Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 2

message: Since he's running for president shouldn't something be included? I  can't find anything. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Worth? 

message: The article should only be referencing random-based political polling, not "American Idol" unscientific polls where one person can vote as many times as they want (such as the MSNBC post-debate poll asking who won the debate, which I've deleted since it does not belong in a reference text.
All national polling results on Ron Paul are available here: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
He's averaging at around 1% nationally, tied with Gilmore, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and Hunter.  If Wikipedia wishes to reference Ron Paul's polling numbers, they should use the numbers in the above link.
-----------
shouldn't there be some section on how his electoral bid is going at the polls?
Here are some possible sources:
yourfreepoll
pollpub
How about some real polls as opposed to online polls? Or is the truth about this man's candidacy off limits?
I can tell you that at this point in NH he has raised more money in one visit than all the other candidates except Romney.
He has had enormous success in the debates and I do not believe that should be ignored. I'll be editing something about the results in shortly.
Doctor Lyles Carlton III 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts with four tildes so we can know who you are.  The talk page is not the place for random comments and insults of the subject.  Popularity is not measured by online polls, but it can be measured by money raised, and in New Hampshire, I believe he's raised the second-most amount after Romney.  Overall, I believe he's raised the fourth-most amount of money among Republicans.  This isn't in the article and I might add it.--Gloriamarie 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll results? 

message: I saw a spelling change to this word.  I spelled it that way because it is spelled that way in the bill he sponsored. (unsigned comment by User:Kalmia)
Either spelling is "correct," although the "marijuana" spelling is generally considered the most common form in contemporary American English. I would say that we should use the standard in most cases, but if we could cite the bill he sponsored, we could include some excerpts that utilize the spelling original to that text. Could you point me in the direction of the bill? I would be happy to hunt for pertinent quotes. Dick Clark 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  marihuana 

message: I've commented out the unsourced anon claim that Paul is a member of the John Birch Society. Of course I don't know for sure that it's not true, but I don't ever recall hearing it, and it seems it would have been an issue when he ran for President as a Libertarian. --Trovatore 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He gets the most consistently high marks the John Birch society gives to anyone I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean he is one. Although possibly a mention of his high marks with them would be acceptable, but it might already be there.--T. Anthony 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Congressman Paul gets high ratings from every conservative group that rates politicians based on their Constitutional positions. Ron Paul is a strong advocate of adhering to Constitutional principles and his votes in Congress reflect those beliefs. -- Jtpaladin 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Birch Society 

message: Does anyone know the ISBN numbers of any of the books listed in the "Books by Ron Paul" section of the article? And do you know if Ron Paul has written any others?
Unregistered User 71.96.165.158 21:52, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
:AFAIK, those are all of them.  Most were published by FREE, and don't seem to have been assigned ISBN numbers.  --emb021 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: The artical says:
"Congressman Paul adheres to the consistent life ethic, and therefore opposes all forms of killing not done in self-defense. His pro-life views factor into his support for non-interventionism, and are the reason he opposes capital punishment."
But he said: (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm)
"Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts."
''
Which seems to be contradictory. Anyone knowledgable enough to explain or update the article ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.230.65.68 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stance on death penaly 

message: I saw the external links, and...um, yeah, that's messy-looking, all right.
Here is what I propose that should be done about the links:  Split them up into sub-sections.
I have a good rough draft saved onto my computer, and I'm likely going to use it to clean up the links.
ObscureAnomaly 07:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little cleanup of the external links, mostly links not following NPOV, advertising, or Social Networking. Sub-sections would be a great idea for this article as well most other political figures. Acidskater 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Whoever keeps adding the online vote taken after the MSNBC debate should think about it more - it is in no way a scientific poll, as they themselves are quick to point out.  It is not a random sampling, there are no sure protections against multiple votes - they do not and we should not claim that it is a poll of anything.  It is merely an online vote, of people who feel like voting, and is of no real value.  You are giving ammunition for people who are against Ron Paul by including it here. Tvoz |talk 05:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but since the poll was conducted immediately after the debate on the network of the debate, I would think it would have some merit. It's not just any network poll that only fans of that network vote on in any given time - it was a poll that those who watched the official debate voted on after seeing the debate live. It's more to do with viewer response than anything precise or scientific. I think it should be kept, but everything you said here should be mentioned in the article to make it clear to the article reader that the poll was far from perfect and shouldn't count as an official win for any candidate. PoeticXcontribs 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, I said don't call it a poll or imply that it has any scientific validity - you would be implying something that is untrue. Tvoz |talk 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just by reading "MSNBC Poll" you would know that it's NOT a scientific poll. Who really cares if it's scientific or not? The fact remains that Ron Paul won the poll after the debate. End of story. interpaul |talk 00:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  interpaul - Your arguments that a person should automatically know that the poll is unscientific because it's hosted by MSNBC and the fact that you say "who really cares if it's scientific or not" all sound very POV to me. You admit that it is unscientific - on Wikipedia we don't just leave things to chance by "assuming" people already know things and we don't leave things out because we assume "no one will care." The fact that the poll is indeed unscientific needs to be mentioned. PoeticXcontribs 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, folks, I give up.  I too want the article to be fair and give Paul a balanced presentation, unlike what the mainstream media tend to do, but some editors here insist on characterizing unscientific online surveys of whoever happens to answer as "polls", saying that Dr Paul is the frontrunner, has won polls, etc., as if these were Zogby-like polls. It's incorrect and misleading.  It's not the way  valid opinion polls work, and I believe you are hurting your own case by making these claims, which MSNBC itself does not.  By all means include the fact that people responded well to his performance in the debate - I had that wording in there - but don't make it seem like it is anything like Gallup or any of the real polls. It's not "far from perfect" - it does not claim to be a scientific random sampling poll.  Just don't use the word "poll " and you'll be halfway there.  If others are not interested in a fair presentation, so be it.  But the section's neutrality is therefore in question and I'm adding such a tag.  I'd prefer not to do so, and will remove it when the section is re-worded so that it is clear what these online votes really represent. The way it is now is not neutral.  PoeticX -you have it right above, and I think my wording said what you are saying, but people keep reverting it and changing it, so maybe you'll have more luck than I did.  I hope i'm being clear: this is not an attack on Ron Paul - it is just a plea for accuracy and neutrality. Tvoz |talk 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MSNBC poll does not qualify as a "voodoo poll," because MSNBC did not allow multiple voting. I removed the inappropriate link again. JLMadrigal 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a defining criteria that a voodoo poll allows multiple voting, but rather, that it has "no statistical or scientific reliability" so the results cannot be assumed to be representable for the larger population (unlike a scientific poll). I will thus reinstate the link. Instead of allowing it to appear like it in any way is a scientific poll, perhaps we should consider highlighting that there were 70,000+ votes of which around 40,000 favored Paul, suggesting considerable interest. Terjen 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fine to mention the poll as long as we include the caveat that one cannot draw statistical conclusions based on the poll. Since the poll involved self-selection, it is statistically useless. It is irresponsible for us to write that "Some have said the moment was a major gain for Giuliani, yet polls show otherwise." MSNBC's poll shows nothing, except perhaps it indicates Paul's popularity in Internet libertarian groups. I wouldn't remove the mention of the poll, but we must reword it. I haven't heard the term "voodoo poll" before, but a nonstatistical web poll seems to fit the definition well. Rhobite 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSNBC debate "poll" does not belong here 

message: To the editor of the page, I would like you to attach information regarding ABC and other media outlets calling Guiliani (Is that how his name is spelt? I don't care if it is wrong, since I dislike him) or Romney as the winner of the debate, then having to change their positions when thousands of people complained. For evidence I include this website as evidence: Alternative News Sources Blog. The blog also has several links to other on-line sites such as CSPAN, proving the bias as stated, and that ABC did not even include Ron Paul in their online poll, until people complained. Please add this info to the section on the debate. While I must disclose that I strongly dislike Ron Paul and pretty much all the Republiscum candidates, I want Wikipedia to remain an accurate info source, unlike Conservapedia, ABC news, or Conservative-oriented media in general. I am not signing my name as I feel that it is not necessary. 128.218.224.40 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That blog is not a reliable source - get an article that talks about ABC leaving Ron Paul off of their poll, if it happened, - but an article in a more reliable source than you provided. And please note that the MSNBC online vote is not in any sense a scientifically conducted  poll and articles should not refer to it as such. That is misleading. Tvoz |talk 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "scientific" poll? There is no way to get a perfect picture of people's views. Many people do not participate in paper "random sample" questionnaires. People who took the online poll were those who saw the debate online. That is the only "difference" - if it qualifies as one. The NSNBC and ABC polls, as well as the others cited, were entirely open. JLMadrigal 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A scientific opinion poll uses sampling and attempts to control bias so the resulting statistics can be generalized to the larger population from which the sample was drawn. That a poll is open for all is a sign that it is not scientific, as it introdices self selection bias. We know that as of today about 30,000 of 70,000 votes in the MSNBC survey favored Ron Paul, but that's about it. The result cannot be extrapolated beyond those voting, unlike a scientific poll. Terjen 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terjen is correct. That they were open is the point. "Scientific" has to do with the method of choosing the respondents, among other things, not whether it is a "perfect picture" of anything. These were not a random sampling - they were self-selected. And there is little if any protection against one person expressing his or her opinion - voting - more than one time, and thereby skewing the results to favor their own preference. Read opinion poll, voodoo poll, and MSNBC's own explanation for starters. It's misleading to suggest in any way that this candidate is leading in the polls, because that implies that he is leading in the polls that are considered to be more valid - the ones that call themselves scientific - like Zogby, Quinnepiac, Gallup, etc etc. So  to take it away from the Republicans: if they say Hillary or Obama or Edwards is leading in the polls, they don't mean an online survey, they mean in some officially conducted poll that has some kind of built-in protection against fraudulent loading of votes or viral marketing. Those polls are not necessarily accurate either, and they always vary in odd ways, but at least there is an attempt to make them random, which statisticians think is important. An online survey of who did best in a debate is simply not a valid, scientific poll - the sponsors don't claim it to be, and it should not be mis-reported on wikipedia as such. Include it if you want to make the point that his performance in the debate was well-received - but do it in a way that is not misleading or inaccurate. Tvoz |talk 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Bias related to poll 

message: Are we ready to remove that distracting tag in the campaign section yet? The article now covers both sides regarding the "voodoo poll" assertion. JLMadrigal 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is in very poor shape. It seems like the tag should stay until we remove opinionated statements and unreliable sources. Things like Youtube statistics and PrisonPlanet.com (9/11 conspiracy theory site) are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rhobite 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The absence of actual opinion polling numbers from the article is also conspicuous. In opinion polls which are based on statistical sampling techniques, such as the American Research Group national poll, Gallup, etc. Paul consistently receives about 1-2% of the "most likely to support" responses. Rhobite 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: Hey guys, do you think that the debate information might be better put into his actual 2008 presidential wiki article?  That seems to be a better place for it to me. --DeviantCharles 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Tvoz |talk 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate information 

message: In the May 3rd and May 15th debate sections, none of the "polls" cited are scientific polls. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news sites regularly have online votes on a whole range of issues. Although these news sites are generally considered reliable sources, these online votes are completely unreliable. The news sites even state that they are unscientific polls. The problem is that online voting contains very significant self-selection bias. Some political campaigns specifically email supporters and ask them to go the the news sites and "vote for candidate X" after a political debate. Even when campaigns don't email supporters in such a manner, self-selection bias still exists in all of these types of polls. --JHP 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add "unscientific" in front of the polls.  I thought that that was covered in the article, but add what you like.  The polls are not scientific but they are mentioned by the media, so they're worth noting.  Yes, campaigns can tell supporters to go to the sites, but all the campaigns have the equal opportunity to do that, and it would make sense that the candidate with the most supporters and most money would be able to do that the easiest. I don't see what that has to do with the article, though. --Gloriamarie 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The websites themselves have said on many occasions that the results are not only unscientific, but they are actually SKEWED. Big difference between "unscientific" and "skewed". Msnbc and Fox have both mentioned this. Bl4h 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the polls are hosted on news sites, they can be considered secondary sources and are therefore citable within the article. Their exact nature (scientific, unscientific) should be mentioned in the article to keep the piece neutral. But given that the polls have received media coverage and commentary in and of themselves, they are worth keeping in. Xuanwu 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is that an unscientific poll can be skewed, or it might not be-- there's no way to know, because it is not a poll as would be taken by Gallup.  There is always a self-selection bias with those polls-- people who do not choose to take polls will not be included.  Saying that a poll is "skewed", though, is more POV than unscientific-- unscientific should cover it. --Gloriamarie 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason unscientific polls should not be used is because they are not reliable. To quote the Wikipedia article on the subject, "A voodoo poll is an opinion poll with no statistical or scientific reliability and which is therefore not a good indicator of opinion on any given issue. A voodoo poll will tend to involve self-selection, will be unrepresenative of the 'polled' population, and is often very easy to rig by those with a partisan interest in the results of the poll." --JHP 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The label Non-scientific is preferable to unscientific, as the latter has a slight negative connotation. Terjen 06:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The media is covering these polls, and the media is hosting these polls.  Therefore, they are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Whether they are unscientific or not, they are explained as unscientific in the article.  I don't see the problem including them.--Gloriamarie 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, these polls are UNSCIENTIFIC. They are fun polls put on web sites as entertainment ("infotainment") to keep people interested in the site, but their results are completely meaningless. Wikipedia even calls them voodoo polls in the article regarding them. By the way, non-scientific isn't even a word. Even the news sites that host these polls call them "unscientific". --JHP 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was I that first introduced the references to voodoo polls... which should make it appparent that I am not confusing them with scientific polls.   Describing the "polls" as non-scientific doesn't take away from the point that they aren't scientific, yet avoids the negative connotation of unscientific, keeping our language more neutral. Non is used with many words to change their meanings to the opposite. My position is that we should use the term vote instead of poll as the former more is more accurate, but if we use the term poll, it should be preceeded by non-scientific to avoid a confusion with scientific polls. Terjen 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I commend you for your dedication to WP:NPOV and for your willingness to point out that the votes are not scientific (which I noticed after my previous post—sorry), inventing a new word is going a bit too far. In fact, it is a violation of WP:NPOVT which states, "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality." I do not agree that "non-scientific" is any more or less POV than "unscientific", especially since the adjective is describing the reliability of a statistical methodology, not Ron Paul. Furthermore, "non-scientific" is poor grammar, just as "un-nuclear" or "un-invasive" would be. --JHP 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with using the word "vote" rather than the word "poll", because it is a much more accurate description. --JHP 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me also point out that the presentation of unscientific voting results in the article appears to me to be an intentional attempt to present Ron Paul's campaign in a favorable light. This is exacerbated by the near-complete absence in the article of results from scientifically-conducted polls. I am a libertarian, and I hope Ron Paul does well, but Wikipedia is not the place for campaigning. --JHP 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The latest Zogby poll has him at 3%, up from 1% in the first Zogby poll.  All the other non-"Rudy McRomney" candidates were less than 1%. A Zogby poll is scientific.  While still a small slice, a triple increase is a nice increase, especially when the other "second-tier" candidates, many of whom have gotten more media attention, polled at sub-1%.  That could perhaps be mentioned in the article.--Gloriamarie 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Zogby poll is mentioned on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Terjen 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think the Zogby NH poll had him in 5th place, ahead of the three who don't believe in evolution, and  a couple of others - and yes, I agree tha it's notable to be included.  As long as it isn't worded in such a way as to sound like this makes him a front runner, or "first tier", or the like.  It is what it is, and if you're below Paul you're not happy.  But Rudy McRomney still are solidly ahead, by a large margin.  Tvoz |talk 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An increase from 1% to 3% is within the margin of error and is statistically meaningless. Rhobite 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the increase is not meaningless just beacuse it is within the margin of error, although more likely to be due to chance than if it was larger.Terjen 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is misleading regarding "polls" 

message: In the May 15th Presidential Debate section, there was some obvious slant coming from Paul supporters stating that Giuliani was "eager to divert the conservative audience's attention from his earlier stance on the abortion issue." A grain of truth? Perhaps. However, this is completely opinionated and has no place this article. Steviedpeele 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this assertion is similar to comments made by commentators on Fox News immediately after the debate. There is no clear reason to believe that their commentary was tainted by some hidden support for Ron Paul. If we are going to make that assertion, though, it should be attributed. DickClarkMises 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the assertion is attributed to a comment from "The Nation." Personally, I think that line should be redone to make it clearer that the line is the analysis of a news source and not original research. Xuanwu 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.--Gloriamarie 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ron Paul supporters slant 

message: I suppose I am nit picking here... But isn't the camapign section supposed to be just a summary for the Ron Paul Campaign article which is smaller than the summary. Would it be appropiate to move the body of text to the campaign article and yet again write a summary? Lord Metroid 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate from whether it is POV or not, yes, the presidential campaign section here is way too detailed and should be a short summary with the longer disquisition in the Presidential campaign article, like the other candidates have it. And it's not the place - here or there - to argue the merits of the points he made with supporting commentary like Michael Scheuer's, unless the supporting commentary is specifically talking about what Ron Paul himself said - comments on his comments.  Tvoz |talk 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the Nation commentary said-- they also mentioned some other FBI/CIA analysts that are not mentioned.  That is just given as an example.--Gloriamarie 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camapaign section 

message: I suggest moving the section on his positions about Racism to Political positions of Ron Paul. Terjen 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is not about his positions on racism - it is a section on a controversy about them.  Feel free to add a section on his views on racism to political positions - it's a good idea in fact - but not to remove this from here. Apples and oranges. Tvoz |talk 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy about Paul's positions on racism fits nicely in as part of a section about his positions on racism. These topics are not incomparable. Terjen 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Read WP:CIVIL - this section in particular - it has nothing to do with whether you' ve been cited for 3RR.  It has to do with the way you address other editors.   ANd what I truncated was the actual newsletter quotes that others objected to being in the article proper - by moving them into the footnotes they are here for reference but they are not hitting you in the face.  I already answered the "abundant" comment with actual word counts, and now the word count in what's called "readable prose" here is even less.  So I have responded to your concerns, just not completely the way you want it, because I think it needs more than 2 or 3 sentences to be fair all around.  "Bad taste" is  irrelevant and differs by POV - verifiability and notability are the standards here.  Tvoz |talk 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, RM - i think I had it that way at one point, and I completely agree with your point and your analysis. Tvoz |talk 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism section

message: CNN contributor Roland S. Martin has an excellent article about Ron Paul's controversial debate comments here. Title: "Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated" --JHP 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul is being 'Swiftboated' by the GOP and right wing press. Maybe there should be a section on that. TheDeciderDecides 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested source 

message: Ron Paul's medical training is very weird.  Doctors do not just do one year of residency and then become an OB-GYN.  Did he do other training that's not listed.  His congressional biography says what wikipedia says.  Maybe someone in the congressional office is wrong.  Wouldn't it be neat if we in wikipedia corrected the truth and put it in his wikipedia biographical article?Pipermantolisopa 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What may be causing some of the confusion is that he was drafted in the middle of his medical training, entered the Air Force as a flight surgeon, then came back and finished his residency in Texas.--Gloriamarie 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (RESOLVED) Will Wikipedia break the news? 

message: under May 15 GOP Presidential Debate the line "Rudy Giuliani interrupted to suggest Paul..."  Watching the debate clearly shows Ron Paul's time finishing and then Giuliani requesting to comment, not an "interuption"
:Please sign your comments using four tildes.  Reuters said "interrupted":    It was not his turn to speak so it gave the appearance of an interruption.  Someone can reword if they would like, but the main point is not whether there was an "interruption" or not but what he said once he started speaking.--Gloriamarie 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is: Giuliani did not interrupt Ron Paul (which is how it sounds now) - he interrupted the flow of the debate by speaking when it wasn't his turn. I agree with you that the main point is what was said. GarryKosmos 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: His district does include significant suburbs of Houston, but I do not think it correct to say it includes suburbs of Austin and San Antonio. The latter two cities are at best about 100 miles away from the district, and most of it 200+ miles away. If the constituency is important to the article, it would probably be pertinent to analyze the odd mixture of southeast Houston and Galveston and its suburbs (with populations significantly from the state universities and major medical branch, oil refineries, and NASA) with the significantly rural areas down the coast. Strangename 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has been redistricted recently, also.  Perhaps that was referring to the old district boundaries.  I'll take it out for now.  Thanks.--Gloriamarie 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  district info 

message: Perhaps instead of paraphrasing Rudy Giuliani's comments, we should just quote him.  It's a short quote. (I forgot to sign before, signing now) Kylebrotherton 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good addition Tvoz |talk 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudy's response 

message: Thanks to Gloriamarie for adding all of that material (which she seems to still be doing - it's great stuff) - the article is much improved, in my opinion. And thank you for clarifying the Letters of Marque section - now it makes sense .  I also think the debate Middle East discussion is vastly improved by substituting Scheuer's comment for what was there before - Scheuer is talking about Ron Paul's comments directly which is appropriate for this article. A disquisition on middle east politics is certainly not irrelevant to what Paul said - and may "prove" his point - but it doesn't belong in the  text of this article, so I moved the bin Laden stuff to a footnote - it makes more sense that way, and the information is here but not dominating the section which should be specifically about Ron Paul and what he actually said in the debate and what people said about his comments - not verification for the point of view he presented which is footnote stuff. See Barack Obama - expository footnotes are done there often that way.  I think the debate section works well now - although it might be longer than needed for this article and could be shortened here and longer bit added to RP Presidential article.  But for now I think it's ok here.    I added a    to the Paul reply to Giuliani because I dont see it in the RGVRP article, and we need to find a transcript to point to. I'm not questioning the quote, just need to reference it. There must be transcripts of the debate all over the place - and in fact a transcript is a better source for all of the debate quotes -  change to that  and leave RGVRP  for the commentary is how I would do it.  Great job GLoriamarie. Tvoz |talk 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But... I am a litle concerned that the article is reading a bit like a campaign brochure - the perennial problem in these articles - and could use some more critical commentary.  But  he hasn't gotten a lot of press until now, so I don't know how much there is - note how much more there was about the 5/15 debate than the 5/3 debate where the NY Times, for example, had him in their last paragraph along with some other hapless candidates who got no coverage.  5/15 was a better day for airtime for the candidate, and the press picked up on it.  I would expect that some of his more controversial points of view have atracted or will attract some reliable source commentary - we rely too much on blogs now, I think.    Tvoz |talk 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article has gotten better on that account (moving away from blogs).  What do you mean by some of his more controversial points of view?  The sources you describe may be published now.--Gloriamarie 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent article changes 

message: I have not come across anything that says that Ron Paul is supporting or attacking Dennis Kucinich's filing of articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney (HR 333 I think)  - has anyone seen any comments that Ron Paul has made about this?   Tvoz |talk 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard anything on this either.  He does often work on bipartisan issues with Dennis Kucinich, but this, I don't know.--71.65.202.41 17:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  and now for something completely different - impeachment of Dick Cheney 

message: As described by the digg entry "Fox Clearly stating that people who question the government are absurd", Fox broadcasted "Malkin attacks Paul on 9/11 questions" where they used a short clip from Ron Paul Meets the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth to create a Strawman as usual and paint Ron Paul as a conspiracy nut believing it was an inside job. So no need to add any such entry based on that source. Lord Metroid 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive actions against crazy information 

message: Unless someone has accused him of racist behavior or speech or unless there is some scandal with respect to race that Dr. Paul or his campaign has been involved in, this section is purposeless and any relevent information on Dr. Paul's views of race and racism should be merged into the Political Views section. If views on race warrant its own section for political candidates, then that is a different matter. I don't see such a section for other candidates in the 2008 election, so I a presuming it doesn't and can be merged if it's kept at all. If someone wants to merge it or delete it, feel free. Otherwise, when I have more time, I'll work on it. Ikilled007 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Having a Racism accusations section without substantive evidence that he is indeed racist is like having a "wife-beating accusations" section: regardless of the proof, the allegations alone stain his reputation. I think this is a WP:BLP issue. DickClarkMises 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Unless someone has accused him of racist behavior or speech" - The Houston Chronicle, the Texas Monthly, and Ron Paul's opponent in an election all pointed out the racist text which appeared in his newsletter. If Barack Obama or Mitt Romney publishes a newsletter with racist text, then it would be discussed in their respective articles, just like it is discussed here in Ron Paul's article. Keep the section. Rhobite 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wait, who are you the judge of what constitutes "racist text"? I didn't find the text in question racist at all if we define racism as a baseless judgement of inferiority based on race. That was clearly not the case. In fact, the article didn't even declare it to be racist text -- it was very carefully crafted language (the article) saying something like "which could be construed by some as [racially provocative]". There was indication that anyone even considered it problematic. Ikilled007 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newsletter said "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Are you claiming that these are not racist statements? Rhobite 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are you saying black teenage males who rob people are slow on foot? How can it possibly be racist to say they are not? Hey, here's a racist statement for you: black NBA ballplayers can jump incredibly high. Ikilled007 06:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether racist statements or not, it is original research for a Wikipedia editor to say whether they are.  What exactly does the Houston Chronicle article say?  Texas Monthly does not say that he is a racist; they say it is extraordinary since he had never said anything like that before, and they ask him about it and he says they were written by a staffer. --71.65.202.41 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, those are both racist statements.  Basketball players can jump high.  The fact that you are adding "black" means you are stereotyping based on race, and that, friend, is one of the classic definitions of racism.  You would not be likely to say "blond basketball players can jump incredibly high", because you'd probably ask what being blond has to do with it.  Well, the same thing goes for race.  The statements in that newsletter were racist - our article is bending over backwards to say that in as neutral a way as possible, but by definition they are racist statements.  But I suspect you actually understand this point and perhaps are trying to make another one.  I don't think this is the place, however, to have a debate about what is racism.  Tvoz |talk 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * What you call stereotyping I call statistics. Is it a racist statement to say that affirmative action for blacks is necessary but for whites is not because they tend to have less wealth and opportunity than whites? Not if it's true that blacks on average are less wealthy and have less opportunities than whites. See, this oppressive PC nonsense doesn't allow for ANY examination into race, which means it's unscientific and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ikilled007 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you're trying to make some kind of philosophical point, but as Tvoz pointed out, this discussion isn't really relevant to the content of the article. There is no need to argue over the definition of "racist text" (although the text clearly is), as we have cited reliable sources for each statement and discussed the newsletter in a neutral tone. Rhobite 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several credible sources, including the Houston Chronicle and Texas Monthly. All controversial statements are attributed and therefore the section is compliant with WP:BLP. Your complaints are not actionable unless you specifically describe which statements you think are defamatory, and why. It is not helpful to blank the entire section without making a specific complaint. Rhobite 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the section and I guess it is actually valid and relatively neutral, however the title of the section could cause some people to perceive him as racist.  I guess its fine and I'm sorry I rushed to judgment.  Life, Liberty, Property 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved the racial remarks section to the Political positions of Ron Paul on June 7. It was open for discussion in the earlier Racism section. Gloriamarie later removed the paragraphs regarding the racial remarks, arguing that they were in this entry (which they were not). Terjen 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that you had transferred it, I thought you had copied it over.  Sorry about that.  That section has been getting blanked by vandals lately quite a bit.  I do think it belongs here rather than in Political Positions.--Gloriamarie 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Section 

message: As we have seen many times and the latest being the domestic violence section being reverted moved and so on. Wouldn't it be better if we just discussed most of the major deletion or moves we would want to do in here before we do it. Because as it is now revert wars are rageing in this article... It was so much easier to maintain when he wasn't as recognized Lord Metroid 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok - you and I were editing within a minute of each other, and I didn't see your edit summary until now.  I had moved the VAWA stuff from being its own section into this article's political position section, with the question of whether it should be in this article at all.  I was removing what Joeu had put in as a separate section.    I actually don't think this needs to be in this article if it is in the daughter article - as I said in my edit summary, I don't know that we can have every vote of his written up here.  Sorry for stepping on your edit - I had not seen it until now beacue it was just short of being an edit conflict..  Ok with me to remove the VAWA stuff from here, pending what others think.  Tvoz |talk 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with removing it, we can't have everything mentioned. However Joeu is very uncooperative and silent. Lord Metroid 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's clearly in the other article, I'm taking it out of here. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is under constant controversy 

message: The article currently reads: "He is particularly effective at reaching 14th District voters on veterans' issues, such as procuring lost medals for war veterans who never received or lost their medals;"
This word-order makes no sense.
Misinterpretation possibility #1: By "procuring lost medals" has he used a metal detector? Or were the medals lost after he procures them? It should be enough to say "procuring medals."
Misinterpretation possibility #2: The words "never received or lost" could be misinterpreted to mean "neither received nor lost," in which case why has he replaced them?
If I understand it correctly, it should be worded thusly: "...on veterans' issues, such as procuring medals for war veterans who lost or never received their medals."
k7tz52oef5y5g93r40 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and reword it.--Gloriamarie 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  word-order makes no sense 

message: Paul appeared 5/25/07 on Real Time With Bill Maher to talk about his comments at the May 15th debate.
:Heres a video I searched up  Bl4h 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Maher Appearance 

message: I've been looking into Ron Paul and I'm quite pleased with what I read, but I would like to know more about his stance on controlling global warming, a problem that Libertarians seem to be unable to handle.  There isn't any real information on his web page and there is no mention of it here.  Global warming will in all probability be an important issue in the 2008 election and I would like to hear what he has to say on it.  I know he voted against the Kyoto protocol, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he believes the federal government has no role in this issue.  If we could find some information on this it would be helpful to voters.  
Kpturvey 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be more appropriate for his Political positions article. From what I understand of his position, it is this: he would stop getting involved in wars that are largely based on oil.  He would stop subsidizing oil companies.  These foreign and domestic policies strengthen America's reliance on oil.  He would let states pass carbon emissions laws (they weren't allowed to do so until recently).  By not going to war for oil, companies would face higher operating costs in those countries and the cost of oil would reflect that.  With oil costing more and without subsidies for oil companies, alternative energies would prosper and become much more economically feasible.  In Congress, he has been a member of the “Green Scissors” coalition with Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense to cut environmentally harmful overnment spending. I believe he's at the top of ratings for cutting that type of spending.  It's a good idea to put this in the Political Positions article and I'll try to do so.--Gloriamarie 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Environment 

message: Coming back from Memorial Day weekend, I see the article has changed.  There is some lopsidedness.  Why is the 2nd debate and the racist statement so long in comparison with his 2nd congressional record?  What was the racist statement?  Did he not do anything in congress so that part is shorter?  Can we fix this in a neutral manner?Pipermantolisopa 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements are in the footnotes. Since he says he did not say them and they do not represent his views, that's more appropriate than quoting them in the section.  I'll take a look at the congressional part to see if things have been taken out.--Gloriamarie 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the Congressional part is the same length it always was.  His voting record and views are covered in the Political Views article, but you're right, it could be good to add a bit more here.--Gloriamarie 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's fair to accept that the quotes don't represent his views. I personally take his word for it,  but I'm not sure if it's prudent to, with neutrality in mind. Quite frankly, there was a quote with his signature that he now disavows as the work of another, but that is nothing but a claim on his part that we ought not reject or accept on behalf of the Wikipedia community.Benthepanda 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Living Persons policies on biographies, any negative or inflammatory material must be well-sourced or removed immediately.  The quotes are sourced to his newsletter, but since he has given a denial that they are his words or views, since a magazine has said that the controversy is extraordinary considering that he never said anything else like that in many years in public office, and since he has spoken negatively of racism...  I don't think it corresponds with the living biographies policy to assume otherwise within the article, and it's easy to take a neutral view and present both sides of the situation.  The living biographies policy is an important policy within Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community really must take it seriously. I don't see how that goes against neutrality.  --Gloriamarie 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lopsided? 

message: to: site administrators
from: www.ronpaulaudio.com
Please use this posting as a request to include a reference and external link to www.ronpaulaudio.com
This site is a resource archive of Ron Paul Speechs and Interviews that is updated daily as the campaign
progresses.
Thank You for your consideration.
--Goldenequity 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this first.--Daveswagon 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a little confused. My understanding is that the Main Page content is restricted and not "open" to general editing by the public. So, I placed my request in this discussion section, hoping for a response from those responsible for editing and updates for a response. (thanks for responding Daveswagon!) I still have not heard from or been emailed by anyone regarding the above request.
Am I not understanding something? To everyone....can you give me a little insight? Am I going about this the wrong way?
Thanks for any help all.
--Goldenequity 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is open for editing for any member of wikipedia, it is closed for unregistered users as much vandalism occured. Lord Metroid 06:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change/Addition Request: Documentaries, topic pages and databases 

message: Comments by that former CIA analyst about Paul's 2nd GOP debate doesn't belong in the article. That's just one guy's opinion. Similarly, other hypothetical additions that wouldn't belong include "my high school history teacher thinks Paul shouldn't be President because he doesn't like whiskey" or "Jane Smith, daughter of former the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Labor in the Ford or Carter administration agrees with Paul in the -- issue"--Pipermantolisopa 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "just one guy's opinion" for a few reasons: 1. he's the top al Qaeda and bin Laden specialist for years in the CIA.  2. He held a press conference with Ron Paul saying that Rudy Giuliani is wrong and needs to read up on foreign policy if he expects to talk about 9/11.  I haven't added that to the article yet, but I will. (If your high school history teacher held a press conference with Paul to say that, then that might be notable too.:))  I said this in the revert description that I made. --Gloriamarie 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  creditable and acceptable source required 

message: This is asked here because it related to Ron Paul.  To avoid a fight, I won't mention which one.  
If a CNN reference is used as a citation to a sentence in an article, isn't it unwise to remove it just because the article has some other information that a wikipedian doesn't like.  For example, in the John Edwards' article, I put in some info about healthcare and put a reference to it.  Someone didn't change the language much but wanted another reference because they like the content of the other reference, not the CNN one.
What do you think?Pipermantolisopa 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it depends on what kind of information is included that is not amenable to the other editor.  Is it important enough to be included in the article?  If it's not, and the other reference is also cited elsewhere, it may be better to use the other reference.  I'm in favor of consolidating references as much as possible.  If the other information is not important enough to be in the article, I don't see why a reference should be kept just because it mentions it.  Or, as Terjen suggests, both could be left in.--Gloriamarie 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what do you think about removing references? 

message: Did he really get 8 minutes at the June 5 debate, as currently claimed in the article?  2 hours is 120 minutes, so if each of the 10 candidates got 10%, that would be 12 minutes each, assuming no time for questions or the break.  The break alone was about 5 minutes and there had to be at least 10 minutes of questions, which takes the total time used by the candidates down to about 105 minutes, or 10.5 minutes each on average, and that's conservative (they probably had less than a total of 105, and, so, less than 10.5 on average).  I'm tagging that 8 minute claim as needing a citation, at least until someone can substantiate it.  --Serge 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was at 5:51 according to Chris Dodd. --207.69.140.22 06:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that sounds more reasonable. Not a great source, but it's something.  I'll update accordingly  --Serge 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 minutes? 

message: The section supposed to be a summary of the 2008 presidential campaign has gotten way too detailed again. I suggest it is stripped down substantially, merging the subsections for the debates with those on the 2008 presidential campaign page. However, as the entry on his campaign are timely, there should also be a link to the 2008 presidential campaign entry in the introduction to this article. Terjen 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be trimmed down.  However, the part about the May 15 debate should probably be left in because that's an important occurrence in his political career.  Perhaps it could have a section of its own?  The rest of the detail about the other debates is not necessary.--Gloriamarie 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Campaign Summary 

message: I believe it's time to limit edits to registered users in order to keep tabs on malicious edits. I am finding it difficult to keep up with restoring sabotaged links and deleted sections. Just now, a spot check revealed several misdirected links. These vandals should not be permitted on wikipedia. JLMadrigal 11:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Under the june 5 debate one user has a biased opinon and did not understand what Dr. Paul was saying, Paul said that both homo and heterosexuals should be booted from the military only if their behavior becomes disruptive, Paul believes that all people have the same rights .
:I removed that last night-- it was an incorrect statement the way it was written and if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is placed anywhere it should be in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted it again-- my page hadn't updated, and I said that it was written in an NPOV manner, but it had been rewritten since the last time my page updated.  It should be in the Political Positions article if it's anywhere.--Gloriamarie 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Ask, Don't tell 

message: Should there perhaps be a section with a warning that Ron Paul has attracted an extremely activist and extremely aggressive following on the net? Pretty much every web forum I visit -reddit, digg, TDS...- has been bombarded and gamed by Ron Pauls fans, and they're notorious for gaming every internet poll they can find (see e.g. www.pajamasmedia.com, www.cnn.com, and www.2008horserace.com ; the comments from the webmaster at 2008horserace are hilarious).
And to be honest I get the impression they're active here too.
The Man On The Street 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he simply has genuinely more supporters than you think. He has won repeated races for Congress in Texas, after all, so he clearly can garner tens of thousands of votes in his own district. --Golbez 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since folks are generally accustomed to choosing the lesser evil in U.S. presidential politics, and in a year with a field that is otherwise so uninspiring that many are looking forward to bonafied bores like Al Gore and Fred Thompson to step up, it should not be surprising that a principled and rational politician with a consistent voting history like Ron Paul stands out, inspires and garners real positive support among those who are normally disillusioned with the "same ol' same ol'".  In fact, it's about time.  And no, I'm not one of those gamers, though I did vote for Ron Paul in the 3rd debate polls at msnbc and cnn. --Serge 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While Paul indeed is raising good questions, I cannot regard the preciding paragraph as remotely non-neutral. If its author directly compared Paul's positions with positions of Gore or Thompson, that could be a valuable contribution. "same 'ol same 'ol" adds no information. Hcberkowitz 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Talk page, not the article.  We're not expected to be unbiased here.  To adhere to WP:NPOV all that matters is whether what we add to the article space is NPOV.  A "warning" about Paul's alleged "fanatical following" on the internet sure does not meet that.  To the contrary, citations from the mainstream media, at least so far, are respectful, and certainly not colored with POV and inappropriate adjectives like "fanatical".  --Serge 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Ron Pauls fanatical following? 

message: {moved from user talk page)
I found the statement on Youtube here.  I'm just not sure which citation a political debate would fit. Hope that's what you were looking for. Hewinsj 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to watch the video of the debate - once was enough - but the quote that was changed ought to be verified and reference added. Youtube is not a good reference, however - perhaps someone can get a written transcript from somewhere. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 15 debate quote change 

message: some one add this.
Ron paul commisioned the destroyer on june 7 
manchurian candidate 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  commisioning of destroyer USS KIDD 

message: How many would be in favor of this?  It seems that many non-registered users have been vandalizing.  Maybe it would be better to only let registered users edit it.  I would expect this to drastically cut down on vandalizing, and it would save a lot of time from doing reverts. --CommonSense101 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting the Ron Paul article 

message: Just from the opening paragraph: 
1) "He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he is a medical doctor who votes against any bill he believes violates the Constitution."
The cited link does not say this. It says he's earned the nickname Dr. No and that _by his own account_ Ron Paul votes on "deeply held principles, not campaign donations"
It does not say what those convictions are, and judging from his voting record and his explanation on why he's opposed to abortion it would seem to be at least as much his religious principles as his constitutionalist principles (which, incidentally, are hardly "strict", as he opposes the right of the supreme court to interprete the constitution!).
Plus, show me one politician who himself would say he votes according to campaign contributions, not deeply held personal principles!
2) "Paul's presidential campaign has gotten considerable attention after his participation in the televised Republican presidential debates."
Where? What constitutes 'considerable'? Why is this sentence even included?
Compare the tone of the article on Ron Paul and his policies with the articles on e.g. Rudy Giuliani. Notice the complete lack of negative or even controversial points in the Ron Paul entry, while the Giuliani entry is fairly balanced. Also notice that what sortof controversial points there are (such as Ron Pauls opposition to abortion and his associated arguments about the right of the supreme court to interprete the intention of the constitition, or is opposition to Net Neutrality) are presented in excusing/explanatory passages. Ron Paul controversies, like the leaked racist newsletters (the remainder of which Ron Paul refuses to make public) are simply not mentioned.
This is not a neutral article; this is an article written by his devoted fans.
The Man On The Street 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.) The cited link in that case is for the use of the nickname "Dr. No"-- if you look under "Later Congressional Career" you'll see a section on what people have said about how he votes.  You are free to put a better citation in the first section if you'd like.  You can just reference the Texas Monthly article, which easily says all those things, for instance, and there are others which also say basically the same thing.  2) Considering Giuliani's entry sentences to his article say that he is "America's Mayor" and knighted by Queen Elizabeth, I don't think it's giving undue weight to say that Ron Paul has gotten "considerable attention"-- he got lots of mainstream media press after the 2nd debate in particular and was in all the debate wrap-ups after that one.  "Considerable" doesn't always equate to "positive".  I saw that a few days ago and actually thought it was a useful addition because it's true.  How is opposition to abortion controversial?  Half the country (maybe more than half) is opposed to it as are most Republican politicians... it's part of the platform since 1980 even.  (Just as being pro-life might be controversial to someone who is pro-choice, being pro-choice might be controversial to someone who is pro-life!)  I don't even see anything about net neutrality in this article.  Those are for "Political positions of Ron Paul."  The newsletters are mentioned-- someone removed them and I put them back after the weekend.  If you think the article is not neutral, you're free to make your point-- but the ones you bring forth do not prove neutrality either way. You're free to help contribute to it if you'd like.  In no way can he be compared to someone like Rudy Giuliani-- Giuliani was the mayor for years in a city with many newspapers.  Ron Paul has not had nearly the amount of media coverage, and, well, Giuliani is a unique case (look at the sheer number of controversies in that article), that's for sure.  Giuliani, if you'll notice, also has one short paragraph on his political views which redirects to a longer article.  There's no mention in Giuliani's article of net neutrality or strict constructionist judges (I believe he has said he would appoint them) because these are not major issues for a biography article when there is also a Political Positions article.  --Gloriamarie 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dispute the neutrality of this article 

message: In this interview, Paul says he would not go back on the gold standard but that he would "legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender." He says this does not mean he would amend the constitution, but that he would legalize it.  What is meant by this? Free gifts 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means that current law that forbids the use of gold and silver as legal tender is unconstitutional (technically, I guess you can't pay for something using gold or silver), and he would work towards legalizing it to be used as legal tender.  --Serge 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm don't know what law you mean, but I think you may have the wrong idea about "legal tender". The fact that something is not legal tender doesn't mean you can't buy something with it, if the seller is willing to accept it. "Legal tender", as I understand it, is what the seller must accept. In other words, I think in the United States you can't advertise a product for 100 Canadian dollars, and refuse to accept American dollars instead, because American dollars are legal tender. But if you're willing to accept Canadian money, that's up to you. --Trovatore 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gold/silver are not legal tender.  So far as I know, the IRS and other fed agencies are not required to accept it as payment for taxes, for example. I suspect this is the law in question.  Apparently, Paul thinks it is unconstitutional.  --Serge 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an interview with Paul where he said that the use of gold or silver coins for trade could be made easier as a parallel system to paper money to bring discipline to the paper money system and give Americans more monetary freedom. He said that if you want to convert your dollars to gold coins, you presently have to pay sales tax on the transaction, and that is a barrier to people using gold coins as money, since the government classifies gold coins as products that are bought and sold instead of treating them as a type of money.  He also said if you buy a gold coin, and the price of gold goes up, and you sell the coin for more dollars than you paid for it, you presently have to pay capital gains tax on the difference, and that also acts as a barrier to people being able to use gold as money if they want to.  He said he favors changing the taw laws in both of those situations so that there would not be a sales or capital gains tax on that transaction.  His thoughts on what an "ideal perfect monetary system" would be were not discussed in that interview, so I cannot shed light on that, but it is apparent that he is willing to support incremental changes in the direction of a gold standard, and is not just be an "all or nothing" type of person. Anharmyenone 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what interview that was by any chance?  It sounds like the information would be good for this article or the Political Positions one.--71.65.202.41 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold standard 

message: Something seems to be wrong with that section of the article, but I am not sure where the problem lies. Can anyone here fix it, since we have been getting OTRS issues about that section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations section 

message: Should Paul be listed as a German-American since the article mentions that he is second generation?  I assume he also has non-German American heritage as well, but it appears that his last name at least has German origins.  I do not know what is necessary to classify someone as being Irish-American, German-American, etc since most caucasians in the U.S. have heritage from multiple European nations. CommonSense101 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor.  I'm not sure what the criteria is.  I know on the Barack Obama talk page, there has been much talk about him being Irish with some people inserting that he is Irish-American and others reverting it.  However, I believe his Irish ancestry goes back further than grandparents... so in this case, I don't see any reason why Paul shouldn't be listed as German-American; having grandparents from Germany is pretty close.--Gloriamarie 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[German-American]] 

message: June 5 GOP Presidential Debate section makes it seem like he was treated unfairly and it makes it seem like he won, and while he might have been treated unfairly, a lot of the references are only talking about opinions and should therefore have the other side. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you go into some more detail or change it to how you'd like it?  All I see is that he got six minutes while many other candidates got 10 (as documented on websites which kept track of the time) and that he won the online MSNBC vote afterwards of 75,000 correspondents.  I think that's pretty NPOV.  Nevertheless, it's probably better suited for the Presidential Campaign page.--Gloriamarie 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all factual and referenced, so I see no issue with neutrality. I feel the neutrality tag should be removed.  I'm calling for a 'official consensus discussion' about removing that tag. User:Pedant 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe the tag should be removed.  I don't see anything in that section that is NPOV.--Gloriamarie 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve I also agree. It's just facts. Virek 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve. Facts and not opinions. --Bombastus 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've seen other wikipedia articles with a "controversy" section, with individual incidents listed within that section.  I think the way the newsletter section exists currently puts too much emphasis on a single incident.  I suggest creating a "controversy" section instead, and making one place where any subsequent incidents may reside. Kylebrotherton 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking about this on another article (John Edwards) and was told that many editors prefer to place controversies within the article in the appropriate sections.  (For instance, a controversy about a law career would go in a "Legal Career" section.)  In this case, that is the only controversy I'm aware of, so a "Controversies" section with only one controversy might not make much sense.  If you look at the John Edwards article, there's no Controversy section that includes the various things such as his personal injury lawsuits, the UC Davis speech, etc. John McCain has a Controversy section just as you describe.  If you look at Rudy Giuliani, though, his article is basically all controversies, and Hillary Clinton has a separate page for hers.  So, it's done differently with many different candidates; I'm willing to see what others say about this.--Gloriamarie 22:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it makes it quicker to find any controversial things that pertain to a cantidate, and it would seem that controversial things are something that a large number of people may have interest in. Tack 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the newsletters currently have their own section anyway, I don't see how that would add to the article or make things easier to find.--Gloriamarie 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constroversy Section 

message: I read the source where Ron Paul supposedly endorses Walter Williams as a Vice President, but NOWHERE in that source does it state that Ron Paul endorsed having a Paul/Williams ticket. Please take down that fact, it is FALSE.
Please sign your comments with four tildes.  You're right, the source didn't confirm the information.  It is possible Ron Paul may have made such a statement, perhaps on New Hampshire NPR, and if someone finds the link to that they can re-add the information.--Gloriamarie 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Williams 

message: I reverted the addition that Paul has an orange tabby cat named Pirate because I couldn't find any citation for it. It would be interesting if true but as of yet, doesn't seem to have been written about.--Gloriamarie 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul's pets 

message: Under internet popularity it mentions that Ron Paul came in 2nd, this may have been correct at the time but he is now currently third after Rudy Giuliani. Also there are now 114,620 votes compared to the "more then "44,297 votes. You must be logged into Facebook to see this, http://apps.facebook.com/elections/. Evil Vin 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the section. Thank you for flagging this.--Daveswagon 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook Poll