Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 4

message: Here is Buspar's edit describing the Paul interview on The Situation Room. It includes:
: Wolf Blitzer has stated that, based on his own experience of interviewing Paul over several years, the comments are not consistent with what Paul's views and should not be taken as his.
Here is the transcript of that interview, now published on CNN's website. It says this:
: I've got to tell you, congressman, you and I, we have talked a lot over these past several months. And when I saw these newsletters, I didn't know anything about them until I saw that article in "The New Republic," I was pretty shocked. Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time.
At no point does Wolf Blitzer instruct his audience not to "take comments as Paul's"; Blitzer simply expresses shock that Paul (or, one assumes, any rational American) could have written the things that appeared in The Ron Paul Political Report.
Am I missing some other part of the transcript (please quote), or is this as egregious as it looks? --- tqbf 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something close is said by Blitzer about 5 1/2 minute into the interview. Terjen (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Strike that, I messed up. Terjen (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I watched the whole interview, paying close attention to 5.20, and it corresponds very closely with the transcript. Any other things I might have missed?--- tqbf 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent edit you did inserts (after the section on the Blitzer interview with Paul) that "CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen objected to Paul's response". However, the transcript shows Gergen's comment being ahead of Paul's response, apparently about a statement by Paul's spokesman. It will have to be changed and moved to avoid misunderstanding and appearance of WP:SYNTH.  Terjen (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * You changed the word "objected" to "said". I don't have a strong opinion; fair enough edit. The editor who added the Wolf Blitzer comment simply made something up and attributed it to a CNN anchor. --- tqbf 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid every time a fly buzzes it's wings in criticism of the Paul campaign it will wind up in this section, this is getting to be a bit much for me, In a year will it matter to a hill of beans what Blitzer thinks? -NO, does it matter what his boy wonder-side kick thinks, -NO, is it encyclopedic, -NO (Every talking head on TV has on opinion). Will we be putting opinions up on Hillary’s  page when she does not match her Manolo Blahniks to her hand bag and lose votes with New Yorkers? Have I made my point yet?--Duchamps_comb MFA 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. It was a Paul supporter who added the Blitzer comment to the article. Again, this objection to "every talking head on TV" is, to put it charitably, ironic. --- tqbf 06:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Blitzer's views are somewhat important, given his experience with Paul and his reputation as a reporter. I think the same way non-notable endorsements and blogs have been culled from this article (or still need to be culled), non-notable criticism would also be removed (thus keeping things consistent with other candidate articles). And remember: any criticism of note also has to include Paul and other's rebuttals to keep things NPOV. So I'm fairly sure the criticism section won't be used to unjustly vilify Paul. Buspar (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did you write that Blitzer said that Paul's newsletter comments "should not be taken as his", Buspar? (Am I misattributing this edit to you?) --- tqbf 06:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put that in there. I wrote it as Blitzer was talking (I watched it live); I can't say I was perfect in my summary. Feel free to correct it with the transcript. It's why I went back and added the ref to the article on it later so I could fix it later. Buspar (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Once again: I didn't put the Wolf Blitzer comment in the article. How ironic! --- tqbf 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree on that one. I think the gist of his response should be included as a quote, with the rest linked to via the citation. That's normal Wiki formatting. Buspar (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I summarized his response (again). We are not including paragraphs from the New Republic article "so we can understand the allegations in their entirety", so we should not do that with Paul's response. Paisan30 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf Blitzer on the Paul Newsletters 

message: The debate section has too much redundancy with the main article is the major sin. I don't want to just chop stuff willy-nilly, however. Other candidates have ~7 paragraphs and I think this can get cut down to it or at least close since there are a lot of good citations here. My proposed method:
1. Remove material that's in the main article already. Drop mention of the debates he wasn't in, except when it was covered by multiple sources (and even then, just a couple sentences will do).
2. Allot the most space to Paul's exchanges with other candidates that received a lot of media attention. The Paul-Giuliani exchange is clearly central both to his campaign and his publicity. The exchanges he had with Huckabee and McCain are also worth mentioning.
3. Move polling results to the main article, since the polls featured all of the candidates. Just summarize how many polls he won in this article.
4. Cut out more of the quotes. The Paul-Giuliani quotes are important given the exchange's notability, but some of the others can be moved to Wikiquote or into Paul's political positions article.
5. Maybe one paragraph featuring comments by outside observers on Paul's various debate performances, since that doesn't belong in the main debate article.
Thoughts? Buspar (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. The section needs to be heavily shortened. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate section cleanup 

message: The quote, as I wrote it:
: In an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, political reporter Julie Mason called Paul's explanation "plausible, but incomplete". To Paul's claims that the newsletters were part of a political attack, Mason responded "They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings", continuing that Paul's response was itself "a disservice to the young true believers supporting him."
ʋTerjen wants to remove "a disservice to the young true believers".
I think the nut of this editorial is the word "disservice"; it's editorial backing for a direct criticism of Paul's campaign --- unlike many other sources (such as AP and Reuters) that are simply reporting on the controversy, a mainstream news outlet covering Paul's region has made a judgement call, and that's notable. 
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike:
# Keep my text
# Paraphrase (losing words like "young true believers", which I'm not wedded to either) to keep the spirit of the critique 
# Keep Terjen's text, which removes the editorial assertion in the Houston Chron search
# Lose the critique entirely, despite me saying it's one of the first and most geographically relevant overt critiques of Paul
No action or opinions, and I'm reverting back to my version, but I'll go with what the chorus here decides.
--- tqbf 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Julie Mason is the Chron's political reporter. --- tqbf 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IOW, I can concede that it's not the Chron's opinion, and continue to insist that the criticism itself is notable. --- tqbf 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Julie Mason does appear to be a pundit with political expertise, so her comments are notable as an outside observer. I would add a "...continuing to add that she believed Paul's response..." It's only her view, not the paper's, so specifying it's her belief is important. Buspar (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, political reporter Julie Mason called Paul's explanation "plausible, but incomplete". To Paul's claims that the newsletters were part of a political attack, Mason responded "They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings", continuing that she believed Paul's response was itself "a disservice" to his supporters.
No comments and I'll WP:BOLD this into the article. Thanks! --- tqbf 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am fine with the changes, although I still think it is unimportant that Julie Mason believes Paul's response was a disservice, and would prefer it not included. Terjen (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great more talking head mombo jumbo! Not noteable...--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BRD]] on Houston Chron quote 

message: Two things:
# You obviously cannot edit a direct quote from a source, even if they call Paul "Mr." instead of "Dr."
# Per WP:MOS, specifically WP:MOSBIO (see "Honorifics"), we do not refer to Paul as "Dr. Paul" throughout articles; we establish once that he's a doctor, and then simply use his name. That's not an opinion; it's the MoS guideline. 
--- tqbf 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit a direct quote using brackets when they get something wrong so long as it doesn't change the intent of the quote, such as spelling. "Mr. Paul" is a grammatical mistake, since that's the improper title. Not to mention they wrote it "Mr" without the period. Buspar (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cite the WP policy that allows you to edit, amend, or inject editorial comments into material from external sources. --- tqbf 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:MOSQUOTE: "Where there is a good reason not to do so, insert an editorial explanation of the changes." A spelling or grammatical error is a good reason to do so, per standard academic and journalistic style guidelines (which MoS acknowledges complement its own guide - see the references it provides at the bottom). If you want, we can take this to the MoS talk page and get a ruling. Buspar (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While "Dr." might have been more accurate, "Mr." is not "wrong" nor a "grammatical mistake" and there's no good reason to change this. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The insistence on calling him "Dr. Paul" is a Paulite-internet affectation.  To change a direct quote because it fails to use that honorific is highly inappropriate.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it were a typo, and they'd referred to him as Mrs. Paul, that would be appropriate to correct. This "correction" falsifies the quote in order to make a point of reverence. --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He has an MD and worked as an OBGYN, which to me means a news article ought to use Dr. since that's the proper honorific. If he was a PhD, I'd be less concerned on the issue. I blanked it out using "..." which keeps the tone of the quote and compromises between the two versions. Is that okay? Buspar (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not with me, it's not.  It may seem a petty point, but that ellipsis indicates that text is missing.  Leaving the reader to wonder why and what text is missing is not good editing practice in general.  And since this version is not "wrong" (The Economist uses a British style manual, I'm sure and I believe "Mr" and Mrs"--without the .--is still in common use), there is no reason to change the text the way you have. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Now you're writing the manual of style for the Economist? It seems like the consensus is to honor the source text. --- tqbf 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  It is grammatically incorrect to refer to Ron Paul as "Mr." it is and always correct to refer to him as “Dr.” or “Congressman.” What school did you ----- go to?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You should read WP:MOSBIO. --- tqbf 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read  --
Titles 
Use the title Dr. when referring to a doctor of any kind, on first reference only. 
Dr. Harry Junkins, director of the genetics lab, did not foresee the cuts, according to his staff. Junkins was, said many, upset when he heard the news. 
Use the title Dr. both for individuals who have received honorary doctoral degrees and for people with earned doctoral degrees. 
After first referring to an individual by using his or her full name, use that person's last name, even if he or she has a professional or religious title. 
When referring to faculty, use the title or rank given them by the University. 
If the person also is a doctor, use Dr. on first reference, then last name only for remainder of text. 
Dr. Mary Hartman addressed the group on March 31. Hartman discussed the theory of trickle-down economics. 
Avoid using long titles before the names of people, such as 
Associate director of development for the Annual Fund Joe Smith 
Instead, say 
Joe Smith, associate director of development for the Annual Fund 
The word the should be used before Rev. when referring to most clergy on first reference. On second reference, use only the person's last name. Use the Rev. Dr. only if the person has an earned doctoral degree and reference to the degree is relevant. Use Rabbi before a name on first reference; use only the last name on second reference. 
When referring to an endowed professorship, always use the full title on first reference, whether or not the title stands alone. 
the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies 
Jane James, holder of the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies 
After that use 
the Doctor Chair ..... 
Duchamps_comb MFA 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your own non-controlling source (we write according to WP:MOS here, so articles are consistent) disagrees with you. FIRST REFERENCE ONLY.  --- tqbf 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the rule is even more limiting than that - at WP:MOSBIO it's very clear:  "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead."  Refer to the Drew Pinsky article for an appropriate example. Townlake (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific "Dr" Title 

message: What the New Yorker said many months prior to the NRO story is irrelevant to the NRO story; the New Yorker writer was not privy to the NRO's analysis or findings. It is inappropriate to add it inline to the editorials that actually discussed the NRO findings --- doing so obviously creates the impression that the New Yorker refutes the NRO, which it certainly does not. --- tqbf 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Republic vs. New York Times/New Yorker 

message: Mitt Romney opposition section was killed.
 
Barack Obama opposition was killed.
John Edwards is two sentences.
Hillary Clintons opposition is bullet form.
Rudy Giuliani=none
Mike Huckabee has a section, Political attacks and Critcism
John McCains "Opposing forces" is bluuet form. 
----
Romney 2008 talk page: Criticism Section
I am not and have never been a big fan of criticism sections. I would like to integrate the section into the article. I understand there has been discussion of this above but I think it can be done in a very npov way, as some of the "criticism" isn't really criticism. What do other people think? Turtlescrubber 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, what? Where is this copied from? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As usual, what you want is going to take a back seat to what everyone else wants. --- tqbf 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I got a headache after two sentences, so I apologize for not reading that whole thing. We've been through this on other pages, and I agree that "opposition" sections are kind of weird. However, most of the other major candidates' campaign pages (not bios) have such a section. Paisan30 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I changed it to "Controversies and Criticism". Did the same to Huckabee's page. Seems more neutral, as any criticism of a political figure can be called a "political attack". Paisan30 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks POV warriors! Now the Criticism section is the second largest section on the page only behind 2008 GOP Presidential Debates, only on Ron Paul's page would we have such an issue. No other Candidates page would this be allowed to happen... Something must be done to balance the section and chop it down it was fine a week ago, until the New Republic-POV hit-piece was added in.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Would you please stop blanking out entire spans of talk page comments that you don't like? --- tqbf 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Previous section should be restored - you can't delete it just because you don't like the content. Fin©™ 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This guy actually wrote me up for 3RR last night (I only found out because I peaked at his contribs), so I'm not reverting the section back in right now. I also note that NH commented here after Duchamps blanked the talk page; if he doesn't want it back, I'm inclined to defer to him. --- tqbf 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just on general principle, Duchamps should not have deleted that, but I don't really care whether it's restored. Not that I owned that section or anything...--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the criticism section again, some of it really is just a list of people who don't like him. I'm going to try moving some stuff out of there, and clarifying other statements. For example, the Mona Charen article is reffered to, but not cited anywhere. Paisan30 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Candidates opposition/Criticism

message: First off I think "The New Republic" hit piece is not even close to NPOV... But I guess It must be seen and rebutted...
"In January 2008, David Frum, senior adviser to the Rudolph Giuliani campaign and former Bush speechwriter, appeared on The Daily Show and, responding to a question about Paul's standing in the GOP, said "Ron Paul is one of these people who -- in a time of trouble, people turn often to some pretty terrible answers. And he is absolutely an example of that.". Later he continued "He's one of those people who, the more you learn about him, the more disturbing a personality he becomes." ---Conflict of interest
"In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals - not collectively. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.[178] Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews and the campaign. -----We have talked about how much TV journalism is to be added, so no final thoughts.
In Reason Magazine, Matt Welch questioned in a blog---&--and An Economist blog post continued, "if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that...Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views." Blogging for the UK's The Spectator, Clive Davis called Paul an "irrelevance", echoed a comment comparing Paul to David Duke, and said he was unconvinced by Paul's CNN denial of the comments.-------I put in a New York times blog, it was shouted down, now these are here?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the Frum quote. He is a Giuliani adviser, so he is supposed to attack other candidates. Nothing particularly noteworthy there. The Blitzer thing makes sense to keep, since Paul was responding to the NR article. I tend to agree that there is too much reaction coverage to the newsletter story.  Reason Magazine and The Economist are legitimate sources, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to include so many third-party opinions on the New Republic article.  I think the article, newsletters  and Paul's response should be adequate. Paisan30 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice analysis, I concur, the New Republic should stand on it's own with Paul's full responce. --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you do. You believe Paul didn't write the material, that he should be our next president, and that there should be as little coverage of his racist newsletter as possible. I hope you can see why your opinion isn't simply controlling for this article. --- tqbf 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Problems

message: We've now changed the source for the Stormfront donation from AlterNet to a message board thread (specifically disallowed by WP:V).
I don't buy that we can use AlterNet either. AlterNet is going to tend to favor my viewpoint (that Paul is a neo-confederate crackpot), but if we allow it, we also have to allow things like OpEdNews and a myriad of pro-Paul coatrack news sources.
I also think the Stormfront charge is inflammatory and that the bar we need to clear for sourcing it is higher.
I can't revert Terjen's latest change, because Duchamps_comb called 3RR on me, but until we have a good source, we should remove the graf. 
--- tqbf 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sourced Bill White's claims to an earlier a post in the on-line magazine of the New York Times. Terjen (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which was retracted. I think the coverage we have now --- which minimizes the controversy --- is adequate. I'd be surprised if you wanted to spend more than a few sentences on it. You know, he's appeared smiling in photographs with the guy. right? --- tqbf 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Stormfront Material 

message: I'm in the process of editing these.
I'm writing detailed edit summaries, but I want to discuss what I did with the first South Carolina debates here; if consensus accepts it, I'm going to keep doing it.
# I'm removing lengthy quotes from the debate itself; we're writing about the debates, not hosting transcripts. Where appropriate, I've including short notable quotes.
# It's inappropriate to explain things like "Operation Ajax" inline in debate coverage. I've cut much of this out. This is what wiki links are for.
# I'm removing text Wikipedia editors have added about how Paul's previous statements and actions harmonize with his claims in the debate, for a couple reasons: (1) it's too damn wordy, (2) Paul's debate claims haven't been disputed and don't need justification, (3) it repeats points made elsewhere in the Paul Galaxy of WP articles, and (4) it puts undue weight on Paul's arguments, implying that he is right. 
# I'm removing coverage of Paul's appearances on TV before and after the debates, for a couple reasons: (1) they don't say anything other than that he appeared, (2) it's completely obvious that he would appear on TV bracketing the debates, and (3) it's too damn wordy.
# I'm removing Paul campaign responses to the debate and its coverage, except where there is some dispute that the campaign response addresses. Every campaign will produce a press release after a debate, fellow editors.
# I'm collapsing coverage of debate performance endorsements and online poll performance.
I want to write that these polls are "unscientific" (this isn't really a matter of opinion --- there's no such thing as a "scientific" self-selected poll), but I've avoided doing so until Terjen and Buspar can help come up with a neutral way of saying this.  --- tqbf 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be delighted to do that - I was an early critic of such self-selected web based "polling" as non-scientific, including publicly speaking out about them at the Third World Wide Web Conference in 1995 in relation to a presentation on using the web as a survey tool. Rather than explicitly labeling them as "unscientific", I in general favor consistently using more precise term like "vote" and "voting" (and in some cases "petition"), avoiding the term "poll" all together. There is an entry for Open access poll that can be linked if the term "poll" is used. Terjen (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Did you move anything to the main article? Also, did you check to minimize redundancy? A version without all the headings might work better, with the lesser debates grouped together in paragraph form. Right now it looks like a list. It's a good start, though. Buspar (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate coverage 

message: We cannot list donations --- especially donations mined out of donor lists at OpenSecrets --- as endorsements. People can have a variety of reasons for donating to candidates. They can be donating uniformly to a party. They can be trying to "throw" the nomination, as the GOP tried with the Dems in '04. PACs and corporations routinely donate to both sides of an election.
I just sniped several of these, but barring a loud and convincing objection, I'm going to scrub the endorsements clean of the ones that are synthesized out of evidence. Strong evidence of endorsement it may be, but it's not going in the article unless it's verifiable. --- tqbf 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the idea that a donation isn't an endorsement. Let me ask one further: Why are we listing very unnoteworthy people? I plan to ask this on other candidates articles as well, but this seems to be one of the bigger listings. I liked Buffy too, but is the endorsement of a supporting actress from a show no longer being made really that relevant? Or the son of Tim Russert? Guys who ran for an office at some point in some state and lost? I know they are listed on Paul's site, but are they relevant to the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements vs. Donations 

message: I advocate splitting this into a separate article. Here is my rationale: the endorsements section allocates a huge number of references. This article currently has over 250 of them. The inline list of endorsements makes it more difficult to audit references, contributes substantially to the size of the article, and could easily be summarized with a paragraph of prose in this article. Just a thought. Any opinions? --- tqbf 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just say no to sprawl.  How about we split up the list and mercilessly edit down those that aren't really full endorsements, or those that don't really need to be listed.  If the list is still too long, then split.  Burzmali (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements section 

message: We're at 88k now. If we keep pushing, keep getting rid of redundant stuff, finish merging stuff out to the split articles, then the main article for this campaign could hit 60k this week! 60k means "maybe doesn't need to be shattered into a million pieces"! If you will it, it is no dream! --- tqbf 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Theodore Herzl, Dude. State of Israel. If you will it, is no dream. Paisan30 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This ain't 'nam, dude. There are rules! --- tqbf 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep hope alive! 

message: See this diff, which adds back 3k worth od text that I think is already well-covered in both this article and Moneybomb.
If there isn't a strong consensus to keep it, I'm just going to remove it again. Would be grateful if someone else did it for me, though. --- tqbf 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to have an entire section on it. I will just add a little more to the place where it's already referenced, and remove the superfluous section. Paisan30 (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: These are significant events in the campaign and should be covered with reasonable details. The Moneybomb article is more general and doesn't cover Paul specifics (but I am not arguing it should). Terjen (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept most of the content. It has several citations, and the main details of the event. Paisan30 (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It has been added to 4Q it looks OK. But I know how you guys work in a few days you will simply go in and delete that info too. Thanks...--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure you don't know what a "meat puppet" is, for what it's worth. The Tea Party discussion has continued below; the Tea Party is a "Money bomb" (gag). --- tqbf 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we think of the Tea Party? 

message: Here and here are two edits by Duchamps_comb that inject the following into the article:
: ...Rosa Parks were personal heroes because they stood for individual rights. That we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin....
(Addition bolded). I have three objections to this language:
# It's a sentence fragment.
# It's tonally incorrect for an encyclopedia
# It adds nothing to the article --- it is patently obvious that Paul claims not to be concerned with the color of people's skin from the previous text.
Here is my article text, which I propose is the correct text:
:  He stated that he had "never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts," and asserted that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were personal heroes because they stood for individual rights. 
I invite anybody, especially Duchamps, to come up with compromise wording, or validate that the text is fine the way it was before Duchamps_comb changed it.
Fair warning: the following Duchamps_comb edits are reversions under WP:3RR
* ("color of their skin" first revert)
* (reverting the Tea Party back in)
* (removing mergeto tag under discussion)
Can someone else here talk to this person? I'm done; he filed a 3RR on me (declined) behind my back, and then an ANI case, and if he keeps reverting, I'm going to start escalating this. --- tqbf 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that extra sentence is out of context with the rest of the paragraph, and does not add anything further to it. I, in my spin-watch glasses, see its addition as simply show how accepting Paul is. Though, like I say, that's a tainted opinion. Fin©™ 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchamps_comb Rosa Parks comment 

message: As you can see from the following edits tqbf has an obvious editing history. With such statement from edit summarys:
-next! Houston is adjacent to Paul's district
				
-let's play "cut the most negative/newsworthy thing out of every quote" again, buspar
	
-and Reason Magazine. Good luck spinning that one; the editor at Reason just called Paul a liar.
-and now we have the Economist --- with actual reporting! Another fun one to try to spin
-hey look! The Washington Post isn't much a fan either; here's an actual straight editorial on him
-heh, turns out, if you're an RP supporter, you don't want to look too closely at this one!
So Should someone with such distane for a canidate (Ron Paul) be so agressavely editing this page? Look at his controbutions  is he single minded, or close to being a SPA?
Here's a few comments on this talk page:
“Again: editors are not required to be NPOV (that's Orwellian). Content is. Paul is a fringe candidate.” --- tqbf 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just so we're clear --- "puppets" are things that interfere with formal debates. You can't "canvass" for "meatpuppets" on an article talk page. If you feel like you need that explained to you formally, feel free to ask Help Desk. --- tqbf 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A better summary of my contribution is here, or you can check out my user page --- starting at "Articles I Have Given A Shit About". I'm sorry you feel this way, but you are exceedingly unlikely to convince me to edit differently this way. --- tqbf 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree tqbf can be a little too antagonistic in his edit summaries and comments, I think his editing is a balance to the amount of pro-Paul editing that goes on in this article. Like he says, editors do not have to be NPOV, just look at anyone's user page. Also, duchamps, this is not the place to bring up a problem you have with an editor, see one of your previous contributions for precedent. Fin©™ 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to play fair, Duchamps, take a look at your own contributions. Having said this, although I think this conversation needs to be had, it shouldn't be done on this talk page. The sheer number of edits around here is far more than it should be. I don't see Duchamps or tqbf laying off, and I don't really they should. But perhaps reading WP:CIVIL would help some. And if not, then we need to take this higher to RFC/U. Should this go higher than that, everyone's comments around here will be scrutinized. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm curious about how many edits we think we should have here; this page still needs drastic editing. --- tqbf 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gets at least 50 edits a day. You'd think that, somewhere in there, things would get fixed. Consider, for example, that the edit war on the Liancourt Rocks page was fixed in less than 50 edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's tough to fix things quickly when most of the editors have squared off on opposing sides, but I'm going to point out that the article went from 130k to 88k in one day of editing (yesterday), without undue drama --- and yeah, we had to spend some serious editcount to do it. 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Also, HA, let's be careful about the words "edit war". Spirited editing with occasional reverts and frequent talk page edits may be annoying to follow, but it is not an edit war. When we get reverted in mainspace, we may bitch a lot here, but pretty much none of us are simply reverting things back blindly. --- tqbf 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say this page was an edit war; I said that Liancourt was. I only meant that if a page that has been the source of so many problems can be solved that quickly, surely this page can be resolved. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's a slight difference. John McCain could be the next President of the United States of America. Paisan30 (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. Wiki is not a crystal ball and neither are you. What you think of McCain's chances are irrelevant to the topic at hand. The length of Paul's article is determined by the coverage he receives, not his chances of winning. So long as the edits and cuts are based on removing poorly sourced material or increasing the efficiency of the language, there's no problem. (Not that there isn't some debate on just how well this is being followed by both sides of the debate.) Buspar (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's just fucking with you. Is anyone seriously suggesting this article should be cut down because Paul isn't viable? I'm not. This article should be cut down because it's sprawling and out of control. Look how much we were able to cut out of the debates, just by not writing as if Paul actually appearing on television or actually being addressed by Mike Huckabee was a notable event in and of itself. POV issues are going to keep this from being a GA, but we're within a few days work of meeting the prose writing requirements for it. --- tqbf 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you there; a sprawling article benefits no one: it reflects bad on Paul's campaign and it's not good for Wiki, either. If not for school now taking precedence over Wiki (Winter vacation ended too soon), I'd be able to help more than I have been recently. Buspar (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yea. Sorry, I was getting frustrated with the complaining. :) Paisan30 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of the time it seems like you feel we're just making stuff up. WP:SIZE has guidelines. --- tqbf 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tqbf's POV problem

message: JLMadrigal and I are disputing the graf on the the Austin NAACP guy's quote. Does anyone else think the article should contain the entire quote? Everyone else's quotes are integrated (sometimes poorly) into the prose, and this NAACP guy now gets more space in the article than Paul himself.
--- tqbf 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't contain the entire quote, just enough elements to show that the leader is well informed about Paul's views, and to show his take on who what when and where of the hype. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it contains the quote that is relevant to the issue. Paisan30 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hate that we can't just write about what he said, instead of copying it in, but I'm OK with this as a compromise. --- tqbf 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If y'all need to butcher the quote, can you at least keep the elements from both of your patches? JLMadrigal (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a summary with a fragment for the gist should be sufficient. The whole thing would make the section too long. Buspar (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austin NAACP Quote 

message: How do I hate this quote? Let me count the ways:
# It implies Mormon votes are somehow counted differently than "human" votes
# It presents the OR proposition that had Romney not been in the race, those votes would have broken proportionally for Paul
# It's yet another "Paul is #1 among those who voted for Paul" bit of spin, which hurts the tone of the article
# It presents a fact that had nothing to do with the final rankings: as AP notes, had no Mormon voted, Romney still would have won decisively
Ok, I guess there's just 4 ways. But they're good ways. 
Let's not fix this language, or neutralize this language, or downplay this language. This is an article about the Paul campaign. Take the Mormon thing out, please. --- tqbf 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this. I would have deleted it, but I'm getting sick of battling with Paulites about every letter. This implies that Mormons vote Romney just because he is Mormon. Imagine if someone attributed all of Obama's black votes only to the fact he is black. How long would that stand on his page? Could they have voted for him because his values reflect theirs? Approx. 25% identified themselves as Mormon. Even if you take them all away, Romney still beat Paul by more than 10%. Further, this stat requires presuming that everyone who answered was truthful. Voter registration doesn't include religious preference and people aren't always truthful about who they voted for. If they were, exit polling wouldn't be as wildly inaccurate as it has been sometimes. tqbf hit it right on the head: This is pure spin, another "Paul is #1 among those who voted for Paul". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked AP article also says that Romney won among Protestants and Catholics but that info is not present here, presumably because it does not fall within the scope of the article.  And neither does the Mormon quote.  The way this information is presented is misleading, decontextualized and practically begs the reader to draw a particular conclusion--presumably that Mormon tribalism was the leading factor in Romney's win over Paul.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Nevada section states that Romney got 51% of the vote, with Paul "far behind" implied and said explicitly originally. If we are going to make that a point, we owe our readers to explain the reason. According to NPOV sources, Mormons came out disproportionally in this election (25% GOP voters were Mormons yet they are only a tiny 6% of the entire Nevada electorate) and almost all voted as a block for Romney, explaining about half of his votes. Only 11% of registered republican voters showed up in the election. Without Mormons coming out to vote disproportionate to their numbers, Romney's percentage would be down in the twenties with Paul trailing close below. Later in the paragraph we state that "Romney and Paul were the only two Republican candidates to campaign and run ads in the state". Isn't that perhaps misguiding our readers to discount Paul's second finish in Nevada? Terjen (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're falsely assuming that if Romney wasn't in the race that the same Mormons would not have voted. There is no way of showing that those same people wouldn't have voted and chosen another candidate. In fact, if you want to project, if that same 25% split between McCain and Huckabee (probably more would have gone Huckabee), Paul would have ended up third. Mormons or not, there is NO WAY you can spin this to make it a Paul victory. I'm willing to bet that the only state he stands a chance of getting more than he did in NV is Texas because it's his home. Other than that, he's going to be 4-5 every place else. Just be happy with the fluke that he got second and leave it alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "there is NO WAY you can spin this to make it a Paul victory", but I am not. You are correctly pointing out that I have no way to show that the Mormons wouldn't have come out in disproportionate numbers even if  Romney, a fellow Mormon, wasn't in the race.  I leave it up to the reader of this talk page to evaluate this for themselves, although we know Romney ran a get-out-the-vote campaign targeting Nevada mormons. The statement in our entry only states that "About half of Romney's votes came from Mormons", citing an NPOV source. We could expand it to provide more context if this is needed to remedy reasonable concerns including its relevance for the Paul vote. Terjen (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's no direct conclusion you can draw without WP:OR about Paul's own performance in the caucus, the fact is inappropriate for the article. Even if the fact is defensible as germane to the article, flow and weight concerns militate for its removal. Paul didn't win Nevada, but he came in second place. Congratulations! Let's move on. --- tqbf 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Huckabee is a Baptist minister, yet Baptist vote for plenty of other people. The implication is that Mormons voted for Romney solely because of his religion, which can't be proven or disproven. Considering the amount of fighting Paulites have done over the implications of the newsletters, I'd think they'd be very sensitive to the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Romney's Mormons" 

message: Usually, facts are stated in time-based order.  Events that occur prior to an election should be stated before the results of the election.  Specifically, the facts that only Romney and Paul campaigned in Nevada prior to the election should appear before the results are presented.  Let's discuss. —XSG 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is titled Primary/caucus results. It thus makes sense to open with the results before providing context, rather than writing "Paul campaigned and ran ads in the state. He finished second in the Nevada Republican caucuses with 14% of the vote." Terjen (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case then, based on the title, the information isn't relevant and should be struck anyway.  Instead, this information belongs in the "Primary/caucus campaign" section. —XSG 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I think it makes sense to provide context for the results, but I am happy to comply with the consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline order of Nevada

message: Terjen just made the comment: "if Romney is not relevant, then he shouldn't be included, if he is, we also need the context explaining his extraordinary result". Here is the explaination: The reason Romney got over 3 times as many votes is because 3 times as many people voted for him. That it! Stop trying to "explain" why your guy got trounced. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for Romney's extraordinary result in Nevada is more complex than that he got more people voting for him. See e.g. Mormons Key for Romney in Nevada from Associated Press.  I think it makes sense to provide context for the results, but I am happy to comply with the consensus if that is to not mention Romney. Terjen (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly feel that it smacks of stereotyping and implies that they voted for Romney solely for religious reasons. Further, even without them, Romney would have won by a significant margin. Why the arguing about lumping a group together when one of Paul's principals is the individual over the collective? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Romney and Paul were the only candidates to campaign in the state.  That is THE major factor in both candidates' totals.  That's the reason to mention Romney.  It's just common sense to also mention Romney's percentage.  Paisan30 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several significant reasons for the result, including Mormons disproportionately coming out to vote for Romney. We should mention the significant ones, or none. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should figure out why McCain did almost as well despite not campaigning there. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, just leave it as "half Romney's vote came from Mormons". I am pretty sure that Nevada will be the only primary in which Ron Paul is even close to being a factor, so I guess a little more detail is OK. The article is very long already, and will probably be shortened after February 5. Paisan30 (talk)`  —Preceding comment was added at 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a crystal ball (either) but I suspect this will go on until November, whether or not Paul wins the Republican candidacy. See you around! Terjen (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You honestly think he even has a chance at the nomination? LOL! As for a third pary run...he has said several times that he won't do it, so it'll just make him look dishonest. I highly doubt he stays in until the Repub;ican convention. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be an ass, Niteshift36.  This discussion should be about how to make Wikipedia articles as good as possible.  Save the silly commentaries and speculations for your own talk page. —XSG 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your personal attack above, we don't do that around here, XSG.  If you haven't already, take a look at WP:CIV and WP:NPA.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If Terjen can offer his prediction, so can I. His opinion is of no greater relevence. I laughed at it, but I didn't say he was stupid for having it. Nor did I call him an ass. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining Romney's extraordinary result

message: According to the article, Google employees have donated $22,650 to Ron Paul.  As Ron Paul has received millions of dollars in donations, I don't think that the factoid is really relevant or accurate as the employer field in OpenSecrets.org is blank for millions of dollars of donations to the Paul campaign.  Burzmali (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Perhaps you should remove it? —XSG 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a reliable source that wrote a full article around that Paul is by far the most popular Republican candidate among Google employees. Terjen (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I can find reliable sources claiming all kinds of things.  How is that relevant to the article?  A better statement would be that he has received far more money from people listing their profession as "SELF" in OpenSecrets.org, admittedly WP:OR but at least relevant.  Burzmali (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting conundrum.  If a report states something in an article as fact, does that establish it as a source for presenting the fact in Wikipedia?  What's more, since the reporter made the statement at a certain point in time and the situation will likely fluctuate, would it be more viable as a fact if the statement read, "As of 20 December, 2007, ..."  Are there any Wikipedia policies which might provide insight as to how we should procede regarding this "fact"?  —XSG 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#STATS.  Unless this info can be placed in a meaningful context in a non-confusing way (which is probably impractical in this particular case), I'd respectfully interpret the guideline to discourage inclusion of this fun fact. Townlake (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That Google employees  is the top contributor is hardly a "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" or lack context (as suggested by WP:NOT#STATS) - the sentence is in our Fund-raising section. Terjen (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Google employees donations