Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 5

message: JLMadrigal says that the We the People Act would "prevent federal courts from expending funds for the purpose of interfering in state and local government decisions regarding the display of religious text and imagery, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage" instead of "would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments
Here's what the Act says:
:SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
::The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
:::... (2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
I am correcting the error. ←BenB4 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Error? What error? Two sides, one coin. JLMadrigal 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed Resolution: None. (Yes, "error" is too loaded.) John J. Bulten 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We the People Act and court spending 

message: Why BenB4 refuses to acknowledge Paul's position of the States as the center of the abortion issue is beyond me. Paul's position is abundantly clear. Please keep the reference to the 10th amendment. JLMadrigal 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul's opposition to abortion and capital punishment is again being used as a teaser and will need to be removed for various reasons discussed. His support of the 9th and 10th amendments defines many of his positions - including these. Currently, this article sufficiently outlines his position on these issues, and the positions article elaborates as it should. Abortion and capital punishment are political positions on which all candidates have a stance, but if they belong in this article, they can not be used in the lead - unless clarified. His pivotal states' rights position, on the other hand, distinguishes him from the other candidates. JLMadrigal 12:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull****.  He's opposed to both. and no about of verbiage about the 9th and 10th amendments changes the fact that he's voted and introduced legislation to ban abortion. 209.77.205.2 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try teaching you with an illustration: Let's say the Supreme Court says it's OK for anyone to dump toxic waste into any body of water. In response, Representative "A" introduces emergency legislation that limits such pollution to bodies of water greater than 100 square miles, and limits contaminants to chemicals with a toxicity level below "X". So representative "A" has effectively limited pollution which wasn't supposed to have been federally authorized in the first place, while seeking an opportunity to overturn the original decision. The decision represents Roe v. Wade, and the band-aid represents the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Need I expand? JLMadrigal 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying he's all for states' rights as long as the Supreme Court doesn't disagree with him? I like the "unshakable foe" quote from his own website someone found. Are you going to say we need to nuance his own campaign material? ←BenB4 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the quote is misleading as to his position. What he believes personally is separate from his political positions, which is that he believes states should decide for themselves.  The inclusion of that quote gives a misleading appearance to his more nuanced position on abortion, and I just don't see why any editor would want to insert something misleading to readers.--Gloriamarie 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: Paul is pro-life, but, consistent with his opposition to federal power, he is in favor of allowing each state to decide whether to allow or prohibit it, instead of the federal government. 
Ron Paul wants to allow each state to allow or prohibit life? I assume that "it" is supposed to refer to abortion in this context, but perhaps that could be made a bit more clear. 62.158.126.58 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not even true.  He says that sometimes, but he votes and introduces legislation to flat-out prohibit abortions.  209.77.205.2 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negatory. The act that he voted for filled a gaping loophole in Roe v Wade. (see above) JLMadrigal 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if you think saying it funny like "negatory" makes it any less of a lie.  What "loophole"? The vote was still to ban abortions.  At least two of the bills he introduced would have banned all abortion.  And at the federal level.  He gets up on the stump and talks about the "murder" of unborn children.  ←BenB4 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also two generalized categories of abortion: early term and late-term. I believe the form of abortion he voted to ban at the federal level was partial birth abortion, which is a different matter altogether for even many who support abortion rights early in pregnancy.--Gloriamarie 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  might need clarification 

message: (Deleted RFCpol tag because of no action, and general consensus that the legislation should be included briefly whether or not it conflicts with stated positions.) John J. Bulten 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not suggesting that we state in the article that the legislation conflicts with his positions.  I think we should describe what the legislation says and let people decide for themselves.  You have spent quite a bit of time trying to convince me he is not anything more than "personally" opposed to abortion even though he says on his campaign web site that he's "an unshakable foe," so I am not at all surprised that you don't want to describe the legislation he has introduced that would define embryos as legally equivalent to people and remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts. ←BenB4 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that can't be included. It should be in the Political positions of Ron Paul article, and abortion should not be the focus of the summary section in this main article.  With 45 sections, abortion only being one of them, why is abortion and specific legislation relating to it mentioned in two or three of the paragraphs of the version you prefer, when other things that he's spent considerable time in Congress on, such as education or healthcare (one example: the Health Freedom Protection Act), are not mentioned at all? The summary section should summarize the full linked article, not serve as a section almost solely focusing on abortion or any other issue. The "unshakable foe" quote also seems to be a new addition on his website.--Gloriamarie 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already says he wants to defederalize health care in the first paragraph of the positions section, and the Health Freedom Protection Act isn't even mentioned in Political positions of Ron Paul so it's not likely to appear in the summary. The We the People Act and the Sanctity of Live Act are interesting specifically because they conflict with his supposed libertarianism. Plus, do you think that wanting to forbid the federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments is less important than anything he's said about health care? ←BenB4 08:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not at conflict if you understand that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.  According to the US Constitution, most powers are delegated to the states and the people.  The federal government is supposed to have very limited power.  24.14.76.94 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Health Freedom Protection Act actually is mentioned in Political positions of Ron Paul, just not by name: "He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a prescription for vitamins)."Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom" at US House of Representatives homepage accessed on June 8 2007"--Gloriamarie 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there is a lot of legislation that isn't mentioned by name, but we have had an article on the We the People Act since January 2006. ←BenB4 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really more of a stub; there was almost as much written in this article on the Act as in its own article!--Gloriamarie 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a stub, but it has seven times as many sentences as the description here. ←BenB4; 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the description of the bill, not the full article.--Gloriamarie 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on positions 

message: So, now there is a dispute about whether it is okay to say that Paul is pro-life without including two dozen words of rambling "nuance" about the 10th Amendment which contradict his votes and the bills he has introduced to ban abortions.  I will let Dr. Paul speak for himself:
:"I am pro-life."
:"I am strongly pro-life."
:"As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist...."
:"As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion."
:"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
:"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."
:"I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts.  The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration." (emphasis added)
By my count, there are at least three dozen more where those came from. 
If you want a constitutional amendment to overrule the 10th Amendment, then do you think you're going to go around telling people that you think the 10th Amendment should be the deciding rule on the issue? No! 
It feels like Bizarro World that this is even an issue. (Note: I did remove the pro-life mention from the first paragraph -- and I wasn't the one who put it there -- as it should occur with his positions.) ←BenB4 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its a legit question. However, the Constitution is amendable, isn't it? He respects the constitution as it is now and the state's rights, but he wants to change the constitution (the legal way) to be more pro-life. I can respect that. In this way, you can definitely think both. You respect the constitution as it is while simultaneously moving to change it. Wrad 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet he voted to ban abortions "to offset the damage of Roe v. Wade" or some such.  If he believes that, then he believes two wrongs make a right. ←BenB4 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he's a constitutionalist basically. It isn't contradictory at all. You respect the constitution. If you don't like it, you go through the process to amend it, as opposed to passing federal legislation in the usual way. From  constitutionalist perspective, it's not contradictory at all. A court decision has less umph than an Amendment. It's all how you look at it. If you look at whether he's pro-life or pro choice, and nothing else, you might see a contradiction. But there isn't one. He just respects the constitution, and right now he believes that the constitution protects state rights on abortion. He is pro-life, and wants to make and amendment in that direction, but that doesn't contradict anything. It just shows respect for the constitution. Wrad 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you think it's fair to qualify his pro-life stance with "he wants the decision left to the states in accordance with the 10th amendment" without mentioning his proposed constitutional amendment or his legislation or his congressional votes against abortion? ←BenB4 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless there are reliable sources saying criticizing his position on it.  The question is not whether he's pro-life; it's whether his position is more nuanced than that, in mostly leaving the issue to the states to be handled. There's a reason he gets a 65% rating from pro-choice NARAL some years when most pro-life politicians get 0%, and that's because he votes against federal measures having to do with abortion and the like. Your opinion on the matter is clear, bu the question is, How is the article going to be made better? Should the article be completely based on abortion? Other politicians' articles barely mention it, and I have compromised by making a whole paragraph on the issue in the Political Positions section, which no other issue has besides the Iraq War. There is no need to say it in the opening, in a way which would lead readers to think he is one of those who gets a 0% from NARAL.--Gloriamarie 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not long ago you were telling me a summary had to be short, now you're telling me "pro-life" won't fly, even though he refers to himself that way.  We have to talk about the 10th amendment, even though he wants to add an amendment of his own?  There is a paragraph with a complete explanation of all the nuance (thank you.) All the other positions in the summary list have just a few words.  Pro-life should too. ←BenB4 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually am on the fence about whether it should be left in; Tvoz is convincing me a bit with some of her arguments, but the reason I initially took it out was because JLMadrigal's addition of the 10th Amendment might lead to you putting specific legislation back in the lead, and lead to the same disagreements we've been having for the past few days on the subject. If the editors discussing the matter on the talk page agree to have it in the opening with no explanation, I have no problem with that because I accept consensus when it has been reached.--Gloriamarie 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, fine - and as I said on your talk page I am not up to date on the back-and-forth here that you describe - but maybe that gives me an advantage of being able to read this with fresher eyes.  I'm not looking to add to the lede - it's too long already - I'm looking for the lede to reflect the article, and for it to not pretend that his abortion position doesn't exist which could make it appear that the  article is being edited with a POV.  Two words - or one hyphenated one - is all I'm adding, and when folks want to know more about that position they go down to the section where it is discussed.  And then even more I assume would be found in the separate article Political positions of Ron Paul - I didn't look there yet for this.  Not saying the words "pro-life" in the lede - the article summary - I think is an overreaction to whatever it is that transpired before, and doesn't make sense coming in fresh. Tvoz |talk 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Thanks for your fresh eyes. I think the best solution would be to say that he is "pro-life but usually does not believe the federal government should intervene."  I'm not sure if that will be acceptable to other editors, though. I don't think editors will be happy with just saying "pro-life" in the introduction, because it goes a bit beyond that. I'm not saying he's not pro-life; he has, however, voted on legislation in such a way that in most years, he gets rated highly by pro-choice NARAL (for leaving decisions up to states).--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriamarie (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gloriamarie, please. Read this link to his campaign site - there is no ambiguity here, and there is no way that NARAL supports this position.  This isn't even a controversial edit - here is a quote from  that link:I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.  That's not saying "leaving decisions up to states", that is saying explicitly that the federal government should not be able to interfere with the states' efforts to prohibit and/or restrict abortion. His intention is  one-way , and to his credit, he is not unclear about it or waffling - but some of these edits here are.  "Pro-life" sums it up quite nicely, is short, simple, and to the point - exactly what you want in the lede.  You can try for all the nuance elsewhere, although frankly I don't see this as such a nuanced position - but that's just my opinion.  As for the article lede, I see no reason for any qualifiers, given what his own web site says his position is. Pro-life. Tvoz |talk 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that he wasn't pro-life. I disagree that that is not leaving things up to states-- states could then decide whether to allow it or not allow it. However, he has taken positions on some bills at the federal level that most pro-life politicians have not, indicated in his NARAL rating here, higher than most pro-life politicians on a year-by-year basis. That used to be mentioned in the article. Compare this to John McCain, who has scored a 0% every year, due to supporting more federal measures on the matter.--Gloriamarie 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify:  it may well be that the effect of that bill would be that some states decide to allow abortion, although the part about life beginning at conception - making abortion equal to murder - I think might put a damper on that, and might open the door for the feds to step in as one could say a legitimate role of theirs is to prevent murder -  but even if an effect of the bill would be to have some states pass abortion-rights bills, the point of this discussion is "What is Ron Paul's position on pro-life vs pro-choice?" and I think it is unambiguously pro-life - again, he is not unclear or waffling about it at all, but turning oneself into a pretzel to explain the possible effects of his bill seems to me to be begging the issue.  The nuance can be down belowand/or in the longer article. The lede is a list of some of his prominent positions, and there's just no argument that this isn't one of them.  NARAL's rating is irrelevant here - it can go somewhere else as an interesting effect of some of his past votes. But he makes his position clear - why would we want to equivocate on it?  Tvoz |talk 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves." -Ron Paul (at ) -- there are others too. My point is that although there are a lot of quotes by him supportive of the pro-life position, you could find an equal number of quotes supportive of this more nuanced position. Rinkuhero 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Paul get detailed about abortion in this interview, August 16, 2007 - Ron Paul interview battles Air America Randi Rhodes Show, found on ronpaulaudio.com:  He indicates that the definition of life becomes problematic early in the pregnancy and indicates that because of this problem the state should decide not only whether to allow or prohibit it but to decide at what point in the pregnancy to prohibit or allow it. I think this detail should be noted in the article. It shows that he doesn't view at as a simply an issue of prohibit or allow. Operation Spooner 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a quote on that, by any chance?--Gloriamarie 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life 

message: Should we not include his opposition to Federally-funded stem cell research?  The political positions article is vague, only talking about how he characterizes the two sides of the issue, but not stating his position on the subject. This is disingenuous, and leaving it out here is as well.  Tvoz |talk 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict - reply to original comment] You missed my point, Gloriamarie, or perhaps I didn't make it clearly. The Political positions of Ron Paul article has a section on stem cell research which if I recall correctly just quotes Paul on how he characterizes the two sides of the argument - pro and anti Federal funding of it - and does not clearly indicate which position he takes. That is what I referred to as disingenuous - if we're talking about the issue and talking about how he sees the two sides of it, I think we need to clearly spell out what his position is.  As for this article - the editors here have chosen, for whatever reasons, to go into minutiae on his positions - and for some reason have left this one out.  I think if all of those others are in, so should this one be as it has been a major issue in recent elections, and it is odd to have been left out.  As for the other candidates' pages, as you know, each one has chosen to handle political positions (and other things) differently - so if  the ones you mentioned went into the kind of detail that this one does on dozens of issues and left out stem cell research, I'd question it there too.  In fact Obama , Clinton and Romney  have sections in their "Political positions"  articles, and I've asked why Edwards doesn't - it will shortly.  They have chosen to not go into such detail in the main article on many issues.  I haven't checked the other candidates' articles yet.   Tvoz |talk 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now responding to the edit - I brought it to talk rather than changing it because I don't usually edit the Political positions of Ron Paul article and don't have the facts in hand, which I assume others here and there do. So they are in a better position to include his stand fairly - I can research it, but thought someone here would likely be able to fix it faster than I can, as it goes on a pretty long queue for me. Tvoz |talk 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realized what you were referring to once I posted and then went back- I'm very sorry about that. I am not opposed to it being here if it is in the other article, since this section is supposed to be a summary. Do you have any ideas for ways to help this section get back into more of a summary mode? That's a good idea, I may even do it myself or mention it on the talk page there.--Gloriamarie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOt a problem - I just didn't feel like rewriting my reply as I was poised to post it. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea! Lets put the whole article in there!Turtlescrubber 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the paragraph on abortion and the paragraph on the We the People Act as "summary sprawl."  Why do you believe that information should not be included? ←BenB4 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A good solution could be to change the We the People Act paragraph to a list of legislation he's sponsored or supported, with links to articles if appropriate or brief explanations. That would cover a lot more ground.--Gloriamarie 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not opposed in principle, but he's sponsored 76 and cosponsored 354 bills, just in the 108th Congress..  Maybe that should be a separate article with its own summary section here? ←BenB4 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea, but it would be a large project and quite a task to decide which bills should be included and which shouldn't.--Gloriamarie 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a legislation section, and that's where his legislation should go, not political positions.  I moved the Sanctity of Life and We the People Acts there - it makes more sense that way.  And yes, he has sponsored numerous bills - I think people can go over them and if there are others that are notable, or have gotten any press, or there's some way they epitomize his positions, then we should add them to that section as well.  If worse comes to worst, and the legislation section becomes too large, we can fork it off to its own article in tried and true wikipedia style.   I don't see this as a problem. Of course I haven't looked yet to see if any of my edits have remained...  Tvoz |talk 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The We the People Act hasn't actually gotten any press; it never got out of committee and no editor has found reliable third party sources mentioning it yet. The Sanctity of Life Act has gotten that sort of attention, though.--Gloriamarie 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it did get some write ups. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the sources are reliable or the bill is accurately described:  ←BenB4 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re-introducing the bills doesn't necessarily mean anything for one particular bill over another, because he actually re-introduces most of his bills every single Congressional section. I just added an education bill he's introduced six straight times. That's why there are so many introduced each session. Sure, getting out of committee doesn't make them un-notable, but having no reliable sources reporting on the bill could be perceived as showing that something is not notable (since Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say).--Gloriamarie 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think that the education bill is notable or are you making a different point?  Tvoz |talk 04:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't making a statement on the notability of either, just saying that the fact that he re-introduces the bills does not inherently give notability because he seems to re-introduce all of his bills.--Gloriamarie 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant because you added the education bill to the article, I assume you think it's notable even though no citations were given.  (I don't object, I just  thought you were saying that only bills with press should be included.) Tvoz |talk 05:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bill actually has gotten written about by some organizations, I just have not yet added it to the article and in fact made its own article where it's more appropriate to discuss it.--Gloriamarie 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem cell research 

message: Well, that lasted five days.  ←BenB4 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. It's the best compromise to date. Are you good with it Ben? JLMadrigal 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see section below.  Photouploaded 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Would "linked" be a better way to say it?--Gloriamarie 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  We just need to avoid implying he's never taken federal action against abortion. ←BenB4 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "intertwined" 

message: "His [i.e. Paul's] pro-life and states' rights positions are intertwined."  What does this even mean?  "Intertwined" according to whom?  This is just bad writing, it has no sources to back it up (never mind explain).  I think that if someone were to come to this article, not knowing anything about Paul, and they were to read this sentence, it would make no sense to them at all.  Photouploaded 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He says that he is personally pro-life and does not want a federal solution for it, wanting the states to decide whether to abolish it or allow it. That sentence is the result of some tenuous compromising (see the many discussions above) but of course if you can think of a better way to say it, feel free. A full paragraph on that is in the Political positions section if you look down further.--Gloriamarie 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read as much of that as I could stomach, and I still maintain that it's a weasel-worded statement, whether it's sourced to him or not.  There is absolutely no reason not to make his personal and political pro-life aims apparent in the lede.  Abortion is a top ethical and social issue, his views should be made clear.  Paul's self-reported spin on things isn't a substitute for NPOV.  Photouploaded 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says he's pro-life-- to go into too much more detail is not appropriate when there are many other positions that also need to be mentioned. The intro already leaves out many things, and at least one user complains below that the intro is too long the way it is. There is a reason not to go into the detail you apparently wish in the lead, and that is because it would bring down the quality of the article. The political positions section in the article is a summary of Political positions of Ron Paul, and the opening sentence is in turn a summary of that summary section. It can't go on at great length about any one subject.--Gloriamarie 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A personal opinion that it's "perfect" isn't a useful argument.  Requesting clarification of one sentence is not "rewriting everything".  You end with a snide comment.  Useless.  Photouploaded 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so you don’t see the irony in your "reasoning"? I didn't end with a snide comment, I actually ended with some useful advice, to both you and the community. If you are unable to comprehend simple sentences then I suggest you resist changing Wiki entries. Requesting clarification comprises of rewriting the first paragraph and political position sections does it?? No wonder I never learnt anything from my teachers when I asked "can you explain this?". You may find my comment useless (as we have seen, because you didn't understand it) but at least I am not giving useless Wiki updates to pages which gives more work to the real editors who then have to go back and fix everything you ruined. 80.74.247.74 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If it said: "He says they are 'interwined,'" then yes, that would have to be a direct quote. However, he repeatedly says they are closely linked and "intertwined" is just another way of phrasing that. Previously, it wasn't sourced at all. I also phrased it that way because it's based on his words, and I thought that was better than a blanket statement that they are intertwined. You can take out the "he says" part if you think that makes it more subjective.--Gloriamarie 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That would often be true in the case of other politicians; however, with Paul even many of his opponents admit that he has philosophical consistency, this has been noted often in news stories, and he often votes against laws that would regulate things at the federal level, including an amendment to ban gay marriage, proposing a law that wouldn't allow the FDA to regulate vitamins as medicine, and federal drug enforcement against terminally ill medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized medical marijuana by referendum. One of the things he says most often is that he does not wish to regulate things at the federal level, and when asked about abortion, he almost always specifically says he does not think it's appropriate to either abolish it or legalize it at the federal level. Perhaps it might help to take a look at some of the sources listed for the article and familiarize yourself with what Paul has said on the issue.--Gloriamarie 19:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Abortion is a top-tier ethical issue, and Paul's position should be reflected clearly in the lede. I propose adding the following to the lede:
Paul describes himself as "pro-life";{1}{2} he believes that "life begins at conception",{3} and he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.
What are your thoughts on this? Photouploaded 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a good edit at all. We already had acres of discussion on this on the talk page (see above), and the intro is a summary of a summary section. The Sanctity of Life Act is thoroughly discussed in the Legislation section. To elevate it above all his legislative bills, including ones that actually made it into law, and to have so many direct quotes, is giving abortion undue weight in the intro. Civil liberties and free speech are a "top-tier ethical issue" in my mind, but there's nothing in the lead about how Paul is one of the few people to often vote against bills restricting freedom of speech (there are many examples).--Gloriamarie 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing Paul's views on abortion in the lede

message: the wikipedia article states that ron paul supports state control over abortion "unless" the Constitution is amended.  the present powers that be are not likely to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion,so the next best thing is to allow the individual states to decide and keep abortion out of the United States Constitution altogether. this is not a compromise. what can ron paul do about this?  he cannot make a decree outlawing abortions.
ron pauls campaign website, ronpaul2008.com lists his view on abortion as such:
:Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. 
:Life and Liberty
:The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. 
:In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. 
:In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. 
:I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. 
:I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” 
:Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. 
:As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.26 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general we describe people how they describe themselves (WP:ID) and saying that any implication that he is pro-life requires a nuance concerning his states' rights position ignores the fact that he has voted to ban abortions in Congress and has introduced federal legislation that would define life as beginning at conception. ←BenB4 06:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, BenB4.  Furthermore, I think the veil of "states' rights" needs to be lifted, here.  Paul's attempts, at the federal level, to restrict and/or or deny access to abortion go far beyond any dedication to states' rights.  They need to be addressed as what they are.  We need to describe Paul's pro-life views and actions, simply and factually, without baggage or spin. Photouploaded 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason we can't say that Paul is pro-life; but there's also no reason not to also say what he says when he talks about it, which is that he believes it's best left up to the states.--Gloriamarie 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul and Abortion 

message: In a previous version, the article section titled Political positions had one sentence on Paul's pro-life views, followed by a ref containing an entire paragraph of information on Paul's pro-life views.  This strikes me as an improper use of the references section.  If there is so much information on his pro-life viewpoint, it should be incorporated into the article at the discretion of the editors.  It should not buried in the References section.  If the entire article were written like this, the References section would be large and unwieldy.  I have since moved the info from this large, bulky reference into the article, and requested citations where they seem to be missing.  
Of particular interest is the phrase, "Paul believes that Paul believes that, for the most part, regulation must be handled at the state level, until and unless the Constitution is amended."  What is the exception to this belief, that requires stating "for the most part"?  Can we get a ref for the part about the Constitution?  Thanks.  Photouploaded 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-life ref

message: Let me first applaud Tvoz for moving the two acts to Legislation as that has apparently defused a lot of the issue. Reading the whole of the above sections (apologies if my combining them confused anyone) and comparing against unresolved issues in the current article, I get these, with some overlap:
# Paul supported PBABA why: states' rights or pro-life? Former seems to demand context, latter seems to demand none.
# Paul makes pro-life statements like "murder" of unborn: Same dichotomy.
# The 2 bills (SOLA and WTPA) and the Pro-Life Amendment: Too much coverage or too little?
# Are Paul's "libertarian" states' rights views and these pro-life federal activities in conflict? I.e., why can feds ban PBAs or amend definition of "life" if it's up to the states?
# Is Paul "pro-life" with nuance (intertwined, linked), or without? I.e., how to summarize in lead?
# Does Paul prefer the 10th Amendment or the proposed Pro-Life Amendment?
# Is the PBA ban improper federal encroachment if Roe v Wade is also?
# Is Paul's solution really less federal power?
# Are legislative findings laws and do they link irreversibly to abortion being murder?
# Does he ever support capital punishment or governments using it?
# He voted against criminalizing fetal assault and crossing state lines for abortions: pro-life?
# Include his stem-cell position, or is that improper balance?
# Can states' rights be "unlinked" and the veil lifted?
# In Political Positions, how much should be main and how much footnoted?
I think it will inform consensus edits and answer these questions if we remember that Paul believes his position consistent and if we attempt to determine that position. We have "I am strongly pro-life"; yet his website downplays "talk about being pro-life" in favor of actually acting to protect the unborn, which implies that the label itself has been misused. So there IS some kind of nuance necessary (5). Then on the other hand "this is best handled at the state level and not have a federal mandate", while he clearly regards PBABA, SOLA, WTPA, and the Pro-Life Amendment as permissible exceptions to state jurisdiction. One might argue a contradiction: PBABA presumably infringes the state's "right" to permit PBAs; and SOLA and the Amendment, its "right" to exempt killing of fetuses from murder laws. (WTPA, however, returns the right to the state to make its own decisions about "abortion rights".)
Please review "Freedom Under Siege" where Paul explains the paradox that one can't "legislate morality" yet all law is founded in moral principle. His resolution is that legislators should NOT impose minority morality (e.g. persnickety regulations over porn) but MUST impose broad-consensus morality (e.g. banning murder). Thus PBABA harmonizes, because he believes Congress by medical fact-finding (PBA is never necessary for maternal health), and USSC in Gonzalez v Carhart, have established that PBA is evil enough and widely objectionable enough to ban federally. Roe v Wade, however, is considered an overreach of a lobbyist minority's morality (7). (BTW, fact-finding is NOT law; only the statutes, not the preambles and resolutions, are law: Constitution Article 6.) His support of PBABA is thus wholly pro-life and can be disconnected from states' rights, because it doesn't abridge Roe's "abortion rights" (1).
SOLA and the Amendment seek to define personhood to protect the unborn. But he also admits "you don't want one answer for every single person" when the debate moves to zygotes: states' rights kick in. He cites liability for fetal death by accident or violence or abortion all in the same breath, and then rejects "a federal mandate that either abolishes it completely and totally or legalizes it completely and totally". If these 2 laws were to say abortion is always murder, then they would abolish abortion completely: since he thinks they don't, they must be readable as saying abortion is not always murder (or else we are leaving NPOV and accusing him of a contradiction). Well, the fact is (IIRC, IANAL) that laws defining murder rely on the then-existing definition of "person" and are not automatically changed when personhood is broadened. Rather, the states must make new law in light of the newly-existing legal or Constitutional definition, which law might then define fetal death as manslaughter in some cases and accidental in others. Ben's two cites that misequate personhood law with "abortion being murder" (and both relate to state not federal law!) quote a pro-lifer, who has personal interest in advancing the equation, and a PP leader, whose statement is too full of "could"s to be meaningful (and the link was bad too). The second article even admits admits the law "does not address criminal penalties", and neither does Paul's legislation. So in sum, the laws do NOT link abortion to murder as they stand (9). They also do not dictate how states will afterward legislate what constitutes murder in light thereof, and therefore do not infringe states' rights either to permit or to restrain abortion (4).
Proceeding from there I can conclude also: Paul's personal statements about abortion being murder inform, but do not enter into, his legislation (2); Paul's bills are properly placed in Legislation, but the two paragraphs can be combined without loss (3); Paul supports the Constitution with whatever amendments it has at any moment, and its amendments are taken as mutually noncontradictory (i.e., as amended, the states would have rights to determine how to handle criminally the deemed personhood of the preborn) (6); each of his proposals does restrict federal power (i.e., its power to enforce "abortion rights") (8); and the nuance need not be so strong as "linked" or "intertwined" (though I like those) because there is a separability (13).
To side issues I add: If he has some sourceable record of favoring capital punishment in some way, put that in the Political Positions article (10); same disposition for any sourced description of his opposing new criminalization of abortion-related activities (although they might appear in this article's summary with another sourced compromise disclaimer, viz., "Paul also votes against many new federal crime laws, such as ...") (11); and the current SOLA text makes enough passing implication to Paul's opposition to killing fetuses for stem cell research to be sufficient (12).
Finally, the abortion paragraph as footnote seems to say the same thing 6 times (he is pro-life). The SOLA reference can be dropped or minimized because already present; others can be combined. Since I already advocated joining the "federal regulation of marriage" clause in with the abortion issue, I think they can remain their own paragraph as such (14), and the "don't ask don't tell" sentence fits better there than in paragraph 1 as well.
I also have two nitpicks of my own: SOLA "negates", not "overturns", Roe ("overturns" is technical); and it outlaws "new" fetal stem cell research (research with existing cell lines is permitted). So here we go:
:Proposed Resolution (my best shot)
:# Lead: 'Paul reconciles being "strongly pro-life" <teamliberty>, opposed to federal death penalties <American View>, and favorable to states' rights <Randi Rhodes>.' "Reconcile" implies "link" or "intertwine" as well as recognizing there is some potential disparity between these three positions, which we explain in the body. (I guess we need to mention capital punishment in the body then.)
:# Legislation: 'In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would provide that human life exists from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade.[77][81] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[78][79] Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[80][81]'
:# Positions: 'Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion"[FN] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[American View]* Paul also opposes federal regulation of "voluntary associations" [FN] like marriages or civil unions, believing marriage is not a state function and should not require a government license. [FN] Medically, he recognizes homosexuality is "too complex to give a [simple] answer", [FN] but he has affirmed that, if Christians restrict the Constitutional or civil liberties of others, it can have blowback against the rights of Christians. [FN][FN] He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent," to focus on behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[113][114]' See my cites above under "Marriage". *The key sentence harmonizes the American View paragraph and the legislation. PBABA does not regulate medical decisions because PBA is found medically unnecessary. SOLA and the Pro-Life Amendment also do not regulate decisions: they affirm personhood and leave the states free to regulate. WTPA also removes regulation of maternal-fetal decisions.
:# Footnote: 'Paul says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception. Paul's pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and because he wants to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[FN][FN]'
Now take your best shot! John J. Bulten 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like intertwined better than reconciles, the latter implies compromising more than just tempering. ←BenB4 01:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, in context it would be "Paul intertwines". And Ben, thank you so much for removing the POV tag! If there is anything we 40,000 supporters can do to facilitate understanding, let us know!
I'm going to go through the rest of the talk page with my comments though first, and then proceed to make the changes as well as improvements in grammar, style, wordiness, etc. John J. Bulten 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My pro-life summary 

message: Why do we need an entire section devoted to his Internet popularity (especially since this is a subset of his campaign article)? Yes, I agree his popularlity is notable, but an entire section? And the section essentially follows this format: Paul is popular on website A. Paul is also popular on website B. Furthermore, Paul is popular on website C. Additionally, Paul is popular on website D. Can't this be summarized in a single paragraph--Daveswagon 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually had the same feeling for a while now. He does have a decent sized Internet following, which is probably how it got into Wikipedia (cf. self-fulfilling prophecy and WP:BIAS :P), but I'll leave it up to other editors. Narco 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather see that go than the description of his legislation, for goodness sake. ←BenB4 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Anon was pointing to the very part that came to my mind, actually. It's not that it's not relevant as much as it's not of sufficient importance for inclusion in the main article. I can live with the Internet popularity section as it stands right now unless something earth-shattering happens to his campaign that would relegate things like YouTube to the main campaign article. Narco 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles like Hillary Clinton's don't make mention of every straw poll she is leading, so why should Paul have every website mentioned that he tops?--Daveswagon 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care either way whether this section is in the main article; I'm willing to go with the consensus. An argument could be made that his "Internet popularity" has gotten him more attention than he ever had before, so it is one of the most noteworthy things about him. An argument could also be made that it is part of his campaign so it belongs in his spinoff Presidential campaign article.--Gloriamarie 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just passed 29,000 YouTube subscribers. John J. Bulten 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is an article just for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.37.164 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent link, 67.134.37.164. Gramscis-- if you want a place to insert your hogwash opinions, please do the Wikipedia community a favor and start your own blog, rather than littering your comments and lies on Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks!146.82.18.10 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet popularity 

message: It seems a poll conducted by a company called InsiderAdvantage which was conducted around 2 days ago places Paul at around 6 percent in new hampshire, but in the absense of a Wikipedia article on these pollsters, I wasn't sure of the notability, or if it should be included at all. Here's the cite web stuff and a sample sentence: By the beginning of October, an InsiderAdvantage poll placed him at 6 percent. 
 Homestarmy 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this poll important? 

message: Just wanted to explain the recent change that I made to the biographical info on Ron Paul's family.  I removed the info on Paul's paternal grandfather, referring to him as a "German Lutheran".  While I believe this info to be correct, I felt that it was poorly cited.  If anyone wants to add it again with better citation, feel free.
I also changed the phrase which suggested that Ron Paul was born to Margaret "Peggy" Dumont.  The listing of "Peggy" as a nickname may be accurate, but was not found in the sources.  However, by the time of Paul's birth, his mother's name was not "Margaret Dumont," but "Margaret Paul".  Using her maiden name in this context is akin to saying that "Cassius Clay fought his last bout in 1981" rather than "Muhammed Ali."
This is a widespread error in Wikipedia biographies, possibly due to the fact that genealogical tables (such as the one cited in this article) are concerned with recording births, and often do not note later name changes.  However, biographical references to a subject's mother should generally use her married name, unless of course she retained (or is widely known by) her maiden name.  Please see the Manual of Style section on maiden names for more on this.  Lnh27 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if your deletion seems overpicky, but I notice when you cited MOSBIO you didn't bother to adopt its recommendation that would yield Margaret "Peggy" (Dumont) Paul. I added "Peggy" to disambiguate actress Margaret Dumont. Also, in many bios use of mother's maiden name at birth of children is not an error, because in their context the assumption is that the husband's name has been taken and would be redundant. In Wiki I understand that one cannot so assume, but I don't think the use of US style in a US article to the exclusion of other styles rises to the level of "widespread error". Will see what I can source. John J. Bulten 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to by overly picky, and I appreciate your work on this article.  But I thought the "Peggy" should have some source, since not all women named "Margaret" are known as "Peggy".  I couldn't find a good reference on it during a quick Google search.  As for the MOS examples yielding "Margaret (Dumont) Paul" or "Margaret Paul (née Dumont)," this seemed to be for use in more detailed references (such as an article on Margaret Paul herself).  I don't have an objection to something like "née Dumont" being used if it would work better here.  My thinking was based on the fact that the article by Carol Paul (and most other references I could find) refers to him as being the son of "Howard and Margaret Paul."  This likely reflects the names his parents were commonly known by, which seems to be a reasonable standard for a brief mention.  Given that, I thought it sufficient for the maiden name (as well as Howard Paul's middle name) to be available in the cited genealogical table.  Perhaps there is a better method, but I do wish there was a clear standard for such cases.  Lnh27 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick note regarding the choice of 'Margaret "Peggy" (Dumont) Paul': why this rather than the more common form of "Margaret Paul (née Dumont)"?  I still think it best to use the names they were generally known under, and leave things like maiden names and nicknames to cited sources.  An interested reader can easily check these without adding unnecessary complexity to the main article.  Lnh27 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parental info 

message: I think the RFC is no longer needed. Eiler7 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Reviewing the talk archive as 1of3 recommends, I note there was some good previous consensus for footnoting the racist comments themselves. It appeared the scale tipped toward keeping them in the body, but now that I added the white/Asian/Israeli comments (to demonstrate it was multi-racism) and someone else added the LA riot/terror comment, it may be wise to reconsider. Seems like "For instance" can introduce two clauses, and the rest would be appropriate in the footnote. With that, it's even possible to make it one paragraph, move it to under the 1996 campaign, and break the long "Campaigns" section into "1996 campaign and controversy" and "Campaigns as incumbent". The controversy only arose in the 96 campaign and was not significantly reaired afterward until the 01 interview. It's also the shortest section except for military/medical (which could easily be combined into "Family and medical career"). Thoughts please? John J. Bulten 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last suggestion sounds like a good idea-- I had thought of that actually myself and thought I might implement it soon. It would best fit under a "1996 campaign" section with the existing information about Lefty Morris. I did take out some of the new information, because it was getting overloaded with so many of the quotes; however, it's possible that putting them in a footnote could be OK with me, depending on how it's done. I'm interested in what others would think about that solution as well.--Gloriamarie 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your help! Since you tightened the section I went ahead and closed the circuit by supplying a footnote and adding a bit more text (also noted a couple style quibbles). The other rearrangements might happen soon too. John J. Bulten 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now combined the sections into "1996 campaign controversy" and "Campaigns as incumbent". I also prefer 1of3's reorg to lengthen the military/medical section. John J. Bulten 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflowing or footnoting odd sections 

message: I thought it might be interesting to mention that Ron Paul, Jr. was the Texas high school 100 yard butterfly champion and later was on the University of Texas swim.74.130.104.62 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, but while we're on the subject, "Sr." in bold in the lead is implicitly correct per MOSBIO, unless there is evidence that his son is not precisely "Ronald Ernest Paul". In the absence of such evidence (I've looked) and the presence of frequent reference to Jr. and Sr., Sr. is presumptively correct. See also John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson; but Barack Obama would need Jr. added. John J. Bulten 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When has there ever been "frequent reference to Jr. and Sr."? Jr. is not famous as far as I know and is mentioned only once in this article. It seems to me that this only comes into play when both Sr. and Jr. are well-known or it is used as part of the name. I have never seen him referred to as Ron Paul Sr., and it's not even established that his son is a Jr. or has the same name in the first place. A search of "Ron Paul Sr" turns up a grand total of two websites. This is not something that should be done in this particular article. John McCain's actual birth name includes a III, not Sr., Joe Biden's actual birth name includes a Jr., and Bill Richardson's actual birth name includes a III, so none of those examples are the same as this case. Unless there is some type of confusion between a famous father and son with the same name, Sr. should not be used. --Gloriamarie 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul, Jr. 

message: The Medical and Military Career section isn't very long even though it combines both aspects. Should the paragraph documenting his medical school/residency be moved to the Medical Career section rather than Early life/Education? I think it would be more appropriate there, especially considering the difference in length between those two sections. The Early Life one is pretty long in its current state.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. 1of3 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical career section 

message: Does anyone know if the button in this article is an offical campaign button (i.e., would it count as fair use of an item meant for publicity for appearance in this article)? It would definitely add a nice element to the Campaigns section under Early Congressional Career.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1988 campaign 

message: I remember a discussion that took place over whether Ron Paul is Episcopalian or Baptist; the New York Times said Episcopalian, I believe, and now NPR does too, but this article was changed at one point to say Baptist.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A printout of the NY Times article one day after its publication said the same thing it does now: "Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one." Even if he has a lapsed but valid Episcopalian membership (a conceivable speculation, but not much more useful than if someone was baptized Catholic but never attended), the doctrinal difference is sufficient that the preponderance of evidence (Baptist attendance) precludes listing Episcopalianism as current. Former would be fine. John J. Bulten 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people consider themselves to be a different religion than the church they attend. NPR says Episcopalian; it's quite possible that someone attends a different church than they consider themselves to be a member of, or are a member of. Perhaps Episcopalian/Baptist or simply Protestant would work better, but NPR plainly lists his religion as Episcopalian, not Baptist, while the Pew Forum says Baptist. I think it should say Protestant, since there are differing sources.--Gloriamarie 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Should YouTube stats really be in the lead?  I mean, the "What the Buck" guy has almost twice as many subscribers. 1of3 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think actually providing the polling number is far superior to making a nonquantative statement of relative scores. John J. Bulten 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Joking aside, actually this symmetry might give us a compromise on the 4% poll number. WP:LS says, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." So we might wisely agree on the more generic statements in both places; here it would be, say, "He has several times more YouTube subscribers than any other presidential candidate", where "several" means from 3 (Obama) to 50 (Brownback). John J. Bulten 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube stats 

message: As a newbie I have probably been overusing footnotes in response to demands for proof; others may have also. In general I strive to be lossless so frequently I retain too much info. Wanted to let everyone know I intend this weekend to trim back many of these, spurred on by FA candidacy. Particularly, (1) something footnoted both in the lead and in similar text in the article can be cited only in the second case; (2) of two footnotes that make the exact same point, the less useful can be dropped; (3) of multiple footnotes from the same point in the text, some can be redistributed; (4) dead or unhelpful links can be dropped or replaced. On the other hand, in any case where a point has been or can be reasonably disputed, at least one strong footnote should remain. Any help or comments are welcome. John J. Bulten 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culling of footnotes