Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 7

message: OK, I have decided to give up on selling the obvious benefits of automating the synchronization I have espoused; I will settle for the obviously inferior method of permitting a fork between the positions summary in this article and the positions summary in the positions article. I am doing this on the following proviso: that the vast majority of footnotes in the main article be deleted since it is a summary and the footnotes are repeated in the positions article. Otherwise, the synchronization of the same 40+ footnotes in both articles would be ridiculous busywork. Therefore, when I next condense the summary here, and copy it to the positions article (reviewers rejected the two-sentence lead), besides moving the less notable information to that article, I will also move most footnotes. Though I'm disappointed in the WP audience in this respect, and a dismal response to an RFC on the question at WP:SUMMARY, it is no issue for me to bow for now. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was settled weeks ago. Anyway, I think removing the footnotes is going to be a very bad idea as we won't know what is sourced and what isn't. As this is one of the most heavily edited sections on this page, I believe that major problems will arise from the footnotes removal. There is no need to synchronize the footnotes between the two pages. I think it is best to just leave well enough alone as readers get no benefit from the synchronization or removal of the footnotes. Turtlescrubber (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You nailed one of the problems-- this should not be a heavily edited section, because it's a summary. Anything new should consider going to the sub first; same reason the FNs should go to the sub. Anyone who wants the level of detail provided by the FNs should be in the sub anyway. Also a great bytesaver. If we trim this section and cull its FNs, it will become much less attractive to controversy-- this has, IMHO, already succeeded for the lead, which is very stable nowadays. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, information should go to the sub first. However, I don't think the vast majority of people editing wikipedia understand how it should work. I also agree that the section should be reduced to the most important points. However, leaving the footnotes in is one way to reduce the editing of this section. People who hit and run this section don't seem to have the time to properly source their additions. But if you want to try the reduction with the removal of footnotes I would be okay with that. That is proper summary policy anyway. However, I see alot of reverting (of other editors) in our future. Turtlescrubber (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not synchronizing main and positions articles 

message: Thank you for your posts but the political Liberty Dollar Raid was carried out by the FBI to try to block the Dr. Ron Paul Revolution in the United States of America (USA). Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the strongest candidate for President of the USA according to a recent poll taken by: www.latinoronpaul.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.231.139 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. I see by your edits that you're very interested in these topics, but I believe you will want to learn about how to create neutral info by reading this link: WP:NPOV. Edits that read like advertisements or are copied from other sites are discouraged. They are not acceptable in main articles and only a little useful in talk pages like this talk page. If you have reliable sources showing the connection between the FBI raid and the Ron Paul Revolution (more than a speculative connection), it might be worth adding to Liberty Dollar, or you have a reliable source for that poll (I couldn't find it at your site), it might be worth adding to 2008 straw polls. Please reply on this talk page, or open an account so you can have your own talk page. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul Liberty Dollar Political Raid 

message: 1996 campaign controversy could be a sub-heading under controversies, but there have been a few controversies in Dr. Paul's career, and to lump them all under 1996 is disingenuous.  Thoughts?Ballbright 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have agreed with creating a new section called "Criticisms" which would include both traditional controversies and objections to his positions. It would ideally be about one sentence per issue, including the 1996 newsletter item, where the fuller discussion can be linked in. However, some minor criticisms would be better in the Positions article or in the Legislation section and would not need repeating in a Criticisms section. This talk topic would be an excellent place to start making a trial list prior to creating the section cold: go ahead. (In keeping with section-title neutrality, I have added "?" to your section title.) John J. Bulten 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with USER:John J. Bulten.  I have no time to work on this now, but perhaps tonight a rough beginner list could begin to be produced and discussed?Ballbright 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with the inclusion of a "criticism" or "controversy" section. This would be setting the article back and reduce the overall quality and readability of this article. I have no problem with integrating criticisms and controversies into the text of the article but am adamantly opposed to a "dumping ground" criticism or controversy section. Articles like this, ones that have many concerned editors, have enough hands on deck to integrate any notable controversies or criticisms. Turtlescrubber 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please be advised that I find your statement non-neutral. It insults dirt. John J. Bulten (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't make a blanket assessment like that: the Clinton editors decided her article would be better with controversies mentioned inline (I disagreed in that case); apparently Giuliani editors did the same. I will go with any arising consensus on this issue. My thinking was just that a controversy section would be notable for there being so little controversy in this case. In fact, you could probably even find a reliable source that says that (notably little controversy). See David Durbin's letter to the editor at American Daily. However, whatever we decide, we still need to make that list of controversies.... John J. Bulten (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly recommend against separate controversy sections/articles named as such, both on articles about Republicans and  Democrats - as I've said many times, they quickly become POV-dumping grounds for any real or imagined controversy, large or small.  Integrate notable controversies into the articles, as we did here with the newsletter.  Tvoz |talk 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You may not know, John J., but the established project-wide consensus is very much against a "controversy" or "criticism" section. Be the subject John Edwards or Apple Inc., Tancredo or Microsoft, such sections attract nastiness, partisanship and POV-pushers on all sides. --Orange Mike 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Orangemike on this one. He seems unbiased because he trimmed the link farm but opposes a controversy. Unless all the '08 candidates have a "Controversy" section (because let's face it, all candidates always have some controvery), Ron Paul shouldn't have one. Apartcents (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1996 campaign controversy should be changed to controversies? 

message: :There was no "POV pushing."  I did it to save space because I saw it used that way in another article.  My bad.  Averyisland (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Avery. That works well in dry science texts, but this article has been notable for attracting many sticklers for proper footnotes at great length. Thanks for the tip though! John J. Bulten (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for these insights, which are unusually keen for your third edit. I also disagree with a scrolling footnote box, which I think has been undone. I haven't yet heard the concept "POV because both text footnotes are controversial and no text footnotes are not". Both footnotes were developed by careful consensus, and were placed there as agreeable weighting. The pro-life FN is not embarrassing, and the newsletter FN is not any more embarrassing than what appears in the text. Please feel free to get specific. John J. Bulten (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And y'know I forgot something. That "controversial" abortion footnote was restored to the main text long before you got here. Anything you want to tell us, E.Meany? John J. Bulten (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I really like your passive-aggressive way of calling E.Meany a sock. 199.246.40.54 (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses from real editors to a deleted sockpuppet disruption 

message: I would like to start a headline for Ron Paul references in popular culture (t.v. shows, books, movies) as there will probably be more of them in the coming months.
I'm not quite sure how to add things correctly yet, so I don't want to try and mess up the page.
I want to add: "Ron Paul is mentioned in William H. Cooke's book of short stories North Pole Lost as being elected President in 2012.
How can this be done? --Courtdog (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until and unless substantial mentions in notable venues start appearing, you are jumping the gun. Wikipedia is not a place for an indiscriminate tally of every time Paul is the subject of a joke on Jay Leno, etc. --Orange Mike  | Talk 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this one-off case, it would be much more suitable, based on your link, to add Bill Cooke to the list of endorsements in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Probably a nit here but the 100-yard dash time would make Ron Paul the fastest man in history - the current record for 100 meters (which is approx 91 yards) is 10.74 seconds. Could someone with editing rights please correct this? Thanks!
Sundesh (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 100 yards would be around 91m so that time is possible. The source also confirms the 9.7s figure. 199.246.40.54 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See 100-yard dash for Jim Thorpe's and Eric Liddell's times. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 yard dash time is incorrect? 

message: I don't think it is accurate to call Ron Paul's position "pro-life." The real pro-life goal is to have the federal government force states to ban abortion, or to have federal laws against abortion. Paul is against that just as much as he is against the federal government intervening on the other side. 20.4.187.51 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has described himself as pro-life many times.  Here's one example, second paragraph.  Also, his stance that Roe v Wade should be overturned is a de facto stance that abortion should be banned, as many states would do so in the absence of this federal law.  Photouploaded (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See, JJB, this is why I advocated having those refs in the lede.  Photouploaded (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the IP user's POV is not consistent with the article pro-life, which is a ref in the lede. Actually, this is why editors successfully advocated for semiprotection. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "pro-life" a slur? 

message: I read that Ron Paul was for getting rid of the IRS, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and the Federal Reserve. If this is true, wouldn't it be appropriate to post it under political positions? Brian Pearson (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source it? --Orange Mike  | Talk 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have "would eliminate most federal government agencies" here and mention the Fed specifically. The article Political positions of Ron Paul has been found more suitable for a longer list. There that list currently includes IRS and DHS specifically, says "would severely reduce the role of the CIA" (sounds more accurate to me than "getting rid of"), and has no mention of FBI abolishment. Feel free to source and improve there. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this organizational chart  help? Also, here is a list from the Homeland Security site:  Brian Pearson (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We already sourced the best lists we had. Don't believe he is mentioning the FDA this year; his more nuanced position is here, but he definitely opposes them. If interested, consider editing Political positions of Ron Paul first. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I want to vote but live in Sweden. Many people on the internet talk about Ron Paul. But I'm not allowed to vote in the American elections. Can we make a list of what people are his counterparts in other countries so I can check that list out and see if there is a local guy I can vote for? Tommy 21:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really what Wikipedia talk pages are for - but you may be interested in User:Lordmetroid/Libertarian Party (Sweden). Or not, depending on which aspects of Paul's platform are attractive to you. Haukur 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Frihetsfronten in Sweden and Fridemokratene in Norway. Terjen 22:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are his counterparts in other countries? 

message: I'd recommend toning down the language in the article lead.  Right now it sounds more like a campaign platform than a biographical summary. The first paragraph is okay, but after that it gets into what he "favors" and "advocates" and has some very speculative information that is leaning towards original research about his search engine placement. I'd recommend reducing the lead to a summary of the article as a whole, meaning Paul's entire life and actual notable accomplishments, without giving undue weight to the current campaign issues and poll standing. --Elonka 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The good news is that in a few weeks, search placements, straw polls, fundraising and all that can be replaced by hard numbers about caucus and primary results and placements.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I am in an edit war with User:Elonka at Moneybomb. I would appreciate it if regular editors of Ron Paul, assuming they recognize that Elonka's view above or her other edit to this page have not been the consensus here for months, would comment at WP:COIN#Moneybomb about her related views in editing Moneybomb, as well as her decision to start editing Ron Paul out of the blue for no other apparent reason than that I was editing it. John J. Bulten 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reviewed the talkpage archives, and have not seen this consensus.  If I missed it, I do apologize.  Could you please provide a link to the specific discussion(s)?  --Elonka 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be late with this, I was sick. Aside from the several inline consensus comments already mentioned, here I achieve consensus with Photouploaded about the abortion language, perhaps the most controversial lead sentence; here several editors affirm (or decline to challenge) the importance of the stability of the then-current lead (though I presented this section poorly); and here I describe that consensus at that point for future reference (without challenge except for new edits from Vidor, with whom I obtained a separate consensus over a nonlead issue). I did mention a standing expressed discomfort of Gloriamarie's for Photouploaded's wording, but Gloriamarie has not commented lately. Those are good examples of how consensus is built by neutral discussion of all potential POVs. Now that there is a different group of editors with a stated disagreement, we must use consensus-building procedures again. So far (aside from the unprotection episode) I have not objected seriously to the editing of the lead, but if a specific textual disagreement should arise (you have not stated any) we will need to discuss here. (Oh, by the way, everything in the lead is thoroughly reliably sourced according to consensus, as you can tell when you find the expanded statements in the article. We also agreed to include only the most necessary footnotes in the lead.) John J. Bulten (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul places in the top tier in Republican straw polls, but has substantially lower numbers in landline opinion polls. He has strong Internet support and had the largest one-day online fundraiser in political history.[4] Ron Paul is the top presidential candidate Web search term as measured by Hitwise, Alexa Internet, and Technorati; he has several times more YouTube subscribers than any other presidential candidate.
is a true classic of WP:Undue weight.  It presents five metrics by which Paul appears to be the leader or a frontrunner for the nomination and only one metric by which Paul appears to be a second tier trailer with no hope of winning the nomination, and even that is spun with the 'landline' modifier.  I pointed this out several times when the article was up for FAC.  If there is a "consensus" in favor of the current lead section, it's only because editors have given up trying to argue the issue, a common reaction when dealing with Paulites.  But again, the good news is that ultimately Paul's campaign can be measured by cold hard results:  he finished nth in the Iowa caucus with x% of the support, he finished mth in the New Hampshire primary with y% of the vote, he gained z% of the total vote across the February 5 primaries, he has p total delegates so far, and so on.  Wasted Time R 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka raises a good point that I have also made on the articles of several politicians, and possibly here (who remembers) - that these are biographies of notable individuals who happen to be running for President - not biographies of Presidential candidates.  The article, and therefore the lede, should reflect the individual's entire life and career, and not be unduly focused on this campaign.  And Wasted's observation about what can appear to be consensus but is more indicative of exhaustion is quite apt - and not only here.  (And I have never read Moneybomb - don't even know what it is.) Tvoz |talk 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a lot to respond to, which I'll need to do more effectively later, and I don't mind that there's a different group of editors here than before. But please propose any revised text in talk rather than in the main article. For now, let me point out that Internet, fundraising, and straw-poll metrics will still be significant after we can add primary and delegate metrics. But do you have any other metrics that Paul is "second-tier" in? Further, both straw polls and landline polls (40% of US phones are cells) have many admitted flaws, and they have different importance. However, if you have reliable sources demonstrating the "false equivalence", they would be great for the general straw poll and opinion poll articles, which are also on my watchlist. John J. Bulten 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, the job of political candidates is to gain votes and win elections.  That's what the lead needs to report.  The other metrics will still be of some secondary importance, in that they indicate the level of supporter enthusiasm and commitment that a candidate had during a campaign, and should indeed go into the body of the article ... but electoral results are the bottom line and need to go at the top.  I can just see your lead a few weeks from now — "... but had substantially lower numbers in a specific-date, fixed-locations electronic and paper preference indication process."  Wasted Time R 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have great respect for you, Wasted, but in this campaign Ron Paul has already won more than twenty "specific-date, fixed-locations electronic and paper preference indication process"es. They're called straw polls. Now about those "second-tier" metrics? How about ticket-line length for the Tonight Show (longest in years)? But you've given me an idea: Move some content to the notable Ron Paul Revolution. We'll see. John J. Bulten 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like we have a consensus to change the lead. Would someone like to go ahead and edit it to whatever you think is reasonable, and then we can go from there? Or if other editors want, I'm willing to take a shot at it. --Elonka 03:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be too subtle, but per WP:CON what you have is a 4-1 "disagreement", not consensus, disagreement "resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon"-- just as I suggested. We also have disagreement on how to proceed-- whether by direct editing or by talk. These disagreements were also initiated and solicited by an editor who I believe is edit warring against me, who followed me to this article, and whose interest in the lead is therefore open to question. Before I search the archives and edit history for what I know is there, I would direct each of you to the demonstrable consensus expressed by several inline comments in the lead and elsewhere which indicate that users should not edit the lead lightly. Please propose here. John J. Bulten 10:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, due to the history of this article with which Wasted and Tvoz are familiar, I've initiated RCU about User:Newsroom hierarchies. If the user is truly new to Wikipedia, there is nothing to fear and welcome. If not, it might suddenly be down to 3-1. John J. Bulten 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  John, I've seen you add a lot of good information to Wikipedia, but in this case, I'm sorry, it appears that you have a clear Conflict of Interest as regards Ron Paul (see WP:COIN#Moneybomb).  As such, it's really not appropriate for you to be declaring whether or not there's consensus.  It is also not appropriate for you to be insisting on "right of approval" for article edits.  Based on your contribs John J. Bulten (talk · contribs), I also have to admit increasing concern about your tactics here: Editing other people's posts to change their meaning, making accusations of sockpuppetry, attempting to get WP:V changed to suit your needs, issuing personal attacks on other editors, expanding this dispute to off-wiki websites, and now you're disregarding the consensus of other editors in a tendentious manner.  It is my recommendation that you cease work on anything related to Ron Paul or election-related topics on Wikipedia.  On the flip side, I do think that you are a very good writer, and you clearly have a lot of energy and interest in researching various sources.  I'd like to see you remain as an editor on Wikipedia.  But please, could you find other topics to work on, where you're not quite so invested with the subject? --Elonka 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I posted a COI warning to his talk page.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add that many of the mentioned straw polls I've seen are somewhat small, subject to error, and not representative of the population. These should also not be mentioned in the article. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The straw polls are definitely notable and apparently given coverage in NPOV sources like major media. Please keep in mind that elections are determined through voting by self-selected individuals, not by representative polling of the population at large. Terjen (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: At the risk of repeating myself, this discussion is hopeless, you'll never convince some people that straw polls aren't the best thing since straw itself, but the good news is that in a few short weeks we can throw the straw out of the barn and the landlines out of the house, and just report actual caucus and primary election results, good bad or indifferent.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is too promotional 

message: "Military service and medical career
Paul considered becoming a Lutheran minister like two of his brothers[12] (Jerrold has a doctorate in counseling and attended Princeton Seminary; David pastors Trinity Lutheran Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan).[8][13] Instead he decided to pursue a medical doctorate at Duke University School of Medicine, attaining it in 1961. He interned and began residency training, both in internal medicine, at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit (1961–1962);[25] Carol also ran a dance school in their basement.[9]
The training was soon interrupted when he was drafted into the U.S. Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[26] He remained in the military during the early years of the Vietnam War.[27] He served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam. Based out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Paul achieved the rank of captain[10][28] and obtained his private pilot's license.[15] The experience of performing physicals on helicopter pilot candidates, at a time when he saw many copters being shot down, deeply affected Paul; he later considered his indirect association with the Vietnam War as a catalyst for his rejection of isolationist foreign policies and political intervention.[29]"
In specific regards to his "rejection of isolationism". If you look at the source given it states "As the years have gone by, I have become much more fascinated with foreign policy as a result of that experience and it has played a role in leading me to totally reject our insane foreign policy which causes us to get involved in places like Vietnam." Mr. Paul is an isolationist. He states his opinions about interfering in other wars in an interview on youtube by James Kotecki on <http://youtube.com/watch?v=umGpLGbWs9U>. If someone would please fix this it would be appreciated.
Zjwong01 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made the case that Paul is an Isolationist. Terjen (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in information 

message: I like Ron Paul and everything, but the information under "Family" seems irrelevant and inappropriate for Wikipedia (wife's chocolate chip cookies, his telephone calls to her, etc)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.11.159 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is irrelevant for the article, but my main concern is how far up it is in the article. This information is not pertinent to the main areas of his public life. User:Noggaholic 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the other hand, it doesn't really violate WP:BLP, although I agree that family needs to be constrained to basic facts such as names of children and grandchildren, spouse, what she does, and marriage(s) information, and any relevant news that has affected the candidate's family life (i.e. divorces, domestic violence, marrying a cousin, etc.) I think the family section is useful, but BLP has really limited the negative information used, which ends up giving undue weight to seemingly innocuous yet potentially biased information. Calwatch 07:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, many previous editors, including FA reviewers, thought there had not been enough biographical info. This article is not about "his public life" alone (which hasn't yet merited a separate article other than Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul), nor about "his viability as a candidate" (see Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008). This is a biography and his private life ought to be weighted as fully as reliable sourcing and BLP permit; I have not seen consensus anywhere that anyone's family should be constrained to names and categories and dates. It is also properly placed in the article; where else would it go? Naturally a successful, vibrant 50-year marriage is an exceptional claim, fully sourced of course. No hard feelings, but I will probably revert much of this later under bold, revert, discuss, looking forward to an interesting discussion; I also have another source for additional of this. If, of course, you have any reliably sourced negative information, please state it neutrally here. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  family 

message: Please replace Alex Jones with Alex Jones in the article.  It is locked or something.  Swarm Internationale (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, my friend, done.  Swarm Internationale (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please replace 

message: (paraphrasing)Paul believes in constitutional rights.... his concerns about civil liberties leads him to oppose laws restricting them, such as the Patriot Act, etc.  ..... He believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level"
I realize this is a sensitive issue, but the way it is worded here is a political frame designed to confuse the issue by selectively leading out certain relevant facts (e.g. implication that "regulation of medical decisions" is obviously not in contradiction of "constitutional rights" or "civil liberties concerns").  Whether or not it is the case that government's right trump individual rights in one area but not in the next is a complicated issue - especially when there is a dispute over whether or not the individual's right in question is indeed constitutionally protected, or whether it is being weighed against another individual's right.  Ron Paul obviously has a position on this, and it should be stated; but not in such a way that the issue is glossed over or that presents his opinion as a non-opinion while ignoring the controversy entirely.
Something should probably be mentioned about Paul's apparent disregard for constitutional limitations on some government establishments of religion as well.  His position that the equal protection clause does not extend the bill of rights' protections of individual freedoms to states - such as the |prohibition on government establishment of religion - is a minority opinion and is in direct opposition to decades of Supreme Court precedent and reasoning.  Lauding him as someone who believes all constitutional rights are to be protected while ignoring certain cases where he believes the contrary is POV and is not appropriate.
Ofus (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps your exposition, Easter eggs included, is just too subtle or rarefied for me. The given phrases we used, particularly the last, are the result of careful consensus. Please provide the source for Paul's alleged ignorance of Constitutional rights or other allegedly problematic positions. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions POV problem 

message: I figured his latest official picture from his Congressional office was the most appropriate. Help with the copyright would be most appreciated :)
Jackman333 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On his campaign website, www.ronpaul2008.com, it states that anyone may syndicate that photo as long as it is not edited.72.213.128.243 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good enough to be included in WP as free content -- free content must be modifiable. The picture could possibly be used under a fair use claim if no equivalent free image is available, but in that case the permission statement on the website is (as I understand it) irrelevant -- we might do the same thing, under the same circumstances, with a fully-copyrighted, unlicensed, all-rights-reserved image. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Paul's picture 

message: Many media networks have been censoring Ron Paul's progress in this current election. Can someone write NON-BIASED section on this in the article, stating that this is part of the reason that he has failed to receive broader attention?
I'm sure there are many sources on this, for instance, even though it is almost heresy to wikipedia to cite youtube as a source, go to www.youtube.com and search Ron Paul censored.
Thanks!72.213.128.243 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube is not a reliable source; that's just common sense. If you have any actual reliable sources that make such a claim (not freep or other bloggers), please present them; I'm skeptical, but willing to be persuaded. Otherwise, you come across as part of the tinfoil-hat brigade. --Orange Mike  | Talk 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd have a hard time proving that the media conspire to keep second-tier candidates in their places, given the huge burst of media attention that Mike Huckabee is now getting.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the conspiracy theory, I suppose, would be that the media are promoting Huckabee as a nominatable-but-unelectable Republican, hoping to sew up the election for the eventual Democratic nominee in the Republican primaries. The kind of thing Garry South pulled with Bill Simon (fat lot of good it did Gray Davis, in the long run). It's not actually absurd on its face. I agree you'd have a hard time proving it though. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absurd on the face of it, because first Huckabee started rising in the polls, then the media started paying attention to him.  Before that, Huckabee was relegated to Brownback-Hunter-Tancredo levels of media obscurity, well below Paul.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the theory assumes that they need him to be nominatable, so the polls would have an effect on that, sure. --Trovatore (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you convinced me.  The all-powerful MSM conspire to elect Democrats as president.  That explains why 5 of the last 7 presidents have been Democrats.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The theory would also have to explain why the media has switched from promoting nominatable-but-unelectable Democrats, for the benefit of the Republicans (Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, etc.) to doing the reverse for the benefit of the Dems. --Orange Mike  | Talk 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I don't think there's especially a "conspiracy" to ignore Ron Paul. I just don't think the Huckabee thing refutes it, not by itself. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Media is not censoring anyone by deciding what they want to report. Censoring is the event of denying someone to speak his mind by the means of threats and coercion hence why the government is usually the culprit. If you have a magazine you wouldn't want everything to be published, you wouldn't have any obligation to anyone to publish anything in your magazine just because you happen to own a magazine brand. Bias it may be but that is anyone's right as part of property rights to decide how and not one want to run ones business. It is not censoring though because no one is stopping the person by threats or coercion from speaking his mind in another way, possibly through other magazines or his own. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at all that from a French perspective is pretty funny I must say. The whole panel of arguments have been used during the French presidential election this year : one candidate claimed journalists ignored him and were obbeying orders of very bad powerful people that hated him. Others claimed someone had helped a candidate being designated for the election so that he be sure to win. Even if I pretty much support Ron Paul ideas, the whole idea of a conspiracy makes me lauch :) --Bombastus (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring Ron Paul 

message: ===Personal articles separate from political biography===
I think all pages on Wikipedia named as a person must be simply biographies of persons. All other information such as political career need to be placed on separate pages, such as 'Politics of Ron Paul´. Thank you! Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  Being a politician is a large part of who he is.  Do you want to go to Albert Einstein's page and seperate out "science of Albert Einstein" or perhaps "basketball playing of Michael Jordan"?SJMNY (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General style and structure 

message: I think all pages on Wikipedia named as a person must be simply biographies of persons. All other information such as political career need to be placed on separate pages, such as 'Politics of Ron Paul´. Thank you! Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  Being a politician is a large part of who he is.  Do you want to go to Albert Einstein's page and seperate out "science of Albert Einstein" or perhaps "basketball playing of Michael Jordan"?SJMNY (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal articles separate from political biography

message: Libertarians like Dr. Paul believe that people have rights and states have powers. As a constitutionalist he believes that the state and federal governments have distinct and clearly defined powers. This article attributes a belief in "states' rights" to him, but has he ever used that term? If not I believe it seriously misrepresents his views. Nicmart (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend, remember to do a quick search next time. "site:www.house.gov/paul "states' rights"" at ronpoogle.com turns up 9 times he has advocated states' rights in his Congressional papers alone. However, I will grant that his denial of collectivist rights in other cases, and the question of whether "states' rights" is a metonymy for "states' powers", might warrant a little discussion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "States' rights" 

message: FYI, I've been spending a good portion of today deleting Ron Paul advertising that's been showing up around Wikipedia.  The ads are probably being placed because his supporters are trying to draw attention to an upcoming fundraiser.  Some of the ads are being added in sneaky ways, for example they're putting ads into an article, by putting edit summaries like "punctuation tweak".  They're also expanding the ads to non-Paul-related articles, such as "List of rebellions." If you see more, I recommend both reverting on sight, and also checking the editor's contribs, to see if they've been engaging in similar activities on other articles. On heavily-targeted articles, we also may wish to request page protection. --Elonka 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul advertising 

message: Opensecrets.org is listed twice in the external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.143.23 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 20 December 2007 
:Well, they are to different pages at opensecrets.org, though. I don't know that both are needed but I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove the link for you. If you do feel strongly about it, why not register an account? --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT PROTECTED 

message: A fox news debate stated that Ron Paul was Protestant, not Baptist like the article says.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.92.179 (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baptists are Protestants. ~ 199.17.28.56 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in agreement that Fox News isn't as reliable as the next media conglomerate. I have found that the arrival of Fox has changed the dynamic of the news media (as did the Internet and Drudge). Outspoken advocates seem to continue to promote the myth that Fox has a monopoly on the misalignment of truth - perhaps due to changing political positions, discomfort to change, or other reason. Fox is no different than the other larger organizations (or individuals). I'm not promoting Fox over the others, I'm just trying to add perspective by reminding others how the world operated under the common rubric of network news (ABC, NBC, CBS) for most of the 20th century. Being conditioned since childhood, it's difficult for any one to change; even old guys like me :-) (Oxfordden (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who on Earth told you that? I was raised Southern Baptist, and nobody I ever talked to said anything of the sort! --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Baptist#Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perpetuity theory was not unheard of among Baptists where I grew up (although no such high-falutin' terminology was used); but the more serious preachers I encountered all dismissed it as a pious little fairy tale based on wishful thinking. That still didn't cause any of those I encountered who believed in it to describe Baptists as "not Protestant"! From their/our point of view, that would be tantamount to declaring oneself a Catholic. --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have several choices among reliable sources for which one-word gloss to use. I think Baptist is best as I believe it most accurately reflects what church he attends regularly. (No I haven't sourced that.) John J. Bulten (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Ron Paul broke the record for most single-day donations during a primary (old holder was John Kerry), as well most online donations in a 24 hour period. This should be noted in the article. ~ 199.17.28.56 (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a record of this magnitude deserves to be mentioned here. It should most likey have it's own article as well. Byates5637 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article already. But the idea that it should have it's own article[!] just reveals a strong lack of sense of proportion and a possible NPOV problem! --Orange Mike  | Talk 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a die-hard Paul supporter myself, I concur entirely. Fractalchez (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I'm a Paul backer as well, but a separate article would be unnecessary and over the top.--JayJasper (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we get the AMOUNT of the one day donation drive corrected.  It was 6.026 million; not the 6.4 million in the article.  This is from the campaign website. 24.68.242.107 (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which figure is from a reliable third-party source, rather than the campaign itself? That's the one we have to use as a reliable source, I'm thinking. --Orange Mike  | Talk 14:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most reliable source is the campaign right now. We won't get solid figures from any independent source until the end of this fundraising quarter.  (87.127.104.65 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we don't have an impartial source, we cannot include the information. Verifiability trumps bragging rights. --Orange Mike  | Talk 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Orangemike is correct.  I'm concerned that there seems to be a misconception from some editors here, that in the absence of a reliable source, that we might be able to use the "best available" source.  But sorry, no, that's not how it works.  On Wikipedia, in the case of promotional or contentious information, we have to use a reliable source.  If such a source is not available, the information does not go into the article.  It's one of the core policies of Wikipedia. See WP:V. --Elonka 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although not independent, the campaign has been reliable thus far. Furthermore, not including such a big event over overzealous enforcement of wikipedia guidelines is a bit stupid IMO. Include it, just mention that it won't be independently confirmed until the end of December. (87.127.104.65 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The IHT reports it was bigger than the previous one-day record, which was held by John Kerry (a Democrat) in the 2004 cycle.  I think we consider the IHT a reputable source? --Golbez (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mostly concerned that people were posting things that the sources failed to confirm. But lest my Internet skillz be called into question, let it be known that I did find a NYT story that answered my question about 30 seconds after I posted that.  (Next time, I'll) Google first, Wikipedia second...  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The record has been broken. --Both Hilary's (unofficial) and Kerry's official. However we will not know the actual amount until the end of the 4Q (Dec. 31). But we know that 6 million is in "confirmed credit cards" and .4-.6 million is in sales from the merchandise and mail in donations.--Duchamps comb (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New record 

message: Other biographical articles like Henry Morgentaler (MD and LLD) and Richard Dawkins (FRS) contain titles in the opening sentence. Where is the Wikipedia policy against this?
--RucasHost (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear here. FRS is permitted as a nobility title. MD and LLD should be demoted in the other article. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the style guide is indeed clear on that, thought i find it a silly rule, anyone care to join me in discussing it there?SJMNY (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't M.D. be in the opening sentence? 

message: Must the straw poll numbers be included?  They aren't even remotely close to being scientific.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.124.3 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that, and I know that, but the Paulites go bonkers on this subject ... it's not worth arguing, in a few days we'll have real results.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: straw poll numbers get cited by the national media so even if they aren't scientific they are worthy of mention.  in the lead though? i'm not sure they need to be there in an article about the man's life (and not solely about his 2008 campaign.) SJMNY (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. It's off the page since it was duplicated on the campaign page anyway. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling Numbers 

message: This section is much too large and almost entirely duplicated in various other articles. I took a glance at the other candidates' individual pages and their campaign sections have all been truncated down to three or four paragraphs. Considering the current length of this article as it is, compression is necessary. - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversized 2008 Presidential Campaign section 

message: I've just finished going through the entire article and I must say there is a worrisome lack of criticism of Mr. Paul. A number of his political stances are very controversial and yet none of the criticism aimed at him appears in this article, particularly in comparison to the articles about his fellow candidates and congressmen. I'm very pleased to see how well-sourced his various stances are and compliments to many of the editors for giving the article a great flow. You clearly love your candidate and I think a splendid article has been composed. Yet, in the interest of preserving NPOV and producing a comprehensive article, I suggest we work on organizing a criticism section. I'm currently looking into some reliable sources. Thoughts or recommendations on some of the most contentious stances worth addressing? - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should know that "Criticism" sections, like "Controversies" sections, are poorly thought of for biographical articles; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections#Status of "controversies" pages.  The fact that his political stances are "very controversial" is unremarkable; that's the whole point of politics, to process competing philosophies and interests.  The place to discuss the overall philosphy and arguments for and against is Libertarianism and its related articles, Conservatism in the United States and its related articles, etc.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with WT.  Controversies over a person's actions (say some who allegedly lied about military service) belong their page, but disagreements with their political beliefs, even if those beliefs are "fringe" beliefs, belong on the page about those beliefs.  we shouldn't have a page that says "hillary clinton believes in government-run healthcare" and then launch into a diatribe against inefficient big government.  likewise criticism of Paul's beliefs (abolishing the IRS for example) belong on another page.  SJMNY (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing me to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections#Status of "controversies" pages. I clearly misunderstood some things. However, I think I'm still confused. So if Hillary Clinton takes a controversial position or votes in congress in a controversial way, that should be dealt with on what page? - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton describes many of her votes, and in some cases, brief reasons for her vote, such as why she voted against confirmation of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.  In some cases, her votes or her overall positions are further described in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Major issues and votes will often have their own articles describing the pro's and con's associated with them, such as Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  But if you are looking for a place  where we say, half of America thought Clinton was wrong for voting against Alito because he would make a fine strict constructionist judge and his and not her judicial philosophy is in conformance with the Constitution, no we don't have that; it would be redundant and pointless and double the size of everything.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very interesting and seems intuitively like a real departure from WP:Criticism (citing Igor Stravinsky#Criticism). I don't particularly oppose that guideline, although, I'm still concerned over the uniformity. Consider Mitt Romney's political positions section with Paul's. There seems to be a gap in the criticism Romney receives in that section and the lack of criticism in Paul's. That seems troubling if such criticism really ought to be excluded from his individual page. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Political positions sections and subarticles are the place to describe evolutions or contradictions in political figures' positions over time.  Romney has had a lot of these, whereas Paul has probably been much more consistent, thus accounting for the difference you see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And do you really think that, when we list political figure X's position on abortion or global warming or the Iraq War on their political positions page, that we should digress into an extended description of the reasons for or against that position?  Ugh.  It would go on forever, end up in edit battles, generate heat without light.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrrrm, yes, you're right, I see that now. I'm still not sure I find Romney's treatment balanced, but that's a debate to take up on that article's talk page anyway. Thanks for setting me straight. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Re: "He ran the 100-yard dash in 9.7 seconds".
Wow, that's a truly amazing time. A world record by some distance, in fact. (The world record for 100m is 9.74 seconds, and 100 yards is a significantly longer distance.)--82.6.32.109 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my mistake. 100 metres is longer than a 100 yards after all. Stupid imperial measurements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.32.109 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: From 1933 (when the legendary Jesse Owens did it) through 1954  through at least 1961 , the U.S. high school national record for the 100 yard dash was 9.4 seconds.  The source says Paul was Pennsylvania state champion at 220 yards, so obviously he was top high school runner.  Was he so good that he came within 0.3 seconds of the national H.S. record?  It's certainly possible.  The other thing to remember is that these races were all hand-timed back then, with a good deal of honest human error involved once you're into the tenths of seconds.  So maybe his real time wasn't quite that good, but that's what it got recorded as.  In any case, I don't see grounds to take it out of the article, unless further research comes up with a more definitive source.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, here is a Gettysburg College page that shows Ron Paul ran a 100 yard dash in 9.9 seconds in 1957 for them, their third-fastest result ever at the time.  He's also listed for a 21.64 time in the 200 meter run in 1957, still their T-5 best time ever today in that event.  I don't see any reason to doubt his sprinter bona fides.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Wasted, I did my best to respect your hard work by moving content to 100 m, 100-yard dash, and 200 m. It seemed just a hair too many sentences on this topic for this article. His time is not controversial and the additional sourcing here and in the linked articles is sufficient to address ordinary confusion. IMHO, extraordinary confusion does not need extraordinary controversy resolution procedures, it just needs people to be referred (repeatedly) to the talk discussions. John J. Bulten (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of your edits to the track articles are misguided, but I'll let the athletics editors sort that out.  I restored one point to this article, the comparison to the national high school record for the 100 yard dash at the time.  This kind of comparison is commonly done with junior athletes and high school sports to indicate how good someone really is, and has nothing to do with whether someone was questioning the 9.7 time or not.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 yard Dash 

message: I think having an entire section of the Boston Tea Party reenactment is rather unnecessary in relationship to his campaign. I'm sensing WP:WEIGHT issues. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tea Party gets more coverage in the main article than it does in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article; that's an inversion of how it should be.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Now we also have separate sections on the Ron Paul Blimp and the Ron Paul Revolution (he hired Prince's band?).  The latter sets a new mark for the worst-written Paulite propaganda yet.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: imo the campaign page, not the biography page, is the right place for campaign stunts like the reenactmentSJMNY (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the BTP & Ron Paul Blimp events to the campaign page as suggested. I additionally truncated the '08 presidential campaign section with the exception of the Ron Paul Revolution section, acquiescing to a protest due to that page's potential future deletion. Ultimately, it also might be best moved to the campaign page. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You truncated about 20K. I trust you verified that everything notable appeared in the subarticle, my friend? When the 4 or 5 Paul deletion arguments run their course, I think major cleanup of the campaign article, and/or ensuring the campaign section here meets proper summary style, will be indicated and may require consulting the text you truncated. John J. Bulten (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTP 

message: Thanks for uploading :Image:Ronpaulsignature.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image source problem with Image:Ronpaulsignature.png 

message: Regarding this section:
:The Ron Paul Revolution (also known as the Ron Paul: R[evol]ution, R-love-ution, and R-evol-ution) is a term coined to represent the grass roots supporters of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul. When Dr. Paul delivers a speech, the audience members are often seen wearing "RON PAUL REVOLUTION" t-shirts.[111] "Paulites tend to be tech-savvy, tired of traditional politics and suspicious of their government and the mainstream media. Consisting of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Constitution Party followers uniting behind some or all of the Paul libertarian agenda -- ending the war in Iraq, abolishing gun control laws, legalizing marijuana and dismantling big hunks of the U.S. government, especially the IRS and Federal Reserve system."[112] His supporters, comprising of over 100,000 friends on MySpace.com and over 82,000 supporters on Meetup.com, have collectively have planned or held nearly 21,000 offline events to rally support (and raise money) for their candidate.[113] When asked about the "Revolution" Ron Paul answered, "It’s an ideological revolution," that he opposed violence and esteemed the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi that civil disobedience should be used to bring about social change. On December 16th, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul supporters made history by raising 6 million dollars in a 24 hour period- more money than any candidate has raised in a single day in U.S. political history.
I think this can be dealt with in the article without requiring its own subsection, but I was reverted when I tried to delete it.  Personally, I feel that it is poorly written, uses quotes in odd ways (is the quote about MLK and Gandhi necessary? this would seem to imply that some people feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a putsch of some sort, which I don't think is the case), and repeats information that appears elsewhere (Ron Paul has MySpace friends). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you AGAIN. I feel you have a hard time dealing with this (as you tagged my page Ron Paul Revolution page for deletion), now this section. Also I guess it is hard to deal with since almost all of it is a direct quote from mainstream media... And YES some of the media (Glenn Beck) have brought up issues with the "Revolution" being violent or domestic terrorists, so it is perfect valid to have Dr. Paul’s response to such allegations. Please do not delete again with out others views, as yours are all to apparent.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the section to RP 2008, took out the redundancy about myspace and meetup. Put in social networking, which I think is a better fit.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of the Ron Paul interview with Glenn Beck.
BECK: OK. Dr. Paul, I`m going to take a break. And in the break, I`m going to feed something down to your location that I`m not going to show on the air. My life has been threatened. I`ve had to wear a vest and have securities. I`ve had an S.W.A.T. team watch my family because of people who say they support you. I want to show you something that is out on the Internet about me and from people that say they support you. And I want to get your thoughts on this, and let`s set to rest some things when we come back. Shall we? 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: We`re back with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who is joining us tonight for a full hour. I want to make this very clear. I believe that Ron Paul, in general, the group of supporters, some of whom I`ve met while I was on the road, are amazing people. Without any help from the official campaign, Ron Paul supporters have coined the term "The Ron Paul Revolution." They developed the concept for the Guy Fawkes Day money bomb back on November 5th which raised over $4 million. They hired a blimp to fly over New Hampshire to promote the Ron Paul campaign. Last Sunday, they held a tea party, where they broke John Kerry`s single day primary fundraising record by collecting another $6 million. But the downside is, when you have rabid supporters, some of them believe they can speak to their own agendas using the candidate`s name. And I just in the break showed Dr. Paul just a clip, a very small part of a five- minute video that is on the Internet where I am named a traitor and traitors should be executed. Can you -- would you like to address that at all, sir? 
---So YES, Newsroom hierarchies I'd say that my quotes about the Revolution being violen are valid. And yes You feel you can just do anything with section You want. With out coming to a Consensus, so STOP... Untill others voice their thoughts.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A discussion of this text is ongoing over here. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  grass roots support section 

message: I challenge anyone here to find a Psalm in the Bible as worshipful of God as this entry is of Ron Paul.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosiah (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude...anything on the internet that's not Ron Paul biased?  Not likely  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't biased towards liberalism, conservatives are simply wrong. Whent eh global warming page says global warming is real, it's not being biased, that's jsut the fucking fact  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.149.9 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is completely worshipful, horribly biased pap. I'm only in favour of it because anything that helps Ron Paul win the nomination for the Republicans is good for America - by giving the Democrats a pro-militias John Bircher to run against. If they can't beat one of those, they don't deserve to be a US politcal party. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't kid yourself, Glory; that's what some of us thought in 1980. --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is locked.  Only certain people are allowed to edit it.  This further confirms the bias of the article and the bias of Wikipaedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.34.244 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nonsense. The article has been heavily vandalized; semi-protection just means that we know which editor makes changes. No bias is involved. --Orange Mike  | Talk 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: since we're getting technical, please note that congress has been granted the power to divy up funds; congress and the government in general does not have rights. Anastrophe (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So much for neutral point of view? 

message: Okay so since he came in 5th... does that mean he doesn't get to move on or does it mean he's just not as popular in that state and better luck in the next... Forgive my ignorance, i'm kinda new to this who politics thing >_<  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.135.188 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It means he better hope for a good run in New Hampshire. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The RP articles should stay clear of whether his 10%, 5 out of 7 finish in Iowa is good or bad ... that's up to the pundits and spinners.  The average such politico would probably say he did better in Iowa than you might expect, given the makeup of the Iowa Republicans, but given all the money he has, needs to do better than this in New Hampshire, home of the Free State Project.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winners of caucus 

message: Anyone got a source for the "opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty" bit in the political positions section?  i'm putting a cite needed tag on it, as that seems to be a pretty big position to list without a source.
Grandmartin11 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: This article is just way too long for the subject. Ron Paul is still a relative fringe candidate, with minimal chances of winning the Republican nomination, and was only truly relevant on such a scale recently. This page reeks of recentism, among other things. I'm going to go through the article and try and remove as much useless information as I can, in order to trim down the article to a size more appropriate for the subject. Yes, I know a lot of the Ron Paul fanboys will be offended by this, but ultimately that's the problem in the first place. 24.83.107.213 (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your statement.  Article length should not be determined by relative importance of the article's subject. Less popular candidates should not be held to a different standard in the length of their articles than other candidates.  Especially since this article is well written and researched, extraordinarily well sourced, organized, etc...obviously because there are many people who care about providing this information.  Please refrain from removing information in an effort to "downsize" the article so it is "proportionate with the candidate's importance" unless a consensus can be established first. --smileyborg (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with the article's length.  Even though Paul's chances of winning the nomination are extremely slim, he's become more than a fringe candidate.  He clearly has represented and energized a segment of the electorate, somewhat similar to what primary campaigns of George Wallace, Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and others have done in the past.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you mind telling us under what username you intend to edit this semiprotected article, so we can connect the two and amicably discuss changes toward consensus? Thanks. BTW I am on the verge of a major compression of the Campaign and Legislation sections, as I've adverted here before. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I forgot to login before writing that comment. I apologize for arrogantly declaring I would drastically change the article without first achieving some kind of consensus here. Also, I intend to add a brief sentence or two about Don Black (of stormfront.org infamy) and his donations to Ron Paul. I think being supported by the white nationalist/neo-nazi community bears some relevance.CloutierFan02 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul's chance of winning the election or even a nomination may be incredibly low, but I don't understand why a person's Wikipedia article length should be proportional to that person's probability of winning an election. If this was true, then logically, we should delete the Wikipedia article on Issac Newton because he has zero probability of winning a government election. --Armaetin (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I'm noticing that someone is going about deleting past comments that are substantiative and noteworthy for whatever reason. Unless there is something outright unethical, NOTHING should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.124.3 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Editing 

message: I've heard something about David Duke supporting Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican nomination.  That would be pretty significant, along with other support from white supremacists, and refusal to vote for the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if someone wants to find and source... 72.66.248.17 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke 

message: This seems to be spin by the Paul Campaign.  The actual article seems to have been titled "50 Ways To Do the Job of Congress" as quoted from Paul's own press releases .  The article was complimentary to Paul for his "effective advocacy of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and his consistent application of that standard through his votes on the House floor".  Being an "effective advocacy" is not the same as being an "effective member of Congress".  In the end, there is no connection to the original publication from CQ, and the reference is to a Ron Paul campaign site.  I would either delete the statement as poorly sourced or find someone to hike to their nearest library and read the actual statement .  I am looking into it at my local library (the Boston Public Library), but unless I can get there copy moved to my local branch, I won't be able to look it up for a while.  Burzmali (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 Most Effective Members of Congress Blurb 

message: Justification: 1. The writings in his newsletter have been discussed for 12 years now, not just 1996.  2. The heading "1996 campaign controversy" is misleading, as it gives no indication of what the controversy was about and implies that the incident took place in 1996 only.  3. It is better to have all the material, including the major "The New Republic" feature on Paul's newsletters, in one section rather than scattered piecemeal throughout the article. Vidor (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I  also agree with Vidor's edit and reverted to it.  The logic is sound - the material needs to be together, lest it look like we're trying to hide it.  Dr Paul's response is prominently included as well, as is appropriate.   Breaking it up is obscuring it.  (Thanks, N.h., for catching the header that I missed.) Tvoz |talk 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The TNR article isn't its own section - all of the newsletter controversy is, including the explanations.  It's not just about the 1996 campaign.  Tvoz |talk 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues is such and old and minor part of Paul's life, or even political life, or even his 2008 campaign, that the section raises serious WP:WEIGHT concerns, especially in the context of WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to explore this assertion, that a political newsletter written between congressional terms, by someone who is a politician, could be outdated or relatively insignificant.  What makes you say that? Devpty01 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ron Paul Report" material merged into a single section 

message: Paul and his supporters say that they didn't write these disgusting articles over a couple decades, they say a ghostwriter did.  Who is that ghostwriter supposed to be?  Has he or she ever admitted to this?  If so, that needs to be in the article.  Why didn't Paul see what was being written under his own name and repudiate it? Devpty01 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "He did not indicate whether he knew who wrote the articles".  He has never identified the writers, if he knows their identities.  Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mastheads say "Ron Paul and Associates, Houston" so presumably he was at least financially involved with the company publishing things he supposedly wasn't reading, under his name, with his photo on the front page. Devpty01 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there is a reliable source that says he was "financially involved" with the publisher, it's reasonable to add. Otherwise, it's not encyclopedic. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying to put it in the article, I'm just saying that if "Ron Paul and Associates" is not financially involved with Paul, I'll eat my hat. Devpty01 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: From TNR: "During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman." Bartleby (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This whole "prove it" thing is a dodge. Paul's own campaign manager admits he owned a "minority share" in Ron Paul and associates. If I published reports today saying "Paul said XYZ" and he did not, it wouldn't take YEARS for him and his supporters to deny it. In 1996, they claimed he wrote these things, but they were being taken out of context. Now he's saying he didn't write them at all. Was he lying then or lying now? Both can't be true. This tactic is the exact sort of dishonest crap that they claim Paul is above and the alternative to. In the end, he's turning out to be just another typical politician. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We honestly don't care for your OR or soapboxing here. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  "If I published reports today saying Paul said XYZ and he did not, it wouldn't take YEARS for him and his supporters to deny it." True, but perhaps you don't remember how it was back in the late 80's and early 90's (assuming you lived back in those ancient times). It certainly wasn't like today when it comes to finding out who says what. These small production typewritten newsletters targeted to specific audiences were the blogs of their day, without search facilities and all the other goodies we're used to today. Let's be careful with our expectations. Terjen (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being asked to believe that a politician was not reading the political newsletter with his name and face on it, and which included his personal family details, requires a suspension of disbelief of far greater magnitude than the disadvantages of the ancient "typewriter" can begin to explain. Devpty01 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but we shouldn't make assumptions then write as we know they are facts. This is easily resolved by sticking to WP policies.Terjen (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I was alive and had voted for at least 2 presidents. But what you are failing to either realize or acknowledge is that this came up in 1996 for Paul. He didn't deny them. He said they were taken out of context. He had every opportunity then to refute them and did not. For anyone to claim he didn't know about them makes them a fool. He knew then and answered the allegation. How can you now talk about him not knowing? It would have been smarter and easier to do it 10 years ago, during a local election than to wait until the middle of a presidential election and changing his story. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And I honestly don't care that you want to complain about it. Just because you and a bunch of Paul fan-boi's want to write a campaign piece about your deity doesn't mean others forfeit the right to be critical or bring forth information that doesn't make him seem like the glowing angel you want to paint him as. The amount of effort the Paul sycophants are putting forth to excise the article of anything critical of him is very telling. It borders on obsessive. Put all the facts out, good and bad, and let people make their choice. Your oppression of dissenting voices smacks of the same bias Paul complained bout when excluded from the FNC debates. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A few names have been suggested lately by people outside the campaign, so we may have something to say about it when the dust settles.Terjen (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: At the risk of stating the obvious, the point would clearly be to substantiate the claim that someone other than the person whose name, picture, company, and personal details were on the newsletter was the one who actually wrote it.  In the absence of someone stepping forward, we have only a politician's word, and that is not worth a whole lot.  Any suggestion that Paul did not write the thing should be clearly attributed to him alone. Devpty01 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, the rest of the press and alibis who have vouched for him. Any suggestion that he wrote them should be clearly attributed to the author of the attack article published in the political opinion magazine. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on Earth would that be? The burden of proof generally is on the person whose name, picture, company, and personal details were on the newsletter, if he claims that it wasn't him. (Does the NR article even actually say he wrote them, or merely that they were his newsletters?) I'm getting tired of the :hagiography around here. --Orange Mike  | Talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on Earth would that be? Because that is the basis behind WP:OR, WP:V, WP:ATT, and WP:BLP, of course. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the "ghostwriter"? 

message: I just wanted to add that John W. Robbins succeeded Lew Rockwell as Chief of Staff until 1985, but I can't because the page is locked.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/whoisjwr.php Brandonadams (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Preceded. Devpty01 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my source he was chief of staff after Rockwell (1981-85) Brandonadams (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief of Staff 1981-1985 

message: Is there a need to block the article from editing by all editors? I didn't realize there had been a significant enough vandalism to justify a block on anon editors, but surely there isn't a reason for a block on all editors? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Full protection seems excessive to me as well. Can we remove the block for registered editors please? Terjen (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Protection? 

message: Please add the Aspies for Ron Paul page to his list of supporters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanquerayRangpur (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not. It's mildly amusing satire (I have to admit, a few of the jokes I don't even get; presumably they meant something to the author). If this particular satire got a lot of attention and became notable in itself, it could conceivably be of interest in the article, but certainly not as a group in support of Paul. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Groups 

message: I found this source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
Would it go here? or in the Prez campaign article? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is covered in the campaign article. Terjen (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it goes right here, since it doesn't pertain solely to his 2008 campaign. —msikma (user, talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where would this go? 

message: Paul has a substantial fan base with Aspies. It's been suggested he himself suffers from the disorder. Is this worthy enough to add to the article?
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/does-ron-paul-have-aspergers-syndrome.php
:Speculative. Ignore. Terjen (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It even says on the page that it's a rumor, and that the Aspies for Paul website is a joke. Paisan30 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul and Asperger's Syndrome 

message: I like Ron Paul as much as everyone else, but this article seems to purposefully overlook certain controversial (divisive) aspects of Ron Paul's persona. It's very long, but it overlooks the fact that he does not believe in evolution (as he stated on several occasions), claims the Constitution is full of references to God (is he really a constitutionalist then, as the article claims), believes that the Fed is a conspiracy. The whole article reads like an ad. See the language it uses like "alarmed by what he saw...". Why not "misinformed by ..." or "confused by information outside his field of expertise". I'm just saying. This needs to be more informative and more NPOV. Ekonomics geek (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already covered the likelihood that he will veto such legislation. The introduction to Political positions of Ron Paul makes it very clear that Paul will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Terjen (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good detail to capture if stem cell funding becomes a verifiable controversy or criticism of Paul. It does not, however, moot the criticism, just as his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act remains germane to the newsletter controversy, despite his valid explanation. Clearly, the article should weight towards the candidate's simple rationale for these positions, and away from skepticism --- but it should not whitewash the issue out. --- tqbf 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not voting for Paul, so I am unbiased on this... but you'll have to be more specific if you want something included. The "alarmed" thing is valid, because the cited article does not say he was "alarmed". However, your suggetions were equally NPOV (in the other direction). Paisan30 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is someone deleting all the controversial stuff? 

message: : The problem here is that we only have evidence that he wrote some of the newsletters (check the "Criticism" section on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 for a couple more places where he made similar admissions). We also have evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote other newsletters; the Economist also claims it's an "open secret" that Rockwell and another former Paul Chief of Staff wrote most of the newsletters. Even I don't think Paul wrote most of them. 
: What is relevant is that these admissions from old newspaper articles contradict Paul's current claim, that he wrote none of the racist material in his newsletters. It's especially relevant given Paul's insistence on not "outing" the ghostwriters. That there is verifiable evidence contracting the plain meaning of things Paul is currently saying on television and in print is something that deserves a space in the article. --- tqbf 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, like we do on the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, although we should try to keep the redundancy down and perhaps mostly cover it there. Also, unless this becomes a major point in the press (beyond the Reason Hit & Run editors blog), we should be careful not to give it undue weight. We already mention "Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996", which touches onto the issue. Terjen (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Paul's authorship 

message: This article lacks section that discusses criticism of Ron Paul. The "Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy section is a start, but it details only one specific thing in a certain context; it's hardly the entire story. We must also discuss other criticisms, and mention the fact that he's been accused of racism before in notable publications. By all standards, this article goes quite easy on him, and for this reason I think we should:
#Denounce the article's A-status for now;
#Turn the full protection into semi-protection so that (somewhat) trusted editors can make modifications;
#Create a Criticism section under which the "Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy section is moved;
#Use various sources () to write a solid account of the criticism that he endures.
I'm not saying we should do this because I'm an opponent of Ron Paul (I'm not even an American, actually), I'm saying this because I consider this article to be biased in his favor (despite the information given on his newsletter articles which certainly don't look good on him), and feel that an A-class article should not have such a serious issue. —msikma (user, talk) 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't even have any specific criticism? You just want to put in negative information to "balance" the article? If that's what you're suggesting, that's contrary to WP:NPOV. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Paul supporters won't allow a NPOV. They only allow things that make Paul look good and delete, alter and argue everything that doesn't boost him up. I've looked at the pages of other candidates and don't see the same thing on nearly the same scale. One has to wonder why a candidate tracking at 5% in national polls and not having gotten 10% in any of the primaries yet has so much more disputing going on? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want to add negative information to balance out the good information. I'm sorry if it appears like that; the truth is that this article isn't unreasonably positive about him, but there simply isn't any real criticism apart from the newsletter article section. He's been criticized very harshly, just like the other candidates, but places where this could logically be mentioned seem to be devoid of it. —msikma (user, talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, it's difficult to argue against the fact he has a massive fanbase that might make editing this article a bit difficult. So there might be a bit more reason to fully protect this page in comparison to the pages of the other candidates. But I too think that it's unnecessary, since almost all vandalism is removed with semi-protection already. Plus, the article is too positive about this candidate, so that's one very good reason why it should be unlocked. —msikma (user, talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WE/I would like for the criticism section/newsletter controversy to be deleted on the main page, if you look at ALL of the other candidates have their criticism sections are on their 2008 pages, this info can be merged there.Duchamps_comb MFA 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note that as far as I can tell this does not indicate support for deleting the newsletter controversy from this page. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My mistake--Jogurney specifically states that the newsletter controversy should be retained here. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this information is in the Ron Paul 2008 page, merge in any useful there, all the other 2008 Candidates have no thing in their Bio.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, YOU want to remove the newsletter text.  No one else you've mentioned here has expressly supported that, to my knowledge.  And please don't erase your earlier comments and replace them with other ones; it makes keeping track of the conversation difficult.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this biography page handles the controversy properly.  The "Ron Paul newsletter controversy" does not ONLY relate to his presidential run. It was an issue in the past, and relates to Paul in general. Paisan30 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  User Paisan30 is the one who added the section. --Duchamps_comb MFA 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section because it was a notable story that relates to Ron Paul. He appeared on CNN to address the story, so I think the notability is clear. Also, my comment above came five days after I originally added the information, so I was commenting on the work of others as much as my own. Paisan30 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It does seem that Paisan30 was the one who added the section. But why are you mentioning that, Duchamps_comb? Are you accusing him of COI? The reason why Paisan30 added that section, I would presume, is because this article needs it. He did the right thing by adding it because it's in the best interest of this article. Ron Paul, as with every other candidate, has received criticism for his actions, the newspaper letters being one particularly important issue. It also does not just relate to his 2008 run for presidency, so there is no reason not to have it. Deleting the newspaper section would be a highly biased mistake. —msikma (user, talk) 07:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would revert you in a heartbeat (if the page wasn't protected). Terjen (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit declined. The above discussion indicates that there is no consensus for this edit. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, what happened here? My request to be more critical of Ron Paul, since this article seems to be very biased in his favor, ends with someone proposing to remove the only criticism that's there at this moment? Maybe it would speed things up if I were to go out and actually find the sources that we could use, that would make this a lot easier. —msikma (user, talk) 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ???? "no other presidential candidate has criticism on their biography page"???? Say what?! Have you not read any other candidate's biography articles? --Orange Mike  | Talk 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other biographies obviously do include controversies-- otherwise they would not be neutral stories. The newsletter thing should probably be sub-heading number 8 under "Later Congressional career", though. Probably a little undue weight in its current state. Paisan30 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I picked one of these at random --- Mitt Romney, and within 5 seconds found "The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics". I don't think you've provided a trustworthy summary here. (sorry, not productive, poorly worded) --- tqbf 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I already pointed out the Barney Frank criticism on Romney's page; now, go to Hillary Clinton and check out the entire section on Whitewater. I'm pretty sure you're not correct about criticism on the other candidates pages. --- tqbf 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True there is a Whitewater section, that merely showed she has been investigated(many times). A criticism as inflammatory as some of Pauls would be, X said "Hillary had Vince Foster KILLED to protect her from going to jail."--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that quoting from Ron Paul's newsletters is comparable to an unsubstantiated charge of murder? Yikes. Paisan30 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section 

message: Could somebody add this :dsb:Ron Paul interwiki? Thank you, --Dezidor (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.-Wafulz (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dsb interwiki 

message: His name and address are included in a list of "Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers". http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/lobbyhf.html
Must have something to do with this article: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
It is taken from the Ron Paul Report, surely Ron Paul must have known what he was publishing?220.246.109.181 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heritage Front]] 

message: The version I would expect to see:7
Newsletters published under Ron Paul’s name, which date back to 1978 and have been variously titled "Ron Paul's Freedom Report", "Ron Paul Political Report", "The Ron Paul Survival Report", and "The Ron Paul Investment Letter",[93] first became an issue in his 1996 run for Congress against Charles Morris. Morris ran numerous attack ads about Paul's newsletters, which included Paul’s alleged ghostwriter’s derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[94][95] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[96][97] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[98][99]
Until 2001, Paul had not contested his authorship of the newsletters.  In 2001, Paul lowered his involvement in the newsletters to a state of "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[100] He later remarked that “Several writers contributed to the product [his newsletters],” [102].  The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10] Caldwell noted that when Paul’s Democratic opponent in the 1996 general election, Charles Morris, called on him to release the rest of the newsletters, Paul refused. [10]
In January 2008, the contents of Paul's newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various Paul newsletters. Kirchick said that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".[101] A 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report stated that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities". After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the newsletter referred to African-American rioters as "barbarians" and suggested that the riots only stopped when it came time for "blacks to pick up their welfare checks". Other issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories.  Paul’s newsletter also included an opinion on the suggested response to the fall of the Soviet Union according to the Brandeis University Community Newspaper, asking “Why do we need the federal government? There’s no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?” [144] While the newsletters were published under Paul's name, he disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article. Paul said that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that "I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts." He has indicated that he does not know who wrote the articlesCNN interview Jan 2007, but again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[102]” His campaign’s official response did not discuss why, with a political background and future political intentions, he allowed statements to be made under his name that so starkly contrasted with his beliefs. [102]
[144] http://thehoot.net/?p=41
Askpeeves1 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Way too long. Wrad (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hardly longer than the original, and much less softening in favor of Ron Paul. Askpeeves1 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in my opinion the original is too long, so... I think it's too long. It reads like an article about the newsletters, not like part of an article about Ron Paul. Wrad (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that doesn't sound like a neutral source to me. Wrad (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't a neutral source. Wikipedia does not require that sources be neutral, only reliable. Bartleby (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think his opinions are presented as fact. It's mostly quotes from the newsletters. This article should probably mention that 1) Kirchick made more newsletters public than Morris did in 1996, and 2) the NR story was written during the presidential campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: James Kirchick is the one who brought the articles to the attention of the public again, and thus we should report on the way he did it. He was critical of them, and thus we should mention that he was. There's all the space in the world to use for Ron Paul's response to the accusations, but they must exist alongside the criticism. And I must note that, as of yet, we've seen no substantial proof that acquits Ron Paul. —msikma (user, talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And The New Republic made pdfs available for the first time that I'm aware of, which allows readers to see the material in context.  I note that neither Ron Paul nor anyone from his campaign or congressional staff to  my knowledge has suggested that the pdf files were not legitimate copies of his newsletters.  So  Kirchick's political views are beside the point- it is ROn Paul's views, and things that went out over his name, often in the first person so that  they look to all the world that he is the one writing them, that this biography is concerned with. I don't think it's too long. Tvoz |talk 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree on any responsibility to pass on Kirchick's interpretations and opinions - this isn't a page about Kirchick, nor is he particularly notable. We have better sources for secondary views of the newsletters.Terjen (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not talking about Kirchick, we're talking about The New Republic, which is extremely notable. You've made it sound as if this is something Kirchick blogged; it in fact resides on the front page of NRO right now. TNR may not be The Atlantic --- Mark Twain never wrote for them --- but it has a comparable reputation for editorial integrity. --- tqbf 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we should not be talking about Kirchick, which is what I argue above. The New Republic is a liberal opinion magazine. Kirchick's article has an obvious bias, starting with the title "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul".  Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source, but we should take care not to pass along its opinions as if they are facts. Currently the section quote and paraphrase Kirchick without making clear that the article may not be an objective source. Terjen (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  TNR isn't Mother Jones, and Kirchick's wasn't an opinion piece. You're trying to convince editors here that TNR would sacrifice its editorial integrity and reputation to fabricate (or poorly fact-check) a takedown of a candidate polling below the margin of error nationally. Also, what aspect of the Kirchick piece seems likely to have been biased? You obviously read it. What is there to it, other than citations to newsletters, which clearly exist? --- tqbf 08:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's start with the first three words of the Kirchick's piece, claiming that Paul is an "angry white man". Is this a fact? Terjen (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an opinion piece. There's no other way to look at it. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Careful; there are definitely elements of opinion in it, which we have to be careful about --- but there is original reporting in the story. The citations to the uncovered newsletters aren't opinions. There's a valid presumption that TNR fact-checked the piece, as well. --- tqbf 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a mix of investigative, analysis, and opinion. And the citations to the newsletters aren't in question. Where we need to thread carefully is when the article paraphrase and summarize content from the newsletter, as well as when making obvious statements of opinion. Terjen (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree with you. --- tqbf 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy" biased and incomplete 

message: article is protected, so someone with privileges can also add this:
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.
Lakinekaki (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  newsletter 

message: Added "Reason" magazine piece detailing Lew Rockwell's involvement with the Report.  Vidor (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just write a blurb about the company in the section when you get a secondary source. No need to add your "Paul's newsletter" POV just because you're convinced that he wrote or edited the newsletters. Terjen (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say this is looking like one editor (ok, a couple, but one more than others), patrolling Paul articles constantly, battling to keep any unflattering thing out that can possibly be kept out. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you much rather violate Wikipedia policies? ~ UBeR (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's the beauty of opinion. Two people can read the same thing and have different opinions. Some things are blatant and obvious, but many more are not. It seems to be the opinion of Paul supporters that anything that doesn't glorify Paul is in violation of some wiki policy. I don't see this level of nitpicking on the articles for Mike Gravel, Fred Thompson or some of the other candidates. I would honestly expect it on Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain or even Huckabee. Those are top tier candidates in a bitter fight. Paul isn't even making a real impact on any of the races thus far. He's the only guy in the primary to lose to Duncan Hunter. But every single word in a Paul article is guarded like it is scripture. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the Reason Magazine piece puts to rest any concerns about calling the newsletters Paul's. As I previously noted, the New York Times and Houston Chronicle have already done so. Paisan30 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  True author and a note on ownership 

message: The Bible Belt Southern States have the historical revanchism against the North, it is not lack of coincidence that David Duke would endorse a candidate that seeks State Rights or smaller Federal Government in order to reinstate racial segregation and enforce biblical teaching in public schools despite the doctrine of Secularism without the oversight from  US Supreme Court and other Federal Agencies, simply like Libertarian economist Gary North's promotes smaller role for the Federal Government by way of Neo-Liberal economic policies upon which he is Framing (social sciences) his religious intentions. David Duke and on Storm Front's site endorse the closing of the border to Mexicans is welcomed and applauded by the owner of the site, an obvious appeal to the racialist bias of this audience.  Please examine further 
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale behind David Duke's support:Neo-Secessionism 

message: Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic found someone with 20 years worth of Ron Paul Survival Report (formerly Freedom Report) newsletter issues, and it's ugly as hell. Dozens of articles repeatedly published under Paul's name, and never retracted, engaged in lowbrow racist invective.  Among many other things, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was called a "gay pedophile," blacks were repeatedly referred to as animals, and apparently Paul was once a featured speaker at a Confederate secessionist conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpADkP4QqY
http://reason.com/blog/show/124265.html
The newsletter archives and more details are coming out Tuesday afternoon at http://www.tnr.com/
How could he have imagined that this crap wouldn't catch up with him? Devpty01 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry.  I totally failed to notice the comments on this subject directly above.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suppose the odds are that the unknown "ghostwriter" is just happened to be a grandfather married to a woman named Carol too? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter racism controversy exploding 

message: A TNR writer did some digging and unearthed many more comments in the newsletters than were previously known.  Highlights of the TNR article include:
*"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage.
*"Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
*South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"
*In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy
*comments about gays and Jews
but
*Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman... said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
I'd argue that some of this deserves a mention in one of the RP articles, probably this one and probably in the 1996 controversy section.  Comments? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry.  I totally failed to notice the comments on this subject directly above.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more newsletter comments surface 

message: Here is the response from the Paul campaign, and Paul also personally denied writing the articles in this interview with Reason magazine.  
However, it turns out that the newsletter issue in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is said to have "seduced underage girls and boys," closes with this paragraph:
My wife Carol and I, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year.  May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big-government types, making America freer and thus truer to her own heritage, in 1991.
If Paul was not indeed the writer, whoever was knew a lot about his family. Devpty01 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suppose the odds are that the unknown "ghostwriter" is just happened to be a grandfather married to a woman named Carol too? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul's response; newsletter had personal details