions but does not specify a specific kind. Please tell me where a "ban of gay adoptions" is in that bill.--Gloriamarie 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largent's amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption was to H.R. 2587 "Making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities...." which passed in July and was vetoed by President Clinton because of concerns about education funding.  The bill you are referring to is H.R. 3064, "District of Columbia Appropriations Act," an entirely different bill introduced in October after H.R. 2587 was vetoed. The fact is that Paul voted for the amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption. And I have never said he voted to "ban" gay adoptions.  It is indisputable that he voted against them. ←BenB4 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is indisputable that he voted against federal funding for adoptions.--Gloriamarie 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay adoption 

message: I had attempted to add a controversy section (and then link to the new Ron Paul controversies article), but Anappealtoheaven has reverted my edits. Does anyone care to weigh in on this? I thought this would help reduce the article size.--Daveswagon 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I had in mind!--Daveswagon 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Which positions do you think are taken out of context or otherwise present biased views?  BenB4 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I am not involved in all of this, but maybe it is a response to attempts to take all critical info off of this page. I think both sides can give on this one. Turtlescrubber 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to agree with Anappealtoheaven regarding BenB4.  He certainly seems to have a political bias.  He repeatedly misrepresents Ron Paul's opposition to federal intervention on gay marriage into opposition to gay marriage itself.  He refuses to acknowledge the distinction between these two positions.  Several times, I asked him for cites and he was unable to provide a single one.  If he keeps up his biased edits, I'm going to put a neutrality disputed tag on this article. 67.184.23.112 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreed to say only that he opposes federal regulation of marriage as long as we also state that he voted against gay adoption.  That shows that he does not let his libertarianism trump his faith. I have not changed my position that he is opposed to gay marriage because he has said federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty" and "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."  ←BenB4 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not vote against gay adoption, it was funding for gay adoption and was an amendment to the bill that was taken out later, so it was not central to the bill.  Ron Paul says he votes against a bill if there is anything in it that is unconstitutional.  This is in the realm of original research on your part, without an article referring to it or a citation to the actual bill and what it was about.--Gloriamarie 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He most certainly did vote against gay adoption.  And saying so is not original research because OnTheIssues.org says the same thing.  When you prohibit a government from spending money on a certain kind of adoption, then it does not happen because, e.g., clerks aren't even allowed to fill out the necessary forms.  And adoption is a lengthy process involving many tens of thousands of dollars of social workers' time to match and approve a placement.  Therefore, defunding same-sex adoption amounts to a de facto ban on them.  If you don't believe me, search on "Largent amendment" and H.R.2587 and see what other people have to say. ←BenB4 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at this issue at all. However, Ron Paul pretty much votes against all government spending, so it's entirely possible that he voted against them for that reason. -- Mattworld (talk to me) 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section, article 

message: The political positions and 2008 election need to be better summarized, as they do have their own articles and mainlinks. Please see WP:SUMMARY if you have any questions. Please post here if you disagree. If no one objects, I will take a hatchet to these sections as they are sprawling all over the page and have turned a good article into a middling article. Sprawl is hard to read. Turtlescrubber 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the newsletter section should also be shortened, as it's large size gives the section undue weight. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Daveswagon 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if it can be done in a manner to please all sides.  It has taken a long time to settle on wording that all parties involved have agreed is suitable (the current version).  Political positions is at this moment completely out of hand and needs to be summarized badly.--Gloriamarie 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it might be best to go slowly, piece by piece, so if anyone objects it should be easy to fix. I think the summary for the positions article is fine as it is, but will probably add another paragraph worth of text to make everyone happy (while erasing the subheadings of course.) Turtlescrubber 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rough summary completed. I think it should be moved further up in the article, right above the 2008 presidential section. Any opinion? Turtlescrubber 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it used to be much further up.--Gloriamarie 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarize mainlinks 

message: An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments.  The article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."Searcy, R. (June 3, 2007) "The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know" Atlanta Progressive News  The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking." Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."
----
Is including that and replacing the position summary in the intro an acceptable compromise? ←BenB4 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above section reads ok for me - It is much better then the blocked section of direct quotes.  You could probably put a one sentence summary in the lead - something simple like "Ron Paul has been criticised for disparaging comments published in a 1992 publication; written by a ghostwriter, Paul stated that they do not represent his views."  Also, it is correct to say he is opposed to universal health care - I think the statement in the prior sentence says it better with free-market health care (could be universal depending on system and charity). Morphh  (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one noticed my posting above regarding an earlier version that seemed to have consensus, I'll post a link to it - . That version describes the controversy within the body of the article and provides links with more detail of the disparaging remarks in the footnotes. I think it's preferable to the version suggested above. Anyone agree? Jogurney 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section composed by ben above looks more or less acceptable to me. Some small grammar changes to better identify the sources, in the first and second sentence would be good. But as far as content goes I don't have a real problem with it. I'll make some slight changes and repost it tonight when I have a better internet connection. However, I cant say that I am opposed to Jogurney's suggest above either (except for the blockquote formatting). Turtlescrubber 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either of them are acceptable to me; I suggest that it would make the Ben one better, if it includes the Barbara Jordan direct quote, to include the direct Barbara Jordan rebuttal.  At least one of the direct quotes from Paul should be used if the quotes are going to be given from the newsletter. They're both pretty acceptable.  I also don't mind the summary given below by another user and it might be best for not giving the issue undue weight.--Gloriamarie 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Barbara Jordan apology should be in, and I'm sorry I left it out:  I was editing an earlier compromise version which left it out. ←BenB4 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section) 

message: === Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes) ===
An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents.  According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."Searcy, R. (June 3, 2007) "The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know" Atlanta Progressive News  The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking. Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."
----
Made one or two slight changes and I am okay with this. I think it's a decent compromise. What do other page editors think and where should this (or any other version) be placed in the article. Turtlescrubber 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (after an italicization) ←BenB4 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Morphh  (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: did not represent his way of thinking."  Should there be an opening quotation mark somewhere, or does this one need to go? Maxisdetermined 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you mind posting a version that you think is acceptable, using the above template or not. Either way. I think that would help the process. Turtlescrubber 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to work on a version that's better.--Gloriamarie 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perhaps relevant for the newsletter controversy that according to a 1992 study, An estimated 70 percent of Black males in the District of Columbia are arrested before the age of 35, and 85 percent will be arrested sometime during their lives. See e.g. Crime, Communities and Public Policy by Lawrence B. Joseph, page 141, as displayed by Google books. Terjen 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter Section 

message: An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents.  According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."Searcy, R. (June 3, 2007) "The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know" Atlanta Progressive News  The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking. Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."
----
Made one or two slight changes and I am okay with this. I think it's a decent compromise. What do other page editors think and where should this (or any other version) be placed in the article. Turtlescrubber 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (after an italicization) ←BenB4 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Morphh  (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: did not represent his way of thinking."  Should there be an opening quotation mark somewhere, or does this one need to go? Maxisdetermined 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you mind posting a version that you think is acceptable, using the above template or not. Either way. I think that would help the process. Turtlescrubber 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to work on a version that's better.--Gloriamarie 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perhaps relevant for the newsletter controversy that according to a 1992 study, An estimated 70 percent of Black males in the District of Columbia are arrested before the age of 35, and 85 percent will be arrested sometime during their lives. See e.g. Crime, Communities and Public Policy by Lawrence B. Joseph, page 141, as displayed by Google books. Terjen 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)