Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 8

message: The claim that "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters and including images of the actual contents of some of them" had a primary source: the TNR articles. I have upgraded this to a NPOV secondary source, the Boston Globe. I moved the primary sources to appropriate locations.  The paragraph still appear as a coatrack for quoting from the newsletter. Terjen (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's coatrack about quoting the newsletter? The section is about the newsletter. --- tqbf 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the section should not be about the newsletter, but about the related controversy and criticism. Terjen (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have expanded the paragraph to mention that the newsletters attacked Martin Luther King, Jr. etc., citing the claims to a secondary source. Terjen (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's clear enough. Did he attack MLK on racial issues or on social issues? We need to make the distinction. Wrad (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with what I said? Wrad (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a reply to your comment. If it was, it would have been intended accordingly, like this.Terjen (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources for revival of newsletter controversy 

message: I see that the negative quote about Paul's newsletter explanation not being transparent was removed but the positive quote retained.  Am I missing a discussion here? (That's possible - I  haven't read every word on talk tonight.)  Thanks Tvoz |talk 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it."
The editor's opinion notwithstanding, it is misleading at best to include half of what Caldwell said, especially when the two sentences follow one another, and arguably the second point clarifies the first.  It would be equally wrong to include the "was not transparent" part and omit the "quite believeably".  So, I am reinstating it as it was.   Tvoz |talk 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times magazine quotes 

message: Wikipedia articles should report known facts and should not report subjective opinions of columnists without at least telling the readers something about the columnists.  In this controversy, CNN reported that the "Ron Paul 90s newsletters rant against gays, blacks", and the Wikipedia article correctly mentions this undisputed fact, which is documented.  The Wikipedia article then mentions that Jamers Kirchick concluded that Paul was 'an "angry white man", noting that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".'  However, aside from the facts presented in CNN, there is no evidence at all for Kirchick's other comments, and the Wikipedia article does not even mention that Kirchick is a columnist and not a reporter.
We see Kirchick's type of argument all the time.  Bill O'Reilly reporting on the Toronto Globe and Mail's mocking of Fox News called it "far-left".  Would it be sensible to include this opinion in an article about this conservative but respectable newspaper without at least informing readers of who Bill O'Reilly was?  Is it really a good idea to use a columnist's opinions rather than a reporter's article as a source?
Surely Wikipedia's standards should be at least as high as CNN.  People reading Wikipedia's articles should not be expected to read columns that are quoted in its pages, research the columnists and then search for evidence they have provided, and determine whether it fits the story.  If a column is used as a source, only substantiated material should be quoted.  If the publication of the column itself is the story (e.g., J'accuse) then the reader wants to know something about the writer.
If the source is unreliable, then so is the article.
Although this article is about a presidential candidate, and therefore controversial, one expects that high standards of objectivity should be maintained about all subjects.  The Four Deuces (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirchick column 

message: Here is my revision to the opening paragraph. Please, suggest changes or clarify if or why you believe it is not NPOV to note the connection between Paul's beliefs and those of Washington. I can cite sources if you don't believe me about that link. He himself can be quoted in agreement.
And again, someone takes out my "the privacy violations codified in" the patriot act. Paul is against those. How is that fact not NPOV? Please enlighten me.  65.54.154.145 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "the violations of privacy codified in the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control" (whether one agrees with part or all of the clause or not) is definitely not a neutral description of those matters. --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will make my change without the part about privacy violations. I Suppose if someone doesn't know that the patriot act causes privacy concerns, they wouldn't be at Ron Paul's page.Dragonnas (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that he voted in favor of a federal ban on late-term D&C abortions, HR 760.  This is not consistent with opposing federal regulation of abortions. 71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It should say "He advocates overturning Roe v.Wade claiming it will let states determine the legality of abortion."
Paul supports changing the constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would effectively determine the legality of abortion on a state level.  While I suppose states could make the newly-defined murder legal, much of the abortion debate centers around the question of whether the fetus is alive or not.  It therefore strikes me as misleading to say that he believes states should determine the legality of abortion if he supports removing their right to determine when life begins.  The wording as it stands makes it sound like Wikipedia is confirming that overturning Roe v. Wade would indeed allow states to determine the legality of abortion in the sense of abortion as it is now defined.
Sorry if that's not clear, this is one of my first times trying to edit a page.
Also, I don't understand what that 2 citation is referring to.  It directs to a page written by somebody else about Ron Paul; it is not something out of his office.  [[[User:SheepFugue|SheepFugue]] (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Paul's Views in summary 

message: Well, I originally deleted other opinions regarding the newsletters, but if we're going to include a former LA Times editor's blog entry, then I guess we should include other opinions about how the newsletters affect Paul's campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a former Los Angeles Times editor noting in the newspaper's under editorial control Top of the Ticket "blog" that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters. That's more of an observation about the lack of effect from the newsletters revelation.Terjen (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, blogs are still not valid sources. —msikma (user, talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs aren't considered a verifiable source, but newspaper "blogs" by professionals writers under editorial control are an exception according to Wikipedia:V#_note-4, which also suggest we may not even have to attribute the author. Even calling such sources "blogs" is somewhat misleading. Terjen (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletters/Nevada 

message: Even after creating an account, I can not edit this article, so I will ask someone else to... 
When it says, "affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion" that doesn't really make sense.
I think it should say, "believes states should determine the legality of abortion" instead. Anyone agree? Paulin08 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sentence should clarify the connection between overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting states' rights to determine the legality of abortion. This can be achieved with minor changes to the sentence structure and wording. Terjen (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Um.  Except that he voted in favor of a federal ban on D&C abortions, HR 760 .  He *is* a "strong pro-lifer," happy enough to vote for federal bans until the states can do the banning themselves.  71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul is indeed "pro-life". See [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912300/posts]. There are also a bunch of other bills/resolutions that you could see besides 760, such as 1095 or 1003, or for example 380. There are more, I've got links if you want them. —msikma (user, talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion" 

message: The section covering Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, probably what makes him most notable at the moment, is small and much too small compared to the newsletter bit. This, of course, creates weight problems. Newsletter section should be reduced and summarized; the campaign section should be expanded. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur (YES)...--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as that would be a POV fork. Criticism is very scarce in this article, and the newsletter bit is important. There are many people who want to trim that section because it wouldn't be notable enough, despite the fact that Ron Paul is a presidential candidate and there are (very serious and, one might say, credible) allegations of him having published racist opinion pieces for 20 years. There's no reason to fork. (Also, please see all the discussion above. Do we really need to start another conversation about this?) —msikma (user, talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Either you don't understand what a POV fork is, or you meant to reply in the above section. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I mistakingly used the term "POV fork" here because I believed that you wanted to move content out of this article to some other article. But I'm wrong; instead, you want to just trim the section. Well, I disagree with that as well, because, like I said, the newsletters are important material. They're a major point of criticism that pertain not just to his 2008 campaign, but also to his 1996 run for congress. —msikma (user, talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider how important the newsletters are compared to his campaign. The media has all but forgotten the letters. His campaign, however, gets a considerable amount of attention. This campaign is a big part of his life. It makes zero sense to have the newsletters section much larger than the campaign section. There are obvious weight issues going on here. Not only should the newsletter section be reduced, but the campaign section should be expanded. ASAP. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No. See the above section. Given the importance of Paul's campaign, it should be expanded. Of course, this should be within the limits of WP:SUMMARY, but definitely within the limits of WP:WEIGHT as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The campaign has it's own article because it's important.  But still, WP:SUMMARY sections should generally be less than four paragraphs.  I can point to dozens of featured articles were summary sections of important subtopics are only a single paragraph. MB83 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEIGHT]] 

message: It very misleading for there to be a picture of sean paul  in the 2008 campaine section labeled as ron paul! This need to be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.106.5 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it a while ago. Editor also took down the regular pic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Paul Picture. 

message: Shouldn't it be banned since it's a form bribery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.110.38 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum to discuss Ron Paul's positions - check his websites. Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the question is because there is no information about it in the article, it is clearly in support of improving the article and as such is encouraged here. Devpty01 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an issue for the Political positions of Ron Paul entry. A starting point might be his writings on Campaign Finance Reform. See e.g. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS?. Terjen (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Ron Pauls position on 'lobbying' 

message: I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning on the main page, I'll leave it to the other editors to decide, but Ron Paul has a strong backing by the militia movements, especially the Indiana Militia Corps.  Their website, especially (and mainly) their newsletter, the Liberator, mentions Ron Paul multiple times as the candidate of their choice.
I'm not much of an editor, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be mentioned or not.
Rebelyell2006 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A candidate cannot be blamed for the followers he/she attracts. It's a corollary of the 16th of Niven's laws: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. Unless there is evidence that he is currently pandering to this crowd, it's not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike  | Talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if someone does find that he is pandering to them, then it probably should be mentioned.  Rebelyell2006 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's covered by the newsletters.  He's been accused of pandering to militias in those. Bartleby (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Militia Movements 

message: Why the hell is the newsletter controversy section twice as large as his entire presidential election section? Pathetic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.9.231 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Preceding statements moved here by John J. Bulten (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements misfiled in talk lead

message: the link to amazon for Paul's new book doesn't work.
Please update:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.149.85 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  please fix 

message: Why does the article not explain his rather remarkable viewpoint that the Fed would be illegal?  
*Did you discuss this already? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's the prohibition of gold money that is illegal according to Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6, and Section 10 Clause 1. Check for yourself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do so.  You'll find that JLMadrigal isn't being 100% straight here.  Section 8 says nothing whatsoever about the subject, and Section 10 only says that states can't use anything but gold or silver for paying their debts.  So the Section 10 cite is iffy, but the Section 8 one is completely fake. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon; let's assume a little good faith here, Lisa! I'm assuming Madrigal is referring to Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the fifth and sixth clauses (not formally numbered), which read, *To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;" By his idiosyncratic interpretation that means the feds can't prohibit the use of gold as money. That's different from my reading, but it's not fake! --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is.  There's no interpretation that makes those clauses say anything at all about gold.  Particularly when Section 10 mentions gold explicitly.  Look, I think the Fed is horrible and should be done away with.  But making false claims isn't going to help that to happen. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little common sense, please. If states are required to make their payments in gold money (which they don't), then gold money cannot be prohibited. Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6 show that the federal government MAY coin money (which it doesn't), but it doesn't give it a monopoly on coinage. Dr. Paul would like to put competitive pressure on the private FED bank, by removing it's unlawful monopoly. His executive power would allow him to do this immediately, because it is already the supreme law of the land (AKA Constitutionally prescribed). JLMadrigal (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an article about Ron Paul's life, not the legality of the central bank. Bring your speculation and original research elsewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "speculation and original research" You obviously don't know what your are talking about. The FED is no more federal then "federal express" the central world banks are putting this country in the shitter, wake up! --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Reserve: illegal, counterfeiting money ? 

message: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/24/ron-paul-racial-issues-and-the-racists-who-wish-to-kill-the-paul-campaign/
The racist newsletters were written by Bill White.  It was this man that Jamie Kirchick used as a source.
"Reason magazine identified then prominent paleolibertarian activist Lew Rockwell" is a lie.  It's as if Reason Magazine has the authority to "identify" any truth!  They do not have that authority.  
Bill White hates Ron Paul because he thinks Paul has been corrupted by Jews.  Paul's economic principles, are principles that White believes stems from Jewish economists like Von Mises, Rothbard, and others who have educated Paul.
I think the whole entry on the racist newsletters needs to be erased entirely, as they are a vicious fabrication of lies.  Reason magazine is run by objectivists, who hate libertarians.  They hate libertarians because they believe them to be a weak and morally corrupt group.  Objectivists are similar to libertarians, except objectivists are more militant in their beliefs.  Whereas Ron Paul may say that although some Arabs practice things that violate personal liberty like stoning, the wearing of burkas, hijabs, they have a right to live any way they want, so long as they do not violate other cultures.  Objectivists on the other hand see this as the equivalent of "sanctioning" such behaviour by the mere act of not engaging in violence with them.  The Ayn Rand Institute and Libertarians may appear to be allies, but objectivists make them like oil and water.
It's sad that nobody here can even see this. 
THIS is why those at reason magazine and other extremists hate Ron Paul and want to destory his campaign.  By having the racist newsletters section on Ron Paul's wiki entry, you are doing EXACTLY what the liars want you to do.  You are assisting in the character assassination of a very moral and NON-racist man.
I thus call for the newsletter section to be erased in its entirety.  The link I have given PROVES Ron Paul did not write them, it proves Lew Rockwell did not write them.
talk 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link doesn't prove anything and as a  blog would  be considered unreliable as a source in any case.  And we're not here to discuss objectivism vs libertarianism, just the article.  We specifically state that it is unknown who wrote the newsletters - we report that they were published under Ron Paul's name by an entity named "Ron Paul & Associates", and he has acknowledged this.  Unless there is reliably sourced information that the pdf files provided by TNR were fakes - which no one has claimed to my knowledge - then our section is valid.  We include Reason magazine's article  and readers can draw their own conclusions as to its veracity - just as we include LewRockwell.com as a source throughout the piece for other matters.  Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link does discuss some of the background to the newsletters and the efforts of White to create a controversy, but Tvoz is right as far as its lack of standing as a solid source because it's a blog. Also, the assertion that reason magazine is a bunch of libertarian-hating Objectivists is grossly misinformed. Indeed, some of its founders, supporters and writers are interested in Rand's ideas, but both the foundation and magazine are explicitly libertarian and have no connection to Objectivist groups or orgs.  Not to get too far into the discussion aspect of this, but their coverage of Ron Paul (including the cover story in February's print issue) has been favorable. The newsletter authorship coverage in their Hit & Run blog is more tough love than any kind of smear. You would do well to direct your attention to those actually guilty of smearing Ron Paul. Twalls (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bill White has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his newsletters; he was a source for Kirchick's piece. If anything, White dislikes Ron Paul for not being a racist. Twalls (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lew Rockwell did not write the racist newsletters.  Here is proof 

message: I'm not a huge fan of politics, but I decided to read up on Ron Paul.
Generally I've been told he's a nice, pro-life guy. (relatives knew him)
Anyways, the way these views are stated seem to be somewhat bias.
I just feel these views should be elaborated to a point that they reflect his actual views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.38.230 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate more please? ~ UBeR (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that the article is biased. I guess he should have elaborated a bit more, but it doesn't exactly take a scientist to point out where this article goes much too easy on him (e.g. almost everywhere). —msikma (user, talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guest above could of meant bias either way, either for or against Paul. Such statements without specifically identifying what they refer to, help little and indeed maybe a misunderstand of the guest rather then any bias within the article. If such a guest was being specific and providing sources of relevant reference it would help greatly. ChessCreator (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording his "oppositions" 

message: Shouldn't somebody write about him being a creationist, that he doesn't believe in evolution? --ChristianKarlsson.se (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has stated he is a Christian and that be believes in God - has that been taken to mean he is creationist perhaps? If not please provide some reference to your assertion. ChessCreator (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The only source I've ever seen for this was a widely circulated YouTube video where he makes statements that could be interpreted as pro-creationist or at least anti-evolutionary.  Placing this information in the article on that basis of that evidence alone would fail WP:RS and WP:OR. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking some other politicians, the wiki pages on George W Bush and Mike Huckabee don't say about them being Creationist. So it seems adding it to this article would be a level beyond the norm. Especially given that Paul is pro separation of Church and State. ChessCreator (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, under Huckabee's political positions, his creationism does make an appearance. If a politician takes a position on creationism, it is usually notable and should be mentioned if it appears in a reliable source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Have read the Huckabee article again and found it. Let's see if there is a source for Paul taking such a position. ChessCreator (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't directly matter whether other articles have such information. Maybe they don't, but should, just like this one. Ron Paul has stated that he does not accept the theory of evolution in the video. (Link points to the original blog article that was linked to on Digg.) While people with such an opinion are usually widely condemned, there was of course significant support for Ron Paul in this case. Here are some other sources:    —msikma (user, talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please cite specific instances of the behavior you describe, or provide sourced information about the content you request. Until then you might be better off starting an article on political idolatry. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest we come at present is cult of personality. --Orange Mike  | Talk 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That term doesn't seem to be entirely accurate, since there is no such effort being exerted by any official governmental or media organization. His support comes almost solely from online efforts. Apparently, more than two thirds of his record-breaking money bomb came from his online supporters. —msikma (user, talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist 

message: <removing list of allegations that have nothing to do with improving article; this is not a forum> 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello new user, may I suggest an account first of all. Second, there are serious problems with your sources, not only with per WP:RS but also WP:BIO. Blogs are already poor sources to use; to use them as criticism would be intellectual suicide. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's true we can't use blogs as primary sources, they can be a very useful resource for further research (by us). It's possible to find sounder publications by use of these blogs. We should keep these links around on this talk page to see if they can be useful later. —msikma (user, talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS: by the way, if you see someone removing criticism, feel free to let it be known, just like you have now. We can immediately do something about it if you detail exactly what was removed and why this removal should be reverted. —msikma (user, talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the "pointers" from our guest per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which also applies to Talk pages. Terjen (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terjen, WP:BLP is a policy with the purpose of preventing poorly sourced biographic text from being included in articles (and talk pages). It does not, and should not, however, prevent us from linking to blog articles on a talk page. A link to a site for the purpose of discussing this article does not equal "encyclopedic material". Besides, these pages may very well be based on truth, despite not sourcing the material in the appropriate way. Please remember that few bloggers actually use the scholarly reference style that we use here at Wikipedia. —msikma (user, talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grow up. And stop obsessively vandalising critical discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:BLP. Making spurious claims against a living person and/or using blog postings to support yourself is not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are removing anti-Paul material from this discussion page because it supposedly violates WP:BLP. However, these are just links to material which you haven't even proven to be needlessly biased or even defamatory. This (discussion) page does not even contain the material—only links to it. Please do not remove these links for the sake of preventing others from using them to add in criticism of Ron Paul; there has been a concerted effort by some of the contributors to keep this article free from criticism as much as possible, and the removal of these links seems to be part of it. I strongly disagree with that. —msikma (user, talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, saying things like "Ron Paul as embittered ideologue; venomous screeds for fellow Americans" is rather contentious and blatantly in violation of WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are many publications that write about him in a very contentious way. The articles that detail everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters, which we are already using as reference in this article, for example. So just the fact that an article is vocally in strong disagreement with Ron Paul should not matter. I think the problem is rather that the links that were given are not valid sources. But there is still a strong difference between keeping around a few links on a talk page and actually quoting material in an article and using the links as reference. Let's face at least that. I strongly believe that you'd rather not see any kind of criticism of Ron Paul creep up in this article; you are a pronounced Ron Paul supporter, after all. —msikma (user, talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a "pronounced Ron Paul supporter." I'm interested in adhering to WP:BLP, which is a very serious policy. Negative material about a living person based upon unreliable sources like blog postings are not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anonymous guest, UBeR has followed WP policy, you have not. Please stop the personal attacks. Terjen (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terjen, this comment is not just criticism towards UBeR. He criticizes the editors of this article who have actively engaged in censorship in order to embellish the image of Ron Paul. It's true that this has been going on. If I were you, I'd not complain about personal attacks like that's the most important thing in the world. Wikipedia's integrity is at stake here, as some people have been treating this article as their soapbox. That's far more important. —msikma (user, talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Paul today has said he is still campaigning and going the distance in this presidential election. Consider this for your contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV ChessCreator (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mission accomplished." Where have I heard that before? JLMadrigal (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRITICISMS KEEP DISAPPEARING?! 

message: I agree with the criticisms of the length of the Newsletter section.  It's obviously contentious and at this point in time it's hard for people to not edit with guns drawn, but I'd like to see if we can come up with something a bit shorter and more useful.  I posted a starting point for discussion at User:Bartleby/Newsletters sandbox.  Thoughts? Bartleby (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The newsletters section is the only bit of substantial criticism that this article has at this point. We should absolutely not start removing content from it because "it's contentious"—please realize that none of the claims are unreferenced or unfounded. Doing so would obviously be yet another attempt to tone down the criticism in the article for the sake of showing this person in a more favorable light. —msikma (user, talk) 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood me.  As it is now, the section is unclear and confusing to a person wanting to learn about the situation.  My reference to contentiousness was about the editing process, not the subject material.  I don't advocate "toning down" the section or removing content just because it is controversial, but rather for clarity and usefulness.  Bartleby (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else renamed your page, and before reading this talk I redirected it back to the main article because as it stood it was rife for content forking. I agree this is a hard-to-edit section (which is why I've stayed out), but creating subdirectory (slashed) articles in mainspace is not the correct approach. Instead we should stick with carrying out the edits here, or in a userspace sandbox (though I don't encourage it). Right now it is still rarefied and there are easy ways to lose words without losing much else. I'll chip in eventually. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with using a subpage to discuss a proposed change before incorporating it into mainspace.  It wasn't at risk of becoming a fork as it was just a tool for talk.  I recreated the page and I hope discussion will commence on the proposal and not whether or not creating it was appropriate.  Thanks. Bartleby (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, but per the bold language in WP:CFORK#Temporary subpages I am moving it to User:Bartleby/Newsletters sandbox. My edits, however, will be in mainspace. My first observation is that, in keeping with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages, the first task is to split the controversy section into the 1996 election and the current campaign. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is not where the article is, but how we can improve this one. Do you have any comments about the proposal? Bartleby (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I did not suggest moving it out of the article or splitting it but rather reorganizing it.  I guess nobody is interested in trying to edit a proposal so I'll just go ahead and edit in mainspace.  Bartleby (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paring down Newsletters section? 

message: For reference, simple sorting of the sources already given for this article indicates there were 5 different newsletters with 2 different publishers, each with a distinct history and purpose and some simultaneous. In editing, please observe this disambiguation, which I am in process of carrying across the article:
*Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1976-1984, original individual rights report
*The Ron Paul Investment Letter, by RP&A, attested 1985-1993, investment report
*The Ron Paul Survival Report, by RP&A, attested 1985-1996, conspiracy and militia report
*Ron Paul Political Report, by RP&A, attested 1987-1992, politically incorrect report
*Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1997-2007, new series of individual rights report
Start dates are per mastheads; end dates may be later. Note that RPPR is the only one that appears to be deliberately in-your-face with political incorrectness, but the other 4 have at times each been implicated by their relationship despite their more neutral language. Particularly, TRPIL is clearly of better layout quality than the rest and has only one questionable passage, relating to coverage of the Trilateral Commission. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add: there were also the undated subscription letters, which Lew Rockwell has admitted writing here; and there was a one-time special report in 1993 called The Ron Paul Survival Guide, which was fully and properly bylined to James B. Powell, and a 1984 fundraiser letter properly letterheaded from Ron Paul for U.S. Senate Committee (but both were still mentioned regardlessly by Kirchick). However, keep these each distinct. Particularly, widely circulating reports that Political was renamed to Survival Report are patently mistaken speculation (and are probably due to the disappearance of Political sometime after 1992-11-15, its last attested date). Survival Report mastheads consistently give volume numbers in a series starting in 1985, while the Political series consistently starts from its volume 1 issue 1 date of 1987; also, Survival Report specifically touts 1994 as "our 10th year" and 1995 as "our 11th year". Also, Political and Investment were touted in the same fundraising letter (which mentions another special report Surviving the New Money and refers to "metal and plastic threads", suggesting a 1991 date per History of the United States dollar); and the same two were mentioned together by Frederick Mann's site, Build Freedom, in a list dated 1993. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: the same fundraising letter appears to have been quoted in Barron's, 1985-07-29, not 1991. There is not a reliable source on the web though. Perhaps the print version could be pulled? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter chrono 

message: Whoever split the newsletter section off: good job! I like the new formatting. It unclutters the 2008 campaign summary, allows all the facts to be expressed without being redundant, and is good for readability (which were my main concerns with how this was originally). A good resolution to the problem. Buspar (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter section 

message: After last nights victories by McCain, will Ron Paul finally be dropping out? 207.190.244.74 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Mike Huckabee did. Ron Paul has been asked to drop out since he started running, and his lack of media coverage has lead many to believe that he has. Early on in the campaign, he stated that he would go on as long as his supporters wanted him to, and evidently his supporters have not given up yet. When Mitt Romney "suspended" his campaign the question arose once again. This was his response. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get... ...It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. From the Ron Paul Blog Archive MantisEars (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you're talking about, Anonymous. Paul just won an election this Tue with a landslide 70% of the vote-- where's McCain? Oh, and as for popular votes for president itself, Paul has already received 400,000, McCain has received 0. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 4 victories by McCain 

message: {tl|editprotected}}
Please remove the following navigation box from this article .  It does not point to this article, but rather Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008.  Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TableManners (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 January 2008
:Adding signature to this comment. I believe the navigation box should remain, if it did not point briefly it does now. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove navigation box that does not point to this article 

message: There should be something on his popularity in pennsylvania.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.65.226 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What popularity in Pennsylvania? --Tombomp (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity in Pennsylvania 

message: I just made an edit diff where I made an external link into a reference, using the cite web template. I'm not sure if the publisher/title/etc. is really correctly titled, as I'm not so familiar with working with the cite web tag. If someone who knows about this would rename the titles in those parameters to something that's more typical when citing sources, I'd appreciate it. Thanks,  --JamieS93 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to copy just the title instead of "main website > sub category > sub category > title". Look for a header instead of copying the actual title of the HTML document. In this case, it would be “Issue: Border Security and Immigration Reform” MantisEars (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a better title than what I had before. I knew it would be better to abbreviate it somehow, just didn't know exactly how to title it. I've made the edit now, assuming that "Ron Paul 2008 campaign website" is a fine enough title for the publisher?  JamieS93 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be better for the "work" field; that is where the name of the larger website or newspaper goes unless the websites are publishing others' work (as some news organizations do with the Associated Press or Agence France-Presse). Publisher is for the company or group that publishes the article, in this case the "Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee" MantisEars (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the alteration. That makes more sense, especially after further reading about some of the citation tags; most of the time I use the basic format of Title of ref as opposed to the templates for citations. Thanks for the help, MantisEars!  JamieS93 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite web tag 

message: The rest of Wikipedia has standards for NPOV so high, that the entire text of this article is shocking. Until you wrest control of Wikipedia back from the Ron Paul cult of personality, and discuss Paul with the same neutrality afforded, for instance, to Lyndon LaRouche, the entire operation cannot stand up to scrutiny.
I say again, there is no psalm in the Bible as worshipful of God as this article is of Ron Paul. And considering now that the entire campaign is derailed while the cult talks of founding a "Paulville" compound in Texas, it is now clearly evident that neutrality in Wikipedia has been stomped to death here.
Hosiah (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name something specific? The above isn't helpful and is just likely to start fights rather than actually do the article good. Wrad (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Unsourced allegations continue to be a black eye to Wikipedia's credibility... 137.22.25.154 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Welcome back Hosiah! Would you mind commenting on this section? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thrilltalk 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul's articles continues to be a black eye to Wikipedia's creditability! 

message: This was an ify call at the time, if I remember, but in any event, I just heard that Hillary Clinton raised 10 million in one day after winning Pennsylvannia. As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per sources this is an unverifiable self-published claim of HRC, and Politico found several gaps in it. Further, per moneybomb and its history, HRC has prior history of very poor sourcing of claims. Please advise. JJB 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that the $10 million claim had panned out, but I'm content to wait until someone  provides some links or other evidence to look at. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's the Politico piece John referred to. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the largest fundraiser in one day anymore 

message: Consider this bit of complete fantasy that is on the protected page:
"While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in various primaries."
This "information" reflects the Ron Paul web site and is (1) not objective and (2) not true.
The Republican Party conducted 3,077 legitimate polls among the members of the Republican Party.  Ron Paul won a single poll!  In fact, Ron Paul LOST 3,076 polls to Romney, Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson, Giuliani, Gingrich, and McCain.  Ron Paul has chosen not to list the 3,076 polls that he lost, but instead lists 60 (questionable) polls.  The 3,077 were conducted by the Republican Party, in person, with assigned ballots at the rate of one-person-one-vote, and the ballots were strictly accounted for by separate security.  The 60 (questionable) polls that Paul supposedly won, were manipulated.  Some were boxes set up at county or state fairs where the Ron Paul supporters stuffed them by putting in 30 to 100 votes at a time.  (I observed this myself, at my own fair.)  Others are at parties, where items are purchased that count as votes.  Others are radio call-ins, and computer voting on-line.  There are instructions at some Ron Paul web sites telling the supporters how to “cheat” to win, and explaining that the end justifies the means.   All 60 were manipulated, yet the Ron Paul people are using them!  The 3,077 were legitimate but they are not using them.   This says a great deal about the character of Ron Paul and goes a LONG way to explaining why the Republican Party voted 3,076 to 1 against him.  Incidentally the 3,077 official Republican polls represented from 500,000 to 750,000 people.  Some of the 60 manipulated polls involved as few as 4 voters; others had 6 or 10. Some had 15 or 20.  There is nothing comparable in the polls; the official Republican straw polls are substantial and legitimate; the Ron Paul straw polls are shameful.   
The disclaimer about “landline” opinion polls is complete nonsense.  I have worked for the Republican Party for decades and we do NO "landline" opinion polls that could ever be construed as straw polls.   The Official Republican Straw Polls were done in person, and with assigned ballots, for the very reason of avoiding the corruption of Ron Paul’s supporters.  For the author now to come around and say they were done “on landlines” as though that held some great message, is just nonsense.    So much of this information is available straight from the Republican Party, but the author of ALL these Ron Paul warm and cuddly sites, does not work with the Republican Party, he works for Ron Paul and it shows.  They want Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee yet they treat the Republicans with disdain and even lie about how the Republican Party does business.   We want ACCURATE information.  Ron Paul manipulated numbers ARE NOT HONEST.  These numbers are WORTHLESS to us, but they seem to be GOLD at the Ron Paul site because the "little old ladies" who write checks to Ron Paul believe the dishonest (manipulated) polls.
Suttonplacesouth (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, do we actually have a reliable, independent source that isn't run by some guy in South east Asia (*cough* usastrawpolls.com *cough*) that notes Paul's overall performance in straw polls vs. opinion polls?  Burzmali (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is an essential WP:SPA on this issue, yet strangely never produces the requested documentation of the 3077 polls (always the same number), nor ever comments on the fact that what the user has produced was already present in the opinion polls articles because that's what it was. JJB 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will we be free of the lies and distortions? 

message: We have been using using this article -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273302,00.html -- as a source for the statement that the Ron Paul "campaign has very strong grassroots support, as reflected in dozens of wins in GOP straw polls, [and] his lead in web searches." This article does not say this. Instead, regarding polls it says that "In most Republican presidential polls, Ron Paul appears well behind the front-runners." As far as websearches, it quotes the Paul camapaign saying Ron Paul is a popular search term, not that he leads over any other candidate. I've corrected the article to say what the source material actually says. It is highly unethical to misrepresent these sources this way, and it is either extreme carelesseness or vandalism. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That FAUX News story was not the source of either of these assertions. Regardless of what value I place in straw polls (I believe the early strength of people like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in such polls demonstrates how worthless they are in actual politics), both the web search data and the straw polls information have been thoroughly sourced over the past few months. Your accusations are both incorrect and incivil.--Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That foxnews.com story was the source used in the footnote directly after those assertions. Following a statement with a footnote to a source which does not support and even contradicts that statement is completely innapropriate in respectable writing, and I see nothing "incivil" about pointing out such obvious errors and correcting them. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please see WP:SUMMARY. Every item not sourced in this summary is fully sourced in the expanded subarticle. Also, your edit here made mincemeat of the last 50 footnotes. Please preview the full page before committing to intense edits. Rearranging, or reimporting the sources from the expanded subarticle, is fine. JJB 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't see the problem with the footnotes because they didn't show up in the preview. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it for you. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The incivility was in your edit summaries, as well as in the phrase "either extreme carelesseness or vandalism" in this very thread. The appropriate thing to do would have been to place a "cite needed" tag in place of that to the FAUX News article, stating in the edit summary that the removed citation did not support the assertion(s) in the article and requesting more appropriate citation(s). --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appropriate thing to do is to correct the mistake, rather than place a tag saying the mistake needs to be corrected. I also think I'm stating the rather obvious when I say if someone who continually attributes things to sources which those sources do not say, then such a person is at best extremely careless and at worst intentionally vandalizing this article. But if such obvious statements have hurt anyone's feelings, I sincerely apologize, as that is not my intention. My intention is to make sure this article contains facts supported by sources. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to realize, this article is monitored intensely by lots of editors, many of us non-fans of Ron Paul. Your mistake was in failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. There was not, as your edit assumed, a falsehood, but rather an imprecision in footnoting some statements. You've taken a "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach which has engendered considerable unnecessary ill will. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm franky insulted that you have described my insistence on some proper sourcing standards as some sort of crazy "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach. That doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith to me. That sounds like a personal attack against me where you are atttributing beliefs to me which I have never expressed. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we're back at the version which attributes things to sources when those sources actually contradict the article. Could someone else who believes that Wikipedia should be based on the accuarate use of source material consider correcting this article? Orange Mike informs me that I can only correct misinformation in Ron Paul's biography and misrepresentation of news reporting a maximum of 3 times per day or else I will be banned from Wikipedia for insisting on accuracy. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's source every statement in that lede, so when Mountains comes off his 24-hour block for 3RR violations, he will have nothing to complain about. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree with you about the :WP:UNDUE issue more than the SYNTH one. Paul did win several straw polls in the early days of the campaign. Paul advocates have been clinging to it because (to be blunt) it's one of the few places where he did at all well (on a few occasions). I'm sure Duncan Hunter fans are the same way about that one straw poll he won. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no time. As Burzmali has noted, 100 sources support it, and math is not synth. But this is not a case of just "several" and "early days" and "a few occasions", either. JJB 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, in absolute terms, there must have been more than 1,000 straw polls of varying sizes and validities so far during the election season. Most are never reported on, and the significant differences between the results from official opinion polls and straw polls listed here on Wikipedia strongly suggests shenanigans from RP supporters at some point. Treating our collection of straw polls as if they are reliable enough to make a statement about the campaign at large is a mistake. Hopefully an independent source could be found, but Googling "Ron Paul straw polls" isn't exactly helpful.  Burzmali (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresenting sources 

message: I'm still leery of that statement about straw polls.  Unless the source supports it, it sounds like WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE to me.  Burzmali (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you about the :WP:UNDUE issue more than the SYNTH one. Paul did win several straw polls in the early days of the campaign. Paul advocates have been clinging to it because (to be blunt) it's one of the few places where he did at all well (on a few occasions). I'm sure Duncan Hunter fans are the same way about that one straw poll he won. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no time. As Burzmali has noted, 100 sources support it, and math is not synth. But this is not a case of just "several" and "early days" and "a few occasions", either. JJB 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, in absolute terms, there must have been more than 1,000 straw polls of varying sizes and validities so far during the election season. Most are never reported on, and the significant differences between the results from official opinion polls and straw polls listed here on Wikipedia strongly suggests shenanigans from RP supporters at some point. Treating our collection of straw polls as if they are reliable enough to make a statement about the campaign at large is a mistake. Hopefully an independent source could be found, but Googling "Ron Paul straw polls" isn't exactly helpful.  Burzmali (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw polls

message: Interestingly, the New York Times article used to demonstrate that RP's latest work is a best seller carries the notation that "some bookstores report receiving bulk orders" concerning the book.  Now, given the discrepancy between RP's showing in straw polls and opinion polls, and this note, it seems likely that some group is astroturfing the book on to the best seller list.  While my logic is WP:SYNTH, has any reliable source cared enough to notice?  Burzmali (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times clarifies that there are multiple POVs about the essential point of this dagger notation and that Burzmali's POV is not the only one. Since this page is not the place to take sides among these POVs (nor is the notation notable in this context), the question might be better moved to Talk:New York Times Best Seller list. JJB 15:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the NYT isn't the only source skeptical of RP's book usnews took a shot at him for exhorting his followers to buy it.  Burzmali (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The #1 best-seller status of Revolution is notable but so is the notation that accompanies that status. I'm open to discussion about how and where it should be included (I could see it being most relevant in the article The Revolution: A Manifesto, for instance) but there is little legitimate reason to exclude entirely this statement from a WP:RS. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the NYT statement is really a primary source, its their list after all.  I would rather have a good secondary source to support the assertion that RP supporters padded the score than the unsupported insinuation we have now.  Burzmali (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honest question, not meant to be snarky: While I see your point, is this really a question of WP:PSTS?  We'd actually only be repeating what the NYT is reporting that bookstores have told them (i.e., treating the NYT statement as a secondary source).  I'd see this as more of a WP:PSTS problem if we used the bookstores as a source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it is a primary source, we really shouldn't use it to do anything other than state a fact, but stating the fact in that manner gives undue weight to the phrase "some bookstores report receiving bulk orders".  As John points out, that could mean many things and it isn't honest to toss that in there without the counterpoint.  It's like pointing out that point out that someone placed third to last in a race without mentioning the number of racers.  Personally, I believe that Paulites took steps to ensure that it made number one, irregardless of its actually popularity, as indicated my their pattern-of-conduct from straw polls and general disregard for the mainstream media.  However, I don't support adding unproven insinuations without a reliable source.  Burzmali (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a simple, neutral statement of fact. Nothing wrong with it. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the statement that someone placed third from last in a race, that means they won a three-person race...  Burzmali (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your example is misleading without noting the number of people in the race. What is also misleading is stating a book made a best seller list without noting this was due to bulk orders. So if this were an article about your race, we should mention the number of racers, and similarly we should mention the bulk orders here. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the statement fails to address why the distinction needs to be made.  If I say that Jesse Owens was the best black runner at the 1936 Olympics, the reader makes the natural assumption that since I qualified the statement, some non-black runner must have been faster.  Therefore, while what I said is technically true, what it implies is not.  In our case, we are accurately saying that the book received bulk orders, but since we don't explain the statement, it implies that the book's bestseller status is lessened by this fact, which the NYT article does not support.   I support finding a WP:RS that supports the conclusion if possible, and leaving the qualification off if not.  Burzmali (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we need to explain about the statement? It is very straightforward: This book's place on the best seller list is based on bulk orders in some bookstores, rather than the much more commonly expected form of simply a lot of people buying the book. To avoid misleading our readers, we should state this fact. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The NYT itself footnotes such cases, where a book's sales seem to be unusually influenced by bulk purchases; it is done whether the book leans left or right or whatever. There is no NPOV violation in noting that fact.--Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is if it's given undue weight, as if it were a rebuttal to the previous sentence noting the best-selling status of the book. (Дҭї) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully I don't think most readers will confuse context with "a rebuttal." This statement provides needed context; it does not however rebut the statement regarding best-seller lists. Of course, if information did rebut the previous statement, than it would be even more necessary to include it for the sake of balance. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they will. I don't see how it provides 'context', though I can see quite plainly how it can be used to illegitimize Ron Paul's achievement and insinuate there was manipulation of the statistics. (Дҭї) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Buying in bulk in the United States is a very common responsible, legal business practice rather than something considered illegitimate or manipulative. Perhaps a link to Bulk purchasing would help readers who might think buying in bulk is an ilegitimate practice. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and your choice of abbreviations over actual words probably isn't helping. That statement seems totally clear to me. In what regard do you think it is "inconclusive"? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caveat to Best selling author claim 

message: The cause of the bulk orders is easy to explain if you look at the current grassroots efforts: on May 24, Paul supporters are planning to donate quantities of the book to local libraries across the country (it's being called a "Book bomb"), so people are buying extra copies for this effort. I saw this advertised in one of the Paul Meetup groups. Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable sources, so this explanation can't be included. One point, though: why mentioned "bulk orders" without even mentioning what that means? It's confusing, otherwise. Also, I don't think the caveat belongs here, but on the book's page, since it's a relatively minor detail in regards to the Ron Paul article as a whole. Buspar (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: Orange Mike's latest edit attributes the statement "Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian" to a source which uses neither the words "conservative" or Constitutionalist." He also totally broke a footnote later in the article. I'm in favor of using sources that actually say what we claim they say, and I'm for footnotes that don't contain big red "Cite error" text in them. So, let's have a hearty discussion where we debate the pros and cons of accurate sourcing and big red busted footnotes, shall we? I'm firmly in the "pro" on using sources that say what we claim they say, and "con" on big red busted footnotes. Where do the rest of you stand? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: One of Mountainsarehigh's edits both created this particular cite error and removed a long-established accurate source for this particular statement. JJB 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This "long-established accurate source" is "Pastor Chuck Baldwin" of "newswithviews.com".  I'm sure we can do better. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 1) I thought Mountains was asking for a cite on Paul being called a libertarian, so that's all I provided. I did not mean to bust another link. 2) As to the other two adjectives, I actually agree with Mountains that we need a less POV source for those; but I believe it will be ridiculously easy to find such sources. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was talking about all three, which is why I put a separate request for citation after the word "conservative", and another after "Constitutionalist." But if it is ridiculously easy to find sources, let's get to it! I've found one from LA Times and added it, so we've only got one more. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My citation to a widely-read, well-respected source has been removed and replaced with a much worse one from a tiny little newspaper. Let's use better sources people! I'll see if I can find an even better one. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange Mike's latest edit 

message: This article is way too long, so long it looks like a windy speech written and delivered by Ron Paul. If it were compact, say 1/3 the size it is now, it wouldn't have the appearance of having been written by the Ron Paul public relations office. As the article is now, all it is missing is a picture of a tree stump. Kidshare (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions on what ought to be cut? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can start hacking if you wish but I'm not a Ron Paul expert nor do I wish to be. This article is longer than the GHW Bush article and GHW Bush won a primary or two and was president of the USA. Ron Paul has done neither. Please compact the article instead of stumping. Thanks Kidshare (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way too long 

message: :Image:Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan in 1976.jpg has been tagged as lacking sufficent information on source and reason to support the tagged public domain status.  If anyone has information to add, please do so at the image description page on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan in 1976.jpg 

message: Is he still running for president? I have seen no mention of him stopping on his website or others, yet people insist on telling me that he has stopped running? What is going on?MattTheMan (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's telling you that? He's not dropped out of the race, officially; he's just spending his money making sure he gets re-elected to his seat in Congress. I don't think Dennis Kucinich has officially dropped out of the Democratic race, either; but his people aren't quite as fanatic (this year, anyway) as the Paulistas. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul won his Congressional primary in early March and is running unopposed in the general. He did not use funds from his Presidential campaign, that would be illegal. MantisEars (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703061.html OK I'm officially confused. Dennis did officially drop out though, to concentrate on Congress. MattTheMan (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paul.campaign/index.html#cnnSTCVideo Paul explaining after the story that he is still in the race and that he did not drop out. MantisEars (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I did not mean to imply that Paul was shifting money unlawfully between accounts. I meant only that he's encouraging his followers to donate money to his political action committee and his "educational" (i.e., propaganda) nonprofit now. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Running for President 

message: There are far too many links in the article. Nearly every date (like May 2007 then May 22, 2007 all linked in the same parahraph), all cities and states, all words over five characters are pretty much linked. Not to mention every time the word is said, so it gets linked several times. I went over 3-4 sections and removed some of the more ridiculous ones (shrimp? common). Somebody else will probably have to help with this.Virek (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done, removed ~100-150 links. Please add links back if you feel they are needed but don't revert as there were far too many Virek (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links! 

message: The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there. 
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:
* Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
* Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
* John McCain and John C. Hagee
* Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. 
If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear enough here or on other pages where I've posted this. People have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Support brief explanation of up to a couple sentences, with link. It's case by case, but the general answer must be middle-of-the-road as you suggest, unless (for example) criminal charges link the two. Perhaps by this standard Lew Rockwell has too much coverage in this bio article. However this is not a matter of "equal treatment" per se because, say, does Mike Gravel really have any controversial associates? It's a matter of nominal "equal treatment for equal circumstances", and since no two circumstances are ultimately equal, proper weighting in each case. Some associates will need more space than others. Balance is determined by building local consensus and staking out NPOV and POV positions through a group redistricting procedure. JJB 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography? 

message: I came here to get an overview of this candidate, but I am informed about petty details, like his wife raising collies, the number of guests at his wedding, the number of grandchildren, and I am sure that there is more like that further down, which I did not bother to read. I suppose there are some supporters of RP around: Do that guy a favour and make this article more concise, because it is close to unreadable in the present state. Thanks Jasy jatere (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend, this is a biography and much of that was added per consensus and will get restored. Perhaps you wanted the campaign article instead, Ron Paul 2008, and perhaps there should be a hatnote to that effect. But please don't delete sourced biographical details in a biographical article, thank you. JJB 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too long and has too many quotes and needless detail 

message: Didn't he vote against federal funding for a statue in her honor of something.  I remember seeing it in here earlier.  I guess some Paul enthusiast must have deleted it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that significant? He has explained his vote on national television, and it is consistent with his philosophy; taking taxpayers' money to award celebrities with gold medals is not authorized in the Constitution. Дҭї 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per-capita, Ron Paul has brought home more pork than any of the candidates this election.  He has inserted millions of dollars worth of earmarks in bills, which he then votes against in order to keep his "Dr. No" status.  A win-win situation for him.  Ron Paul has voted to honor sports teams, which the Constitution mentions nothing about.  It's clear that Ron Paul picks and chooses when he thinks the "general welfare" clause should be enacted.  His claims of things not being "Constitutional" is not accurate as the things he claims aren't Constitutional fall under the general welfare category; something which, he himself, invokes when he inserts pork into bills and when he votes on honoring sports teams.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitargod82 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Paul knows keeps his constituents happy with pork, while keeping his donors happy by voting No on everything and proposing legislation that has no chance getting passed.  Are you surprised that Ron Paul is just as pragmatic as other politicians?  Burzmali (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  But it's just funny because he presents himself as the champion of integrity and accountability, someone who would NEVER compromise or flip-flop on ANY of his moral principles, the ultimate Mr. Smith who's gone to Washington.  So I find great humor in discovering that he's a fraud in addition to being a joke. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ron Paul answered some of the criticisms about his earmarks on Meet the Press (starting from 5:30). Remember, the talk page is for discussion about improving Ron Paul's Wikipedia article, not about whether or not he is an honest politician. MantisEars (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosa Parks? 

message: :His website was updated (at least as of today, Friday June 13) and it announces that he's officially ending his presidential campaign. Visit http://www.ronpaul2008.com to read the full details. He's going to announce it at a rally in Texas tomorrow too I believe.
:I believe he suspended his campaign to promote his movement. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending his Campaign for President 

message: The category Category:Libertarian politicians should be added to this article Dylan38 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he used the term to describe himself? MantisEars (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul is widely recognized as a libertarian, and he is clearly a politician, having served multiple terms in the U.S. Congress. No less than four other existing categories tied to this article identify him as a libertarian. Yes, he has used the term to describe himself in many instances, though finding a specific instance is difficult because doing a Google search for "Ron Paul libertarian" comes up with nearly half a million hits. Adding this category should be self-evident, based on the existing content of the article. Thanks. Dylan38 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . MantisEars (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add category 

message: It should be noted in defense of Paul that aspects of the newsletter don't match his own actions. For example, in the newsletter, the author brags how he (presumably Paul) voted against that "fraud," MLK's holiday. (1) But in reality, Paul twice voted for the holiday and its reauthorization. (2)
[] 
2- []
Also, in another newsletter, the author (again, presumably Paul,) notes that his medical training makes him more aware of "cheap gay tricks,"
But in this interview, Paul says that his medical profession has made him more tolerant of homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
Objectively, he either had a personality transplant or didn't write this stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seiferalmasy12 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that his Campaign Manager, Kent Snyder, was openly gay. I think that undermines the idea that Paul wrote that or even believes it. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on newsletters 

message: i dont see anything significantly wrong with the article that would hinder its potential as a featured candidate...
it's sourced well, prose is beyond satisfactory, and the overall feel of the article merits at least a proposal for featured status.  im not familiar with the system and am to lazy to go through the hoops to get this nominated, but id thought it'd be fair to mention it here.  so? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well sourced, but I'm not confident in the reliability of some of the sources. That will definitely be looked at in the featured article candidacy discussion. MantisEars (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured status candidate? 

message: Wow, this page is really biased (as said below).  It doesn't mention he's a raving nutcase, it's poorly written, and totally not NPOV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.221.206 (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so it's not NPOV? I see. And what makes you think "He's a raving nutcase" is NPOV? Ericster08 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: How is it biased?  The honest part is (and yes I know this is odd) factually proven by stated stances actually matching the voting record, I believe this is stated in the article.  He IS actually a libretarian; he ran as libretarin in the presidential campaign of 198...8, was it?  But whatever year it was, it was on the libretarian ticket, and even though he has stated he is Republican, many people, supporters and non (the latter group often disliking libretarians; saying "libretain" is a biased opinion is actually being biased against libretarians).  And there is a criticsms section, which mentioned people calling him crazy (in a more heated way).Rayvn (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reliable sources above. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you didn't read any of those pages, because they all cite reliable sources. But for your benefit and that of others, I've updated and added links which are more direct on each issue. Also found him posing with some nazis.--Joelrosenblum (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Posing with some Nazis"? Oh come on. Anyone who goes to a fundraising event has even odds of getting a picture with the guest of honor. Here he is posing with a Korean woman: :Image:RonPaul-June07-NHdebate.jpg. He must be an ally of Kim Jong-il! DickClarkMises (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, posing with Nazis. Specifically he's posing with the owner of stormfront and the owner's son, stormfront is a popular racist website, and those guys endorsed Ron Paul. Posing with a Korean woman is not the same as posing with a leading white supremacist, and the mere fact that you assert any Korean is the same as Kim Jong-il makes you sound like a racist yourself. It is possible that the stormfront people didn't tell him who they were, so yeah, it's one of the weaker points about Ron Paul, though he did know that stormfront had donated to him and supported him, and I don't think he refused their support. Oh, and the fact that he invited the John Birch Society to speak at his huge convention today is more evidence of his racism. Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Now lets examine some of your claims. 
Claim A: Ron Paul was running for president at that point in time. If you do not remember. He returned to the hill to vote quite often during that time. But that particular voting instance if you remember was infamous as a suprise vote; sprung onto the Democrats at the last second. Ron Paul neither knew, nor had any indication that vote was going to happen that day.
Claim B: Ron Paul has explained this many times: even on Meet The Press with the late Tim Russert. He did not vote on that bill, he, and more specifically his aides who have a open book policy on those kind of things: inserted those earmarks. But he did not vote for the bill. There is a further explanation from Ron Paul in the Meet The Press interview.
Claim C: Frankly, I don't have evidence that shows he voted against these measures. InfoWars and Alternet are hardly Evidence or Trustworthy Sources
Claim D: Ron Paul opposes Nation Building. He's explained this quite thoroughly. He was for going into Afghanistan to stop Bin Laden. But against spending billions of taxpayers dollars to rebuild the country.
Claim E: Guilty by Association? Pitiful at best. This reminds me of when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attack Obama for some coincidence that he bought his house on the same day as Tony Rezko. Then the next day a picture of Hillary Clinton and Bill standing with Rezko appeared. At political rallies and event frankly anyone can take their picture with them. These figures are not very well known outside their circle. Ron Paul most likely did not know they were racists. Althought it is true that racists support Ron Paul. He is a avowed defender of their rights just as much as every other americans.
Claim F: The John Birch Society is not a White Supremacist group. Not even close.
Claim G: Yes Ron Paul is very much a christian, and usually when he speaks like that he's talking about state level goverment. There is a very big difference for him between state and federal goverment.
Claim H: Looking at the wording of the piece; its most likely Ron Paul was against States being forced by the Federal Goverment to recognize Marriages from other States. But he was against the constitutional amendment that banned marriage that was in the text of the MPA. 
Claim I: Yes, Ron Paul has a specific statement on his congressional site adressing the issue. I reccomend you look it up. He is very much pro choice despite beleiving it should be a state issue. And he will often vote for pro-life measures because he does happen to beleive abortion is murder. Taking a bigger look at your implication. There are no specific stances within the libertarian community on Abortion. And the feeling are split down the middle very much. 
--Electronicmaji (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, this ought to be NPOV flagged, too many ron paul supporters on wikipedia to maintain neutral articles.Icarus999 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Puff piece much?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.115.94 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the criticism section? 

message: While I personally wouldn't want to be associated with the John Birch Society, known for far-fetched conspiracy theories about the influence of shadowy world Communist organizations, Joelrosenblum's characterization of them as "white supremacist" and "more evidence of [Paul's] racism" cannot go unchallenged. Oh, there are probably racists in the JBS, formerly including one of their founding members, Revilo P. Oliver, who split from the JBS possibly largely on this issue. But I see no evidence that the organization as a whole is racist. It's always been my understanding that they've steered well clear of that. --Trovatore (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: John Birch Society

message: Why isn't he on a respective religion category? I usually check the categories and didn't see one there, and the article states he's a baptist? 68.205.231.242 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I'm aware that exciting things may be coming up for Ron Paul, however until they come to pass, it isn't proper to include them in a Wikipedia article.  That's essentially what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. —  X  S  G  07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CRYSTAL]] 

message: Announcement's on Bob Barr's website. You can even view the letter there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.103.108 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Barr offers Paul VP position 

message: RP would commit suicide if he is paying attention to what is going on now with the federal reserve, inflation and huge levels of regulation and beurocracy.
:(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.39 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Jason (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, he seems to be quite on top of it and is all over the media. See e.g. this interview. Terjen (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be mindful that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not a forum on Ron Paul. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  now 

message: Why is there no mention of Paul's controversial position on the separation of church and state? --76.243.208.110 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a great argument, since that would not be a political position, but political suicide and advocating harm to children-- in other words, something that no politician who holds political positions is going to endorse and therefore no political position at all. Please find me one elected politician in this country who holds that view. I can certainly find you many elected politicians who hold the views of Ron Paul on separation of church and state, whatever they may be.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  What does NAMBLA have to do with the separation of church and state?  216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Church and State 

message: Ron Paul's residence is not in Surfside Beach. It is in Lake Jackson. I can verify this because I have his address, but I will not release his address here because that would be a violation of his privacy. --71.167.231.165 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article refers to him "going home to Lake Jackson on weekends". It states that Paul moved to Surfside Beach in 1968, but does not state that it is his current residence. --JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of Wikipedia's policis is that articles should be referenced by reliable sources.  No offense, but we cannot simply take your word for it.  It has to be backed by a reliable reference.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul's residence