Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2 |

Archive 3

| Archive 4 →

1 Article losing focus
2 Essay archives, etc.
3 Origins of Internet Meme
4 Please Re-Word
5 Newsletter section on race
6 Controversial Racial Remarks
7 Archive
8 Official External links deleted/put back
9 Reliable source
10 "alleged" added to Sudan's human rights violations
11 Austin Chronicle
12 Opposition to Iran policy
13 Social issues?
14 Ron Paul Library
15 Ron Paul Interview
16 Racism Section Constitutes Original Research
17 Article Bias
18 Born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania?
19 He opposes what?
20 Neutrality
21 This thing reads like an ad
22 other article's tactics
23 External links not to include
24 1980 election and his departure
25 Order of political positions
26 merge Political Positions and Principles sections?
27 Where's the "Criticism" Part?
28 Picture?
29 DARFUR
30 Third Way
31 Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
32 Delete "Awards and honors" section?
33 Reduce size of Political positions section?
34 Affiliations
35 Medicare
36 MySpace Censorship?
37 Neutrality disputed
38 Paul voted for the War in Afghaninstan?
39 Brown?
40 Gay adoption
41 Controversy section, article
42 Summarize mainlinks
43 POV Tag added/Newsletter Controversy
- 43.1 Remarks in the Ron Paul Survival Report Newsletter
44 Section removed until compromise is reached
45 Lead
46 Totally disputed
- 46.1 Newsletter/pov discussion continued
- 46.2 Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section)
- 46.3 Ben B4
47 PATRIOT Act and Iraq war
48 Factually inaccurate?
49 Newsletter - new suggested compromise
50 Newsletter Section
- 50.1 Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)

Article losing focus

I feel this article is losing focus in a major way. It is supposed to be about Ron Paul the person, but more and more of the article seems to be devoted to other people's opinions of Paul instead. The Election and Internet popularity sections in particular offer very little concrete information about the person himself. As for the Election section, most of that information should be put in its relevant subpage, but a lot of it is spilling over into this one instead. I'd urge everyone to begin scaling this material back and showing more restraint while editing. We'll never make it to good or featured article status like this.--Daveswagon 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I pared down the intro to the Presidential campaign section yesterday, took out some of those opinions and moved them to the Presidential campaign page and I think it's a lot better after that. I feel there are also getting to be a lot of pictures which distract from the text. Do you have any other concrete suggestions? The first and third debate sections could also be shipped over to the Presidential campaign page and the second debate section summarized... I do believe that the second debate incident should be included since that is what he has gotten a lot of attention for, probably more than anything else he's ever done. I'll try to work on it a bit.--Gloriamarie 10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took an axe to it big time. Hopefully it stays lean this time.--Daveswagon 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I did like the American Conservative cover, though. Don't you think it would still work in that section? Or, at least some picture, it seems so bare now.--Gloriamarie 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Essay archives, etc.

I reverted a change that removed external links to archives of essays published under Ron Paul's name. There is no reason why these archives (whose counterparts are certainly linked at other articles) should not be included for the reader's reference. It isn't as though the article, in the encyclopedic voice, is asserting anything that violates WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should like to publicly available work by Paul that would allow readers to further explore the positions Paul has taken in the past. DickClarkMises 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of weblinks. Wikipedia is not web directory. People may use google themselves. Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website. Also pease be advised that linking from youtube, myspace, etc., is strongly discouraged in wikipedia. `'Miikka 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he was linking YouTube or Myspace-- I have restored the links to these archives of articles. An archive of speeches or articles are exactly what external links are designed for and is very encyclopedic. There is nothing commercial on the sites, and they are collections of Ron Paul's words. Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of weblinks, I don't believe anyone is going to argue with that; however, that doesn't mean that informative links should be excluded because Google should be used instead-- that's a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. "Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website." No, they are not. Lew Rockwell publishes many essays by Paul that only appear on that site. --Gloriamarie 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Internet Meme

It seems like the Ron Paul internet meme (or whatever that is) is as popular as the O'RLY Owl and LolCats (both are hobbies of fat people who have no life). What is the historical account on this popularity?

Please sign your comments with four tildes. I'm not sure what you're referring to, you'll have to elaborate.--Gloriamarie 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he's asking for a short "history" of how Ron Paul became so popular online.Granola Bars 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He's popular online because he's popular with people that actually research him, something you can't do with FOX news and CNN. Virek 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I think there's more to it than that. His message resonates with many internet users. A lot of them have a somewhat libertarian outlook, which Ron Paul shares. Ron Paul also stands firm against any regulation or taxation of the internet, something this crowd likes to hear. And as Virek said, those who actually research the current Republican candidates often find themselves aligning with a "second tier" candidate. Kylebrotherton 08:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Re-Word

Since the debate, Ron Paul and his position have also been defended by Lew Rockwell,[82] Pat Buchanan,[83] Accuracy in Media,[84] and other conservative and libertarian as well as more liberal commentators, including Bill Maher[85], Joy Behar on ABC's The View.[86] I can't put my finger on it, but something makes this sentence sound very awkward - especially the end. Can someone please re-word this? --CommonSense101 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that "and other conservative and libertarian [missing a plural noun here!], as well as more..."12.217.91.206 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter section on race

Was this deleted or integrated into the article or moved somewhere? Turtlescrubber 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Racial Remarks

There is only one source for this section where allegedly something which could have been considered racist relates to Ron Paul; hence it's a misnomer to call this a controversy. Furthermore, with only one source citing remarks and no sources citing Ron Paul as a racist, it constitutes original research on the part of wikipedia editors to claim that there are controversial racial remarks. The section needs to be deleted lest we run afoul of BLP guidelines and original research guidelines. On top of that, Ron Paul's cited political position with respect to racism need to be moved to the page which cites his platform and other positions. It doesn't belong here.

Not one noted political pundit or editor or news program has declared any kind of controversy exists or that Ron Paul has even been accused of being a racist or saying anything which has been definitely declared as racist. Until such time, the section constitutes original research, since Wikipedia editors are the ones calling the speech racist. Ikilled007 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is probably right. WP:BLP does require multiple, independent sources for such controversial claims. This isn't a libel issue per se since Paul is a public figure, but I think the WP:BLP policy is about more than just potential libel liability. DickClarkMises 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul himself acknowledges the controversy in the Texas Monthly magazine interview - this is in no way original research. Tvoz |talk 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is not used by Ron Paul... he doesn't say anything describing it. "minor sensation"; "racially tinted remarks"; "controversy" are used by the magazine itself. Texas Monthly is referring to it as a controversy in the context of the original election, when he had not yet issued a denial; they don't refer to it as that way afterwards.--71.65.202.41 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the current description (which I'm changing now) of the 'controversy' doesn't actually mention anything he said. Perhaps 'controversy' is an inappropriate description, but it's an issue nonetheless. One that doesn't seem to be treated fairly. Rather, it includes explanations on Ron Paul's behalf with regard to the comments, but little discussion of the nature of the 'sensation'. Perhaps the entire section ought to be deleted (though I don't think so), but it's also unfair to simply cite the source of the controversy and then provide Ron Paul's arguments to discredit the issue. Benthepanda 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "alleged racist remarks" section is being given undue weight. We had a good discussion of Barack Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama article, and it was decided that to give the controversy proper weight it should be mentioned within the footnotes (something on which I agree). I propose the same here. There appears to be a notable controversy about the alleged racist remarks but it is given the same weight as his 1988 campaign for the Presidency (which is ridiculous). I ask anyone to explain why this controversy needs a full section (not to mention 3 paragraphs of it). Best regards. Jogurney 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. I originally wrote up a short 3-5 sentence paragraph on the topic, which apparently angered his fans. In what I suspect was an attempt to obfuscate the allegations, they put in paragraphs of defense and hearsay, and even *removed* the actual allegations in the process. Then a few other editors got involved, putting them back in and adding more information on what he said. In the end, to make everyone happy, we have the mess of a section before us. Good luck fixing it, you will have several angry editors quickly changing whatever you do to it. Rm999 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was Tvoz who moved the quotes to the footnotes... The allegations are still there, in the first paragraph of the section. Jogurney, how would the situation be handled by putting it in the footnotes? I may take a look at the Obama article to see.---Gloriamarie 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose restoring the previous version of this section with the quotes left in the footnotes to avoid given them undue weight (compared to other sections such as his Congressional career). I believe user:Tvoz created a nice way to deal with this here: [1] (similar to how the Obama-Rezko controversy is handled in the Obama article). Hopefully, this version will reduce the amount of blanking of that section. Best regards. Jogurney 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I follow up, I blanked the other accusations of racism section since it is redundant. I don't think we need a second mention of the controversy (and out of order). Best regards. Jogurney 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I restored a version close to Tvoz's of above that should be good; we may need to lock the article to keep the vandals away because it's annoying to constantly restore that section to the article.--Gloriamarie 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Official External links deleted/put back

Several days age I put the official links back in place after they had been deleted. They have been reprioritized and btter descriptions added given the quick changing, online nature of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign. Please do not be destructive or revert these links to the previous non-descriptive listing. Anappealtoheaven 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who has been making those reverts. Only one of your descriptions of those links is accurate. With the exception of the Meetup page, each of those links goes to Ron Paul's profile on those services, not solely to a list of "supporters", "subscribers", or "friends" as your edits claim. Please justify the reasoning behind your edits, as you have not done so in your edit history.--Daveswagon 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

A large portion of the article is based on this source [2] which is written by his wife on his website. This is not a reliable source. I propose that material that is sourced solely on his wife's article be removed from the article.--Agha Nader 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the personal and family information, nothing else, and I would not term it as a "large portion". If that information is all taken out, the article is not as good and has almost nothing on his personal life. I'd say that his wife is a reliable source for facts on his background and their family life, etc.-- nothing but information on their family is taken from that article. That section is neutral and just lists colleges attended, etc. Daily Paul is also not run by him, although the article originally appeared on his campaign website, I believe.--Gloriamarie 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article loses significant credibility when it has sections based entirely on the unreliable sources. Please read WP:V. It states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How is his wife a third party source?--Agha Nader 12:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading it, that section does include claims that he beat a kid in track who later went on to the Olympics, etc. That can be taken out if you wish since the only source is his wife. The article also relies on his official Congressional bio, which is not a third-party source, and many articles rely on the subject's own memoirs, certainly not a third-party source. Official bios are often used for politicians' articles. What specific assertions do you object to?--Gloriamarie 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"alleged" added to Sudan's human rights violations

TO those adding the word "alleged" to the phrase "Sudan's human rights violations": who alleges that Sudan isn't committing these acts? If there is a legitimate debate, then site it. Otherwise, don't add unnecessary weasel language... Adam Holland 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The other side on the Darfur issue refers to it as a Civil War. I can provide a few articles by libertarian opinion website lewrockwell.com. [3] [4] [5] [6] A Google search of this site turns up 59 results critical of intervention in Darfur and not referring to it as a "genocide" or "human rights violations." A search of the neo-conservative National Review website also turns up many articles critical of that viewpoint on Darfur. [7] There definitely isn't a consensus that a genocide or human rights violations are occuringn in the Sudan. Life, Liberty, Property 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure human rights violations can occur during wars.--Daveswagon 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My question to Mr. Life, Liberty, Property (nice name, guy) still stands: who says that Sudan ISN'T violating human rights in Darfur? Now, I think I need to restore this entire subject which has mysteriously been deleted.

Adam Holland 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, and not mysteriously; I believe I said this in the edit description. His position on Sudan does not belong in the small summary section on Political Positions; that belongs in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Daveswagon 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Austin Chronicle

Need to add that the Austin Chronicle has taken a much more sympathetic view of Ron Paul after 9/11 in view of his opposition to the war on terror and the PATRIOT act. Also probably need an article on the Austin Chronicle.

Opposition to Iran policy

I'm not very experienced at wiki-ing, so I'll just forward the link to Ron Paul's Iran speech in congress:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12640.htm

Please include this in the article because it parallels his Iraq-war opposition.

Social issues?

I Was watching people get all excited over this guy on Digg.com, and his economic ideas seem nice, but mysteriously, there doesn't seem to be anything here about his views on social things, like Abortion and whatnot. I don't actually know his views on those kinds of things, which is why i'm bringing it up here, because it seems like a hole in coverage in this article that'd be nice to fill. Homestarmy 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's position on many issues, including abortion, is that the federal government should leave it to the individual states to decide.Granola Bars 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he is pro-life. --BlarghHgralb 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more nuanced than that. He believes that abortion is wrong, but that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to rule on it. He becomes definitely pro-life at the individual state level, so if a referendum were raised in Texas to ban abortion, he would vote for it as an individual. He would vote *against* a similar law in Congress, for a perceived lack of jurisdiction in the matter. 68.211.49.245 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul does not believe this is up to the states, the above is false. He has repeatedly submitted H.R. 2597 which states: Life begins at conception, each state has the authority to protect lives, and the Supreme Court cannot review this. If life begins at conception at the federal level, it is murder to commit an abortion, even with a morning after pill. How can this be interpreted? How would it not be murder under this definition? The line "each state has authority to protect lives of unborn children" is misleading. They will have to, according to this bill. Ron is not as neutral as he'd have you believe. 209.30.37.214 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct he is pro-life and does not belive this is up to the states but he never says he is neutral he has always said his is conservative Gang14 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul believes that 95% of black men in the DC area are criminals, that it is irrational to not be afraid of black men, and that black men should be tried and convicted as adults at age 13 because they are "scary". http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749 . Ron Paul also has fanatical supporters who try to suppress these facts, apparently believing that Paul would be electable if only no one knew. Is that relevant to a discussion of social issues?

The newsletter controversy is already mentioned in the article, though it does get deleted and restored on a regular basis. Granola Bars 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Library

A new online library has been created that indexes more than 500 documents written by Ron Paul. This is a great resource for those wishing to know more about Ron Paul's position on various topics. Add to external links?

Ron Paul Library, indexes more than 500 documents written by Ron Paul

Ron Paul Interview

Congressman Ron Paul appears in a longer interview ca 35 mins into this video from mises institute

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=Federal+Reserve

this should be helpful for anyone who needs information to improve any section on his economic views and policies.
- cheers! -- ndg.

Racism Section Constitutes Original Research

The racism section amounts to a political hit piece on Ron Paul. It constitutes original research, since Ron Paul has never been accused of being a racist or of making racist comments. An article citing comments which no one outside of wikipedia editors has even claimed are racist comments does not warrant a section on the topic. Now if some editor can provide a source which calls Ron Paul a racist or claims he made racist comments, then that is another matter; however, to date no such source exist, and the interpretation of those comments as racist speech is being made solely by wikipedia editors and thus constitutes original research. Ikilled007 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section and reworded a sentence. The Houston Chronicle article did not say anything about being a racist or quote anyone saying the same. There were some blog posts on the Daily Kos and Wonkette saying that, but the text as printed was not exactly right because the word "racist" was not used in the original Houston Chron article. Since this did get mainstream attention from blogs and the like, it is appropriate to include it-- the section includes the allegations and presents a fair view of them.---Gloriamarie 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ron Paul has publicly made racist statements If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

This is not Ron Pauls election campaign page. Stop editing it to support his election campaign. Michaelh613 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)michaelh613

That is included in the section on the racial remarks, and he has denied writing that. Michaelh613-- please stop editing the page to support his opponent's election campaign :) Neutrality is what's called for in this article and on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now the issue of original research has been settled, let's settle the issue of neutrality. Making a simple, undetailed mention of the racist comments while providing multiple citations and quotes from Ron Paul in defense of it, ad nauseum, denotes serious bias. Would true neutrality not demand, at least, that the comments themselves be shown? As for the issue of whether there is a controversy, would Ron Paul's own defensive posture not speak to this issue? Or, at the very, very least, should his story not be balanced with at least a mention of the massive holes in it? Artmonkey 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been a long long discussion of this scetion. Davewagon seeks to restore the original HIT PIECE. This is unacceptable especially when Davewagon covertly includes in his restore controversial POLITICAL POSITIONS in the top of the article. Clearly the intention seem to be an unfair attack and spin on this candidates record. Anappealtoheaven 02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article suffers from deep bias in support of the candidate.

You suffer from deep political bias and ignorance. The article is factual.

This discussion suffers from a lack of signing so start Gang14 06:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anonymous users: when you say that there is a bias, please give specific examples, and feel free to edit the article yourself.--Gloriamarie 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is very fair. I've read nothing biased, if you do so, please cite it. Manic Hispanic 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The glowing quote from that judge is pure glurge. I'd remove it, but I'd be insulting the honor of every Internet tough guy's favorite candidate.

What is "glurge"? ---71.65.202.41 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes if you make a comment.--Gloriamarie 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what concerns some users isn't anything specific, but the general tone of the article. Compared to other candidates' pages, I would say this entry seems more positive in favor of the candidate. But its not because the editors intended it be a glowing endorsement. I think it has to do with a lack of critical sources to cite. Ron Paul receives little criticism in the press, so its hard to find opposition to his message. With few direct rebuttals from respected media sources, and with hardly any constructive rebuttals from other outlets (like blogs), his message appears to have more validity than his opponents'. At least that's how I see it. Kylebrotherton 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just added back information on Ron Pauls election challengers with gloriemarie removed and attacked me on my talk back page claiming it was bias. The FACT he has people running against him was completely sourced. If she does this again she should be banned from editing this site. We need to protect this article from Ron Paul internet activists to keep the site reliable. Wikis not part of his campaign. Michaelh613 10:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)michaeh613

I attacked no one on any talk page and I only said to please stop making persistent non-neutral edits after I saw that many other editors had asked you to do the same on many other articles. Please stop calling for the banning of users who make useful contributions to Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"He reaches out to 14th District voters on veterans' issues, such as procuring medals for war veterans who lost or never received their medals; he holds medal ceremonies for those whose medals are being presented." Just curious; regardless of what you actually feel about the man, don't expressions such as "reaches out to [x]" seem a tad politicized, i.e. POV? I'll agree with others that the entire article has a generally more positive tone -- to the extent of a being a tad POV -- than I would expect here. (I've posted more in the "Section removed" section.) Maxisdetermined 22:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC) I don't know if it needs its own section, but can't we at least include something about his past racially charged statements, his alleged ties to the Minutemen/Patriot Movement groups, and his publication The Ron Paul Political Report/The Ron Paul Survival Report? I think we could address concerns that have already received some attention in the blogosphere, if not elsewhere, without realistic accusations of original research. As well as on dKos, some criticism has been raised here, for example: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html and http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007808.html Maxisdetermined 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is definte bias for the canidate, but since its hard to find a person to write an article for someone they don't support, its to be expected. My biggest gripe is claiming that all of his finacial backing for the campaign comes from individuals. One source is not enough to show this, as one source can be biased as well. It needs atleast two sources, plus it seems to be just thrown in there to make the canidate look better. 71.175.8.178 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As to your "biggest gripe", the facts speak for themselves and the cited source is quite reliable, but you can always check the official government FEC website. Anarchist42 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania?

Several sources show that Paul was born in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa - not Green Tree, Pennsylvania (southwest of Pittsburgh) http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000583 Is there a way we could verify this?

Greentree is a township, not a city. Many people not technically in Pittsburgh, but who are in allegheny county, list either "Pittsburgh" or their township. It's the same place, just a different name. I live very close to Greentree, in Upper St. Clair, put one could send a letter to my address in "Pittsburgh" and still have it arrive.

To clarify further, Allegheny is a county, which contains a number of townships, some of which are Pittsburgh, some not. Hope this helps. 71.60.182.186 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times says Green Tree.--Gloriamarie 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He opposes what?

"He is strongly Pro-Life and opposes abortion, gay marriage, the Federal income tax on individuals, the Federal Reserve, foreign intervention, capital punishment, and the war on drugs." -- That makes it sound like he's against abortion, gay marriage, etc, which isn't true. I think this needs to be reworded.69.208.218.100 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I took that whole paragraph out because it simply reiterated what was already said in the summary and, as you wrote, gave a misleading impression.--Gloriamarie 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How is he not against abortion? And here's his stance on gay marriage. BenB4 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between a personal opinion and a political stance. Rudy Giuliani, for example, opposes abortion personally but supports it politically. Paul, I believe, also opposes abortion personally, but would like to let states decide the issue on their own (hence, overturning Roe v. Wade).--Daveswagon 08:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Roe v. Wade is opposing legal and safe abortion de facto, regardless of the stated motive. BenB4 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So prior to Roe v. Wade, no legal or safe abortions took place?--Daveswagon 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in nearly two-thirds of the states except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother. In those states it was legal, it was only available under very limited circumstances. Women who wanted to terminate their pregnancy often sought illegal, back-alley abortions. It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion yearly and that botched illegal abortions caused as many as 5,000 deaths a year (NARAL). During this period, illegal abortions were often performed by an untrained physician in unsanitary conditions using primitive methods (NAF)." (First google hit on "Prior to Roe v. Wade") It is completely disingenuous to say that anyone who is personally opposed to abortion and who wants to roll-back Roe v. Wade is not opposed to abortion in general. BenB4 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So letting states decide on abortion is "anti-abortion" because some state would make a ~~pro-choice~~ pro-life decision?--Daveswagon 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean to ask about their making a pro-life decision, and, apparently. BenB4 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, good catch. Yes, that's what I meant. Still, my argument stands. I'm not saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would be good, I'm saying that it doesn't constitute full opposition to abortion unless Paul says "I completely oppose abortion".--Daveswagon 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out generic opposition to abortion and added the sentence, "He thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and is personally opposed to abortion, which he believes should be regulated only by the states." I guess that is more accurate. BenB4 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the only point I wanted to make.--Daveswagon 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of these claims can be made, because Paul has often said he thinks the decision should be left to the states. There is a difference in his personal opinion and what he would do politically in these instances. I preferred the previous wording and felt it gave the situation more clearly.--Gloriamarie 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

His personal opinion is his stance. Whether he thinks the decision is state or federal is a lot less important than the kinds of people he would appoint to supreme court vacancies, in the case of abortion. I am very upset about this attempt to whitewash. BenB4 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He has said many times that while he may have a personal opinion on a subject (for instance, burning the flag is bad) he has gone against it when it might infringe on others' rights or goes against the Constitution (in that example, freedom of speech allows flag burning as a Constitutional right). Many politicians go by their personal opinions or what gets them elected, but there are few if any examples of Ron Paul doing so.--Gloriamarie 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think it fairly obvious that Paul would appoint justices who would decide that abortion is not a federal issue. Granola Bars 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4: No, as I explained with the Giuliani example, that is not true. Granola Bars: That's speculation on your part.--Daveswagon 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"He introduced H.R. 776, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005. It was a House Resolution which, if passed, would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies, and recognized them as human life from conception." ←Ben^B4 07:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

In several parts of this article there are facts that are not terribly relevant to the biography; they seem to be more propaganda. This may or may not be related to all of the Ron Paul supporters who have been spamming other user-content-submitted sites such as Digg and Facebook. Bovester 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific so those parts can be fixed or eliminated Gang14 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the POV is a bit off. For example, the article claimed that Democrats supported "socialized health care" without any sources. First, that's a loaded term to use. Second, it's a broad generalization, especially when few Democratic presidential candidates call for single-payer health care. That's just one example--I'm sure the article can be cleaned up some more. washingtonydc 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Many Republicans often would say that "socialized health care" includes any type of mandated health care, which all the leading Democratic presidential candidates have put forth as part of their platform. That section could be rewritten to say that Paul said that in the interview. Any other ideas?--Gloriamarie 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So would many Republicans say that many Republican candidates support "socialized health care"? I haven't heard many calls for the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, but perhaps I haven't been listening thoroughly enough..--69.210.9.100 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Response on your talk page.--Gloriamarie 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This thing reads like an ad

"As a Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997 and represented Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he is a medical doctor who votes against any bill he believes violates the Constitution.[1] In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.[2] He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system or take government-paid junkets.[3][2] He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act,[4] the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.[5]"

i guess mr paul has his congressional aids working overtime to make him look good. 71.252.59.18 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing or relocating the "Dr. No" and William Simon quotes.--Daveswagon 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind them as long as the list of the things he supports and opposes isn't removed from the intro again. (To whomever is removing that: I'm going to keep putting it back in.) BenB4 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A better attitude would be a willingness to discuss this first. I think a full list of everything Paul supports and opposes is too long and cumbersome for the intro, and none of the other politician article I looked at seem to have this. I think it would be best only to cover the things that set him apart as a Congressman and a candidate such as his deviation from typical Republican stances.--Daveswagon 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a full list of political positions in the intro is not appropriate. Neither is the current formation, with his birth and education-- that is covered in Early Life and Medical Career. The previous intro served very nicely for many months... I do think that "Dr. No" should stay in the intro, he is very famous for that nickname. William Simon's quote is interesting and should be in the article but doesn't have to be in the intro.--76.182.88.254 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a politician, so we should be summarizing his political positions. So what if other politician articles don't? WP:OTHERSTUFF The issue is that he is one of the most obscure upcoming politicians, and unlike the big names you can't easily get detail on his positions from the major news outlets. Compound that with the fact that his candacy is highly internet-driven (YouTube, for example, is filled with videos about him and no other politicians in the top-twenty by most-watched) I think it is very likely that people are going to be looking for what he stands for and against, and aren't going to care where he went to college or what some former treasury official said about him. BenB4 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was using Barack Obama's article as a template, which is a Featured article (and therefore identified as some of the best of Wikipedia).

Remember, this article is titled "Ron Paul", not "Congressman Ron Paul" or "Presidential candidate Ron Paul". This is a biography about the person, not the politician.--Daveswagon 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The person is, first and foremost, a politician running for the highest office. Comparing him to Obama is misleading because Obama is a pretty much a party-line Democrat, and his affiliation is described in the very first sentence of his article. Nevertheless, several political positions are described in his intro: conventional weapons control, transparency legislation, ending the Iraq War, and universal health care. BenB4 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Paul to Obama, I'm comparing the information layout in the two articles. I'm also not saying none of Paul's political positions should be listed, I'm saying that only the one's that define him as a politician should be mentioned in the intro.--Daveswagon 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that his positions are so incongruent to his or any other party, major or minor, makes it all the more important to list them for all the major issues. But the overriding reason is that is what people are going to be looking for. Do you think that people looking up Paul on the internet are going to be more interested in any other topic about him? BenB4 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're supposed to be "targeting" a specific audience here. We're writing an encyclopedia article, not marketing a product.--Daveswagon 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says we should be "summarizing the most important points." As an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference source, what could be more important than what people are looking for? BenB4 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying Pamela Anderson's article lead should be a huge picture of her chest, because that's what most people will go to the article for.--Daveswagon 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people looking for that are going to be clicking the wikipedia link from those offered by a web search. BenB4 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is failing them by not offering what they're looking for--and they know it.--Daveswagon 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that any political positions should be mentioned in the intro; that belongs in the Political Positions section and there is also an entire Political positions of Ron Paul page already in existence.--Gloriamarie 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the position summary per WP:LEAD which clearly indicates that the lead is supposed to contain a summary of "the most important points" which, for a politician, is his political positions. Have noticed that this article is being edited by supporters in a less-than-balanced way. I hope that we can agree to abide by WP:LEAD. BenB4 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I edit many, many political articles, some of them feature or good articles, and I have never encountered a laundry list of "he's against this and this and this" and "he voted for this and this and this" as you have entered. Saying that a politician's most important points are his or her political positions is your opinion; some would say the most important point is what political party he/she represents, how long he/she has been in office, what occupation, where/what region they represent, and what they are overwhelmingly known for (as an example, "Dr. No"). That is how most political articles are laid out. Please give specific examples of non-neutral edits.--Gloriamarie 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Paul's views diverge substantially from both of the major parties, so, as a candidate for the presidency, they define him far more than a nickname. If you wouild take the time to read the discussion above, you will see that Barak Obama has four of his political positions in his lead section, even though he is pretty-much a party-line Democrat. As an enthusiastic supporter (according to your user-page) why would you not want people to know what Paul stands for and against?

As for biased edits, I see that you deleted to critical remarks by opponents which were fully sourced, as "hearsay." WP:COI asks that we "avoid making controversial edits to articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia." BenB4 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the paragraph you had put in says he is against things that are not supported by the citation; there is a difference between being against something and believing that the federal government has no power to regulate it, which is where Paul's position often lies.--Gloriamarie 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the statements are supported by the political positions sub-article. BenB4 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put citation tags on the same assertion in that article, because the reference cited does not say he's against gay marriage.--Gloriamarie 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference says: "I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.... If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.... I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state." The fact that you claim that doesn't say he is opposed to gay marriage is conclusive proof that supporters should be forbidden from editing this article. BenB4 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you agree with me about the difference between a personal opinion and a political stance in the "He opposes what?" discussion only to change your mind here?--Daveswagon 23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I was willing to compromise with wording which stated his opinion about abortion along with his opinion about whether the federal government should regulate it. I would not be opposed to doing the same with gay marriage. However, it doesn't make any difference because you and your friends who also proudly proclaim their bias in favor of Paul on your user pages have removed that compromise language repeatedly from the article. In fact, there is not a word in the article about his position on gay marriage, a topic in the national headlines frequently -- and a heck of a lot more often than proposals to repeal income taxation, return to the gold standard, or abolish the Fed. BenB4 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a compromise; it's the truth. Paul wants the states to decide about gay marriage on their own. He's doesn't want a national ban on gay marriage.--Daveswagon 01:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He voted to explicitly prevent states from being required to recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states, against the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Also, he sponsored a bill to prohibit any federal funding of abortion, as it says in the section you just edited. Both are explicit federal regulation. The desire to bury these controversial opinions to make a candidate look good is contrary to the goal of making an unbiased article. BenB4 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You think those are examples of greater federal regulation?--Daveswagon 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greater than what? They show that he is willing to use federal power to impose his views on abortion and same-sex marriage. BenB4 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Funding something or requiring states to recognize other states laws is imposing a view, not vice versa.--Daveswagon 03:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(back left) If the Medicare law says that the government will pay for procedures performed at the direction of a medical doctor, and Paul legislates to add, "except abortion," as he has done, that is imposing his view. If the Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states recognize other states' marriages, and Paul legislates to add, "except same-sex marrages," as he has done, that is imposing his view. You just deleted two sourced statements critical of Paul. Do you understand why I am upset about this? BenB4 04:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of medical operations not covered by Medicare. Explain that.--Daveswagon 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of them are regulated? The ones that are allowed or the ones which aren't paid for even if ordered by a doctor? BenB4 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not digging up specifics on this. From the Medicare website: "It is important for you to understand that Medicare does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered."

"If the Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states recognize other states' marriages, and Paul legislates to add, "except same-sex marrages," as he has done, that is imposing his view." The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been found by the Supreme Court to not apply to "social mores" such as marriage; this was brought about in the 1800s when Utah still allowed polygamy and other states were worried that they would have to recognize it as well. The Defense of Marriage Act said that states did not have to abide by court rulings (by "activist" judges who did not go by the precedent set in that previous Supreme Court case) that ruled that they did have to abide by the clause in the case of marriage; the main type of marriage this would affect is gay marriage, because polygamy currently isn't legal in any state but theoretically would include any type of marriage law including polygamy. So, a vote for that act is simply allowing states to decide for themsleves, through their own legislation or referendum, what their marriage laws will be, not from the decision of one judge or a few judges. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Ron Paul is for states' rights to decide their own laws and has said so many times.--Gloriamarie 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

External links not to include

I think we need to reach a census on whether or not include certain external links, because some keep being re-added after other editors and I remove them. This should be done under the understanding that the external links section is intended to provide useful information about Ron Paul not found in the article.

Some links I object to are:

Grassroots support sites - this article is supposed to be about Ron Paul, not his supporters and not specifically his election bid. Furthermore, this is intended to be an encyclopedia article, not a campaign resource. I'm also afraid that if we include some sites, people will try to include much more.

America: Freedom to Fascism video - this is a two-hour long video that contains tens minutes or less of Ron Paul reiterating information already present in the article. It is probably the clumsiest link for learning about Paul on this page. Yes, Paul may share the video's general opinion, but this article is about Paul himself, not people who agree with Paul. --Daveswagon 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the America video. What are some examples of grassroots sites that are in question?--Gloriamarie 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For grassroots, I would say all. If they aren't officially affiliated with Paul and have no encyclopedic information to contribute on the subject, I can't see why they should be included.--Daveswagon 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, what do those Internet TV sites offer to the article that Ron Paul's official YouTube channel doesn't?--Daveswagon 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The official YouTube channel doesn't offer up all media or TV appearances, just a selection of ones that the campaign particularly likes.... so that's probably good to stay.--Gloriamarie 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Look folks. Ron Paul's campaign is not about himself. Its about the idea of freedom. This is very different way of thinking from the mainstream view that promotes candidates top down. Ron Paul is bottoms up and the root of his success was three million veiwers of FREEDOM TO FASCISM on video.google.com. The internet TV stuff is grass growing from this. You can not understand RON PAUL unless you link to and understand the source of his popularity. I beg of you not not turn RON PAUL's wiki page into the same shrinkwrapper plastic packaged darlings offered up by the mainstream media pundants. This is not where this election is headed. Cutting off these key links is like cutting this man's feet off. Anappealtoheaven 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's campaign may not be about himself, but this article is. I'd also like to see a citation for your claim that Freedom to Fascism is the source of Paul's popularity and not, as Paul himself says, his message.--Daveswagon 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone so against Freedom to Fascism? Its one link that happens to reflect very badly on authoritarian style government. So what? Please put it back; at the very end of the list is fine with me but it desrves mention if not a write-up of its own. "Over 3 million views before Google removed it", just after the first republican debate. It contains Pual's message for smaller government and what happens when government hides behind the "Color of Authority" and perception of "Rule of Law" but in reality has all the guns, can't site a law and just decides to use its guns to enforce its own mandates. Wake up! This is the message. People are sick and tired of being told what to do and then acosted when they question someone's authority. Anappealtoheaven 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No one's said they're against it, it just shouldn't be an external link on the page. A link could be given, for instance, if there were a Media section as there are in some political articles, but I'm not sure whether that's appropriate yet.--Gloriamarie 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The link clearly violates Wikipedia's external link policy. As it states, one should avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

--Daveswagon 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I will keep my eyes open for some more justification for future inclusion. As you can tell I'm pretty pasionate about this subject. I learned of Ron Paul myself through Freedom to Fascism. The houston Chonicle goes out of their slam him and/or not to mention his name at all. Anappealtoheaven 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. I'm glad you're excited about Ron Paul, but understand that here on Wikipedia, not everything is decided by discussion. There are rules that really must be followed.--Daveswagon 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1980 election and his departure

While the WSJ source mentions that Paul was outspent 2 to 1 in 1980, I'm not quite sure how accurate that would be. Political Moneyline says that Ron Paul spent more than Mike Andrews in 1980. Anyways, the 1980 re-election was already mentioned, and further note seems to be intended only to overglorify Rep. Paul.

As for his departure in 1985. While Ron Paul's bio doesn't mention his Senate candidacy, saying that Paul "voluntarily left his seat" in 1985 seems a bit unnecessary. Especially since it's not a remarkable event that someone who chose to run for another office decided to leave the House.

--RobbieFal 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While it seems Political Moneyline has detailed figures, how do they get them? I've never heard of this site before and I'm inclined to believe that the Wall Street Journal is a more reliable source (although no newspaper is 100% accurate, of course). I added that because there was not much specific information on individual campaigns available from that time that I had seen. Your last point makes sense but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.--Gloriamarie 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of political positions

I believe the section on political positions was just fine the way it was for months: abolition of the IRS, Iraq, border security, abortion and then recently there has been a paragraph added about health care. Recent edits have put abortion and gun rights at the top and taxes and Iraq and immigration near to the bottom. I believe the section was just fine how it was before, and seemed to represent Paul's ideas in order of importance... small government, non-intervention, defense and border security, and then abortion and health care. He has not made abortion a huge issue and is more into small government. The recent edit summary by Anappealtoheaven undoing my restoration of the original layout reads "Conservative voters are most interested in border security, right-to-life and second amendment in that order. Reprioritized same text." How can an individual Wikipedia editor speak for all "conservative" voters (and not all reading the article are conservative, so it should not be directed to a certain subset of readers anyway)? Instead, we can only go by the priorities that Paul himself has set out for himself in his political career. The original layout served to do this and the new emphasis on abortion does not. I agree that perhaps the Second Amendment should be included (although it gets a bit long that way), but it seems clear to me from polls that the top issue in the minds of most voters is Iraq and from his appearances, first in Ron Paul's mind are lower taxes and Iraq. The section should be structured to reflect that.--Gloriamarie 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Paul seems to talk about non-intervention (esp. pertaining to Iraq), small government, and low taxes the most, by far. Also, targeting this article towards what "Conservative voters" are supposedly looking for is not how Wikipedia works.--Daveswagon 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul talks about the war because that is what the liberal media types want to talk about, but I have seen several reports that the average "conservative voter" is not primarily concerned with the war and wants to hear much more about real border security, stopping abortion on demand and protecting second amendment rights; in this specific order. Many neo-cons want the war to continue and don't want to talk about it at all; I don't agree with that either, it should be fully discussed. However, Paul says that he would much rather discuss other conservative issues and that the war is only discussed because the media types bring it up. I just think that we should consider making the order that which is the priority of our primary audience for this page. If conservatives are coming to this page with particular interests and priorties, why should we let the liberally biased mainstream media dictate the order; after all they won't even print a fair and objective story on the good man or reveal details of how their secretive "scientific polls" are conducted or whether he was excluded altogether? Statistics don't lie, the mainstream media apparently does. Wikipedia is our chance to right this wrong and give our audience what they seek in the order that they seek it. Anappealtoheaven 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to target certain sections to what certain voters may want to see. That is for campaign material. "However, Paul says that he would much rather discuss other conservative issues and that the war is only discussed because the media types bring it up." When has he said this, and what particular issues is he talking about? He has consistently made taxes and smaller government the keystone of what he talks about, not abortion.--Gloriamarie 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

merge Political Positions and Principles sections?

These two sections look like they are dealing with similar content. Should they be merged? -Gomm 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I say "yes".--Daveswagon 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anappealtoheaven 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that the Political Positions section is then cut down in size, because it's already pretty long.--Gloriamarie 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the "Criticism" Part?

It seems like every candidate has a spot for criticism of the candidate, except Ron Paul. What the hell?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.39.221 (talk • contribs)

Can you suggest any notable criticisms/controversies other than disagreements with his views (which every politician has).--Daveswagon 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Many political articles do not have controversy sections, for example: Barack Obama and John Edwards. This just depends on the editors themselves and to have a Criticisms section is not part of a political article template or something.--Gloriamarie 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, controversy sections are okay but criticism sections should be avoided on all bio articles. Just my opinion. Turtlescrubber 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Why was the picture switched from the newer one that has been used for awhile? The one that currently is at the top was previously in the Congressional career section. The newer picture should be used.--Gloriamarie 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be deleted now ([8]), possibly because it was orphaned.--Daveswagon 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this back as the main photo after after having confirmed copyright.--Ronpaulnation 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Good work.--Gloriamarie 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DARFUR

Paul actually opposed the bill that sent U.S. aid to civilians in Darfur, and called for an end to the conflict with peacekeeping by African, Arab and Muslim nations. That was not reflected by the edit that I corrected which said that Paul opposed U.S. "intervention". His actions against this bill should not be equated with his answer on CNN regarding a U.S. intervention in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan. #1 his Darfur actions were real, not hypothetical, and #2 no military intervention was involved. The bill he opposed was aid, foreign peacekeepers, and a call for the end of the conflict. It wasn't a declaration of war. read it here: http://clinton.senate.gov/features/darfur/documents/2004.09.23_Comprehensive_Peace_in_Sudan_Act_of_2004.pdf

Adam Holland 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After you read that, read Paul's statement on the floor of the House during the debate on the House amendments.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=582

Adam Holland 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "intervention" necessarily equals "war". I think ordering troops into the region, whether American or not, is still intervening.--Daveswagon 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been continuing this discussion on our respective user pages, and I just wanted to post on this space my reasons for including Paul's Sudan policy. (Before I do, in response to the above, you should already know that the US Congress does not have the power to order foreign peace-keepers into Sudan. Read the bill, okay. Now, my reasons for inclusion of this subject:

1) The issue of "non interventionism" is central to Paul's campaign. Paul's actions with respect to Darfur go to his definition of "intervention" including humanitarian aid. This broad definition is interesting to those trying to parse out "non-interventionism" as opposed to isolationism and does not appear elsewhere in the article. 2) Paul's opposition to the Darfur bill was a real world action by Paul that could have prevented aid to millions of people in Sudan, were he successful. It's not just an answer to a question or a campaign talking point. This is his real world policy in action. 3) The issue of Darfur, although under the radar now, would likely arise as a major issue should Paul be nominated, and WILL likely be an issue regardless (partially because of #4). AND 4) Senator Clinton played a huge role on the bill that Paul opposed, and is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, as you must know. So this is an instance where they have already debated, as it were.

DAVESWAGON, on my user page, asks:

I'll clarify my question: Why can't we simply say "Paul opposes foreign intervention and aid" instead of saying "Paul opposes foreign intervention and aid in Sudan, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Israel, etc..."--Daveswagon 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

MY ANSWER to daveswagon: for the four reasons stated above. Here's the thing: Paul actually played a role in the debate and crafting of the Darfur aid bill in 2004. Question: has he taken ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER on any of the issues you cite? I don't mean anything as important as opposing them in Congress, I mean ANYTHING. He was actively involved with opposing Darfur aid in Congress, where it counts, not on a blog or a TV interview. If he had been successful, Darfur would not have received our humanitarian aid. If you have other similar examples, I agree with you that those should be included in the main article as well. If you only have debating points, answers from interviews or position papers, maybe the cases you cite could be included in another single sentence. Clearly, if he hasn't taken action on those issues, they're inclusion is not as important.

Adam Holland 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. His stances: Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000), Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999), accepted position that Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful. (Dec 2000), voted NO on request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan.[9][10]--Daveswagon 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IF you are saying that these votes are important, you're correct. They each illustrate different aspects of his anti-foreign aid beliefs. It makes it clear that the issue of foreign is MORE important than the article currently reflects.

Are you arguing that, because he's voted this way, his opposition to Darfur aid is less noteworthy? I'm not sure I follow that logic. Let me ask you outright: what is it about Paul's Darfur policy that makes you want to exclude it from the page? Is it that you think it's not noteworthy -- just another of his positions? Or is it, as it seems clear from your previous edits, that you think it is an unpopular position that you would like to conceal?

I'm not trying to exclude his Darfur policy. If we say "Paul opposes foreign aid" then it's included. That's what I want.--Daveswagon 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes as much sense as saying "Paul is anti-war" and claiming that should exclude specific references to Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that the opposite is true. His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included PRECISELY BECAUSE they illustrate the broader policy, not to mention their importance as issues, in terms of both the "real world" and the campaign. Similarly, Darfur is illustrative of the broader issue, is important in its own right as an issue, will play a role as a specific campaign issue, and highlights a difference with other candidates (specifically Sen. Clinton, whose bill he opposed). For those reasons (already stated above and on your talk page), I disagree with your desire to delete this subject or meld it with a question he answered in a CNN interview about a hypothetical war with Taiwan (!).

Paul's Darfur actions merit a mention and a link to Paul's own website, where he publishes his speech to the House on the subject.

Ron Paul is not anti-war.--Daveswagon 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Are his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan anomalous, or are they illustrative of some underlying, broad principle, such as "anti-interventionism". The point is that nobody would know what he meant by that term, or by opposition to foreign aid, if they didn't know how he dealt with specific issues. THAT'S HIS RECORD! Are you saying that his record isn't important?

Adam Holland 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What could "no foreign aid" mean other than "no foreign aid"?--Daveswagon 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It might mean "no foreign aid except in an emergency" or "no foreign aid except for allies" or "no foreign aid except for natural disasters". The point is that the definition of what Paul means by "no foreign aid" is clarified by how he's put this into action. It's precisely the exceptions and extreme cases that define a position. By including the Darfur information, the article defines "no foreign aid" as including instances where millions of people risk starvation. An extreme case...and therefor illustrative of Paul's position.

By the way, wasn't your alleged concern about not including specifics to illustrate broader policies contradicted when you characterized Paul's position with respect to Sudan as opposing "intervention" and lumped it with an answer he gave to a reporter's hypothetical about U.S. intervention in a war between China and Taiwan. I mean, what's YOUR broad underlying principle? If you believe that specific examples of how Paul's beliefs play out in policy are undeserving of inclusion, then why did you make that edit?

Pardon me for saying so, but based on that edit, I believe that this is about what you believe looks good for Paul. Why not let his actions speak for themselves rather than attempting to conceal them? He's proud enough of his speech on the subject to publish it on the web!

Adam Holland 01:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You think saying "Ron Paul opposes all foreign aid" makes him look good?

I removed the Taiwan sentence an hour ago, by the way.--Daveswagon 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I definitely don't. But I know that NOT saying "Ron Paul opposes aid to Darfur civilians" makes him look better than saying it. That's the point of your not wanting it included. And that was the point of your conflating it with a non-existent "Taiwan issue". Why would you have done that if not to burnish Paul's image?

Adam Holland 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These issues are related because Paul opposed both of them on the grounds of being interventions into foreign affairs that have no relation to the U.S.'s national security. He makes no mention of specifically opposing aid to civilians in the speech you linked to just like he makes no mention of opposing Taiwanese independence/democracy in the CNN video. To claim that politicians support/oppose ever detail of the bills they vote for or against is silliness, especially considering the notoriety of the riders they put on these things.--Daveswagon 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the bill? The only U.S. action it authorizes is provide aid. The rest is calling upon the international community for action, calling for a peaceful resolution, and stating that Sudan has done wrong.

I have no idea what this has to do with Taiwan. Can you explain?

Adam Holland 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Bill:

(5) the United States and the international community should—

(A) provide all necessary assistance to deploy and sustain an African Union Force to the Darfur region; and

(B) work to increase the authorized level and expand the mandate of such forces commensurate with the gravity and scope of the problem in a region the size of France;

(6) the President, acting through the Secretary of State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, should—

...

(i) cease to import Sudanese oil; and

(ii) take the following actions against Sudanese Government and military officials and other individuals, who are planning, carrying out, or otherwise involved in the policy of genocide in the Darfur region, as well as their families, and businesses controlled by the Government of Sudan and the National Congress Party:

(I) freeze the assets held by such individuals or businesses in each such member state; and

(II) restrict the entry or transit of such officials through each such member state;

(7) the President should impose targeted sanctions, including a ban on travel and the freezing of assets, on those officials of the Government of Sudan, including military officials, and other individuals who have planned or carried out, or otherwise been involved in the policy of genocide in the Darfur region, and should also freeze the assets of businesses controlled by the Government of Sudan or the National Congress Party;

(8) the Government of the United States should not normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to, and takes demonstrable steps to implement, peace agreements for all areas of Sudan, including the Darfur region;

That's humanitarian aid?--Daveswagon 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be dealing with humanitarian aid if that is the bill in question. I oppose the inclusion of this because the political positions section is too long already after its recent merger with another section, and this can be extensively covered in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This process is broken. First you misrepresent Paul's opposition to this bill as not wanting the U.S. to "intervene and equate it with an answer to a hypothetical question about war between Taiwan and China. Then, a 180 degree turn, you say that it shouldn't be mentioned because it, since it only deals with foreign aid, a specific mention was redundant. Now, another 180, it should be deleted because it deals with MORE than foreign aid.

You have started with the conclusion that this should be deleted, then used a series of contradictory reasons to justify the deletion. The process is broken...

Adam Holland 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job of confusing me with statements like "The only U.S. action it authorizes is provide aid".--Daveswagon 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My first position is that it doesn't belong in the Political Positions section of this article, which is already too long. My second position is that if it can be supported, it belongs in Political positions of Ron Paul. From what Daveswagon posted above, it doesn't seem this bill had much to do with humanitarian aid.--Gloriamarie 01:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Way

Here's one the problems faced by libertarians and third-party candidates. Often times, their views present a third way of looking at things that don't conveniently fit into conventional schools of thought. Gay marriage is a case in point. Most people think that either you're pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage. And that's it. There are no other possible view points. In fact, the very idea that there could be a third way of looking at issues doesn't occur to some people. As best I can tell, Ron Paul's view is that marriage is not an issue that the federal government should decide. It's a state issue. He is neither pro-gay marriage nor anti-gay marriage. He has a third way of looking at things that does not fit into the two conventional camps.

He says that "Americans understandably fear" national legalization of gay marriage. Frankly, I think it would be more understandable to fear nationwide recognition of drivers' licenses issued to senior citizens under the Full Faith and Credit Clause than marriage licenses, but I am probably more part of the "secular, pro-gay left" willing to "give up" than a religious person who wants to "save freedom and morality." BenB4 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And if Paul said "Americans understandable fear chocolate ice cream" then it means he supports the execution of anyone caught with Rocky Road. Sheesh.--Daveswagon 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4: "National legalization" are the key words. Again, he's talking about state's rights. He opposes federal intervention into the issue and believes each state should decided for themselves what their own policy will be.

Yes, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he just doesn't think this should be handled at the federal level.--Gloriamarie 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Awards and honors" section?

Not to diminish Paul's achievments, but I don't think the Awards and honors section is notable enough for inclusion (nor do many other candidates seem to have such a section in their articles). Most of the groups that gave Paul these awards have very specific agendas, so it's not terribly surprising that Paul would win their awards (like from the Mises Institute, for example). I think a few of these should be worked into the article elsewhere and the rest should go.--Daveswagon 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reduce size of Political positions section?

Given that there is a very healthy Political positions of Ron Paul page that is well linked from this page, perhaps we can reduce the Political positions section on this page to a simple summary, so interested readers can follow the link to the full blown discussion on the other page. -Gomm 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the other frequent editors of this page please acknowledge this goal? Users like BenB4 in particular seem to want to expand this section rather than scale it back. This is getting ridiculous, especially considering Hillary Clinton's political positions section is only five sentences long.--Daveswagon 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Affiliations

According to the Liberty Political Action Committee, Ron Paul is no longer associated with The Liberty Committee.

65.37.163.132 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

I think the confusion arises because "the Liberty Committee of Falls Church" is not the same as the Liberty Committee in the US Congress.--Gloriamarie 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Medicare

The last sentence of the Military and Medical Career section should be revised. Medicare is an "insurance" program for people over 65. Generally speaking, there aren't many 65+ women having babies. Including Medicare in this context is irrelevant and weakens the argument.

An OBGYN deals in large part with child birth, but not exclusively. Women over 65 still have reproductive organs, even if they aren't using them.

It says "Medicaid and Medicare" and there are many, many women having babies on Medicaid. Medicare actually also applies to people younger than 65 who have certain developmental disorders.--Gloriamarie 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Censorship?

I hold great contempt for MySpace, but I saw this video. Anyone with a MySpace account care to verify this? In fact, if the source of that which was pasted was found, I have phished accounts that can be used to back it up, if Wiki requires. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewspeakdictionary%2Ecom%2Fnewspeak%2Ehtml 68.1.79.246 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a result of Myspace's battle against spammers. --69.210.9.100 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Myspace isnt to bright if this is how they are battling spammers because there are worse spammers then saying ron paul is running and that you suppost him Gang14 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else heard anything about this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gang14 (talk • contribs)

This issue is a hoax as far as I've determined. If you type up your own support info for Ron Paul on Myspace, even including your own links and things you've got no problem. The videos I've seen are being blocked due to their structure and the nature of the included links. It is indeed MySpace's anti-spam blocking, but the term "Ron Paul" is not what gets blocked. 209.159.98.1 15:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I think it is quite clear that this article is being whitewashed by vocal supporters. As discussed above, the removal of well-sourced criticism as "hearsay," the refusal to include the fact that he opposes gay marriage and abortion even though he admits he does, and the exclusion of his political positions in the intro are all serious problems. They will need to be resolved before I will consent to removal of the NPOV tag I am placing on this article. BenB4 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. If it is biased, it is probably biased against Ron Paul, rather than for him. For example, the racial comments in his newsletter that were written by a staffer whom he immediately fired are mentioned in this article, even though they are irrelevant and the section was originally biased against him and did not include his response to the comments or his frequent criticisms of the idea of racism. If anything, this article may be biased against Ron Paul, however, I think it is fairly balanced. I personally haven't seen much criticism of Ron Paul, except for the usual criticisms of libertarians, except for personal attacks on Ron Paul supporters and personal attacks are not permitted to be included on Wikipedia. If there is any criticism of Ron Paul which you can find a reliable source for, feel free to add it. Life, Liberty, Property 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "malicious ghostwriter staffer" explanation is that there is no documentation other than Paul's word. What is the name of the staffer? What does he or she have to say about the article? Why was there no explanation that the newsletter was being ghostwritten before that article was questioned by the Houston Chronicle? Why is any mention of gay marriage scrubbed from this article by admitted supporters? The criticism by libertarians which were removed by a supporter were sourced (well, one of the two paragraphs was reliably sourced, the other was sourced to a blog but unlikely to be controversial because it represented what some libertarian challenger was saying about him.) That kind of critique is allowed under WP:BLP. I have felt "free" to add several passages which have been removed by supporters. BenB4 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you see a problem with it or not is irrelevant. Both The New York Times and Texas Monthly have said that Paul's explanation makes perfect sense because the writings are not in his style or language and are of views that he has not espoused at other times. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but for using reliable sources to write articles.--Gloriamarie 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "ghostwriter staffer" was Eric Dondero I believe.

Why do you feel gay marriage needs to be mentioned on the main article and not in the Political positions page? Why do you assume his stance on this is something "bad" that Paul's "supporters" are trying to hide?--Daveswagon 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number of news stories in the past several years, it's a much more important issue than abolition of the income tax, which is covered in detail. BenB4 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the income tax effects a much larger portion of the population than same-sex marriage does.--Daveswagon 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that.

I am removing the NPOV tag because Paul has stated that the federal government has no right to define what marriage is. Feel free to add this cited information from the "Political positions" page if you think it deserves to be on the main page. His pro-life abortion stance is clearly explained and cited on the main page.foraneagle2

The citation that the above user continually inserts here and in Political positions of Ron Paul to say that he "opposes gay marriage" does not say that he opposes gay marriage. If you can find actual cited proof that he opposes gay marriage, it can be cited in the Political Positions article. Most politicians' articles say nothing about their stance on gay marriage, especially Republicans. I'm not sure why you're implying that this is such a controversy.--Gloriamarie 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference says:

"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman....
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act....
"I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.
"If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state."

On July 22, 2004 he said:

"I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state....
"Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." (emphasis added)

How can you possibly say he is not against gay marriage? BenB4 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I read the speech and he's talking about state's rights. Basically, he's saying that each state should decide what marriage is and isn't. So, based on this speech alone, it's not fair to saying he's against gay marriage. In fact, I can't even tell whether he's pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage because he doesn't even mention his opinion. Read it again, it's all about state's rights.

How about this one, then?

"Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter....
"Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages....
"The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable....
"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government....
"Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality...." (emphasis added) BenB4 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those quotes is about state's rights.

No, attributing "fear" to the spread of same-sex marriage rights is not about states' rights. Claiming that allowing gay marriage is "giving up" is not about states' rights. Equating "secular" with "pro-gay" after you have stated that marriage is a religious matter is not about states' rights. Restricting gays from the marriage rights that everyone else enjoys is not "freedom" and calling it freedom is not about states' rights. BenB4 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He's attributing "fear" to federal power overruling state's rights. Every single one of those quotes has some sort of qualification:

"not a government matter"
"one state, all other states will be forced to accept"
"federal level"
"states’ rights ... tyranny of centralized government"
"relentless federalization of state law"

You're unintentionally proving my point about not recognizing that there are a third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) ways of looking at things. Can you provide a single quote (that's not taken out of context) where Ron Paul unequivocally says he's in favor of federal intervention of marriage? Just one quote, please. (So far, every single quote you have provided is about state's rights.) Thanks.

Those quotes all qualify. What if he had said: "Americans understandably fear that if slavery is abolished in one state, all other states will be forced to recognize the citizenship of blacks"? What if he had said: "Americans understandably fear that if women are allowed to vote in one state, all other states will be forced to grant them sufferage"?

It doesn't matter whether he's talking about states, counties, or cities: he clearly says that it is "understandable" to "fear" being forced to accept gay marriage. He clearly says that marriage is a religious matter and that being "pro-gay" is "secular." He clearly says that outlawing gay marriage is equivalent to "freedom." BenB4 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he says that it's understandable to fear federal intervention into a state's rights issue. But I thank you for acknowledging that all those quotes are qualified by states' rights issues. As for your hypothetical questions, "What if he had said..." I would guess that Ron Paul would say that they're still state rights issues. But Wikipedia isn't about guessing. Nor is Wikipedia about hypothetical "What if situations". Nor is Wikipedia the place for original research. Every single one of your quotations about Ron Paul has some sort of qualification regarding states rights issues.

Can you provide us a single quote (that's not taken out of context) where Ron Paul unequivocally says he's in favor federal intervention of marriage?

I think you are completely wrong. I don't think any reasonable person can think those quotes do not obviously show his opposition to gay marriage. I note he voted yes to ban gay adoptions in Washington DC, and if that doesn't settle the matter, I don't know what will. By the way, please follow the instructions you are shown when you edit talk pages to "remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)." BenB4 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you just changed topics from marriage to adoption.67.184.23.112 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not resolved. There has been no suitable explanation of why:

well-sourced criticism has been removed as "hearsay";
there is no description of his stance on gay marriage at all;
the summary of his political positions has been repeatedly removed by admitted supporters.

Please do not remove dispute the dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. BenB4 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What was the "hearsay" criticism again?--Daveswagon 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This in particular the Peden quote. BenB4 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have quotes of support for Paul in this section, why would have we have quotes attacking him? What does this have to do with the facts of his Congressional campaign?--Daveswagon 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap! That whole section is written like a hagiography. It's a quote from his congressional opponent. BenB4 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Poppycock! Two wrongs don't make a right.--Daveswagon 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that there should be a description of Ron Paul's personal beliefs. This is a biography, not a political ad. However, because of his peculiar variety of politics, it is especially important to separate those personal beliefs from his political views. Saying "Ron Paul opposes gay marriage" may be accurate, but it is misleading to imply that he would ask the federal government to pass legislation enforcing his belief. I think that a "personal views" section (removed after the discussion above) would be very useful because of this unique problem.--Taz80 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. I would support saying "Paul personally opposes both abortion and same-sex marriage, but political supports an end to any federal intervention for or against either issue." Or something like that.--Daveswagon 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(It's good practice to sign your posts.) That sounds fine to me, and if it can be easily woven into other sections, then that's the way to go. I just think that it is important to distinguish controversial personal positions from political platforms throughout the article.--Taz80 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try telling that to BenB4.--Daveswagon 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? You agreed with -- and even thanked me [11] for -- text saying he opposes, "gay marriage as well as federal definition of marriage.^[1] He thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and is personally opposed to abortion, which he believes should be regulated only by the states." But that was deleted repeatedly.[12][13][14]. If we can agree to leave that summary in the lead, and agree that critical comments attributed to newspapers and other reliable sources shouldn't be removed, then I would agree to remove the NPOV tag. BenB4 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am kidding, although I do wish you'd extend the same logic to the same-sex marriage issue that we agreed on for abortion.--Daveswagon 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please understand that I am not disputing your sources about Paul's opponents' comments. I just feel those comments contribute very little to telling about Paul or (in the case of that section) Paul's Congressional campaign. In some of my last few edits, I removed similarly useless but positive comments, so I hope we can move in that direction instead.--Daveswagon 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He opposes gay marriage, however, he does not believe that the federal government has the right to make a ruling on it. See the 10th Amendment.

I have inserted the following:

Likewise, while he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, and may even have sought to prohibit it if he had the Constitutional authority to do so, Paul considers the lack of federal jurisdiction to be an overriding factor and has thus been bound from bringing federal legislation on the matter. He has consistently relegated state and individual matters which are outside of the realm of a limited federal government as defined by the United States Constitution.[33]

and removed the NPOV tag. Are we finished with our gay marriage squabble? JLMadrigal 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate for Political positions of Ron Paul, and I don't think it's supported by evidence that I've seen. Where is the reliable source saying that Ron Paul would ban gay marriage at the federal level if he had the chance? He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which did just that. That's speculation. It doesn't belong in the article without citation. When asked about the subject, he has said the government shouldn't even be in the business of regulating marriage licenses-- that's the opposite of regulating certain types of marriage.--Gloriamarie 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the insertion, omitting the speculation. Is it acceptable to everyone? JLMadrigal 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutly not! I will revise it so that all you supporters can see what I consider to be a fair description. BenB4 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the unsourced paragraph on gay marriage with direct quotes from his speeches. I also tried to remove bias in other places and conform the article to the Manual of Style. BenB4 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A little off-topic here, but this is one of my grammar peeves: Please, it should be "might even have sought to prohibit it", not "may have". If you say "may have sought..." it means "possibly he did seek to prohibit it", rather than "possibly he would have under other circumstances".

This is orthogonal to the question of whether that speculation should appear at all. I agree that it should not appear, unless you can find a quote of Paul saying "I would have considered banning gay marriage at the Federal level", or evidence of similar quality to that. --Trovatore 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul voted for the War in Afghaninstan?

The article says: "Paul believes in a strong national defense and voted for the War in Afghanistan in 2001..." Is that correct? I can't find anything on this, but his speech before the war certainly sounds like he opposed it.--Daveswagon 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow I feel like voting for the guy and I am in Australia!

Yes, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan. I believe he also championed the idea of letters of marque and reprisals.

From the Candidates@Google Talk (5:02 into the talk): "Well we really didn't declare war against Afghanistan and I would have voted against authority to go into Afghanistan, take it over, and nation build. Besides that effort was designed for some economic reasons of oil and gas pipe lines and things, that's why they had to take over Afghanistan. But I did vote for the authority to go after the Al-Qaeda believing that targeting the individual and the group that seemed to be very likely the people who brought about 9/11. The authority given and the money given was totally abused, we went into nation building. Where is Osama bin Laden? He's in Pakistan, Pakistan is a military dictatorship that we support and now we subsidize and they have nuclear weapons. So it makes no sense what so ever with this ridiculous foreign policy that we have. So no I would oppose and never intended for the president to misuse that authority. So what happened? We ignored Osama bin Laden and said let's go to war against Iraq. So that is the kind of irrational policies that I'm trying to fight." --Bruce 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes it sound like he did oppose action in Afghanistan.--Daveswagon 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "I did vote for the authority to go after the Al-Qaeda..." is supporting action in Afghanistan (specifically, actions to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan). What he did not support was the abuse of that authority and associated money to be used for nation building instead of going after A-Q. --Serge 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And that doesn't refer to the letters of marque and reprisal? Wasn't the authorization to go after the Taliban (which supposedly had access to bin Laden)?--Daveswagon 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Ron Paul favored letters of marque and reprisal over war, but since that idea didn't go anywhere, he voted for the war in Afghanistan.

OK, I found the legislation. It was the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Paul did vote for it.--Daveswagon 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He supported it, but he thought it should be have been handled better and could have been done more effectively (i.e., bin Laden could have been captured).--Gloriamarie 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure was hard to find, thanks and here is the associated roll call. --Bruce 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown?

Does anyone know Dr. Paul's position on Brown v. Board of Education? 75.35.108.23 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an official stance has been made. We know he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and many of its regulations on the state Educatino Boards, but in the context of BvBoE I don't think there's an official stance. 209.159.98.1 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay adoption

Seeing the new edit, I looked at the political positions page and linked to the source claiming that Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. Turns out that the vote cited for this claim is H.R. 2587, which is later mentioned in the article as not doing that at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like either the ACLU or wikipedia's editors are misrepresenting the contents of H.R. 2587. Granola Bars 05:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He voted for an amendment to that bill that would have prohibited gay adoption[15], but it failed 213-215.[16] OnTheIssues.org is not run by the ACLU. BenB4 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The amendment would not have prohibited gay adoption; it just would not have provided federal funds for it. That is quite a difference.--Gloriamarie 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit! He voted for the final appropriations bill. You can't have it both ways. ←Ben^B4 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that roll call where he voted "yes" is from July 1999. This roll call is from October 1999 on the same bill, and this one is from yet another roll call on the same bill a few weeks later. He voted "no" both times, the same vote as Dennis Kucinich. In any case, a glimpse of the text of the bill can find that nowhere is the word "gay" mentioned as related to adoptions, and the bill merely provides federal funding for adoptions but does not specify a specific kind. Please tell me where a "ban of gay adoptions" is in that bill.--Gloriamarie 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Largent's amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption was to H.R. 2587 "Making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities...." which passed in July and was vetoed by President Clinton because of concerns about education funding. The bill you are referring to is H.R. 3064, "District of Columbia Appropriations Act," an entirely different bill introduced in October after H.R. 2587 was vetoed. The fact is that Paul voted for the amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption. And I have never said he voted to "ban" gay adoptions. It is indisputable that he voted against them. ←Ben^B4 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is indisputable that he voted against federal funding for adoptions.--Gloriamarie 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section, article

I had attempted to add a controversy section (and then link to the new Ron Paul controversies article), but Anappealtoheaven has reverted my edits. Does anyone care to weigh in on this? I thought this would help reduce the article size.--Daveswagon 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind!--Daveswagon 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is marked for DELETION and needs to go. We have editors (Daveswagon and BenB4) who are conspiring to make changes to multiple sections clearly in a biased attempt to reflect badly on the candidate; making use of political positions "out of context" to prejudice the reader within the introduction and then they are using this "Controversies" section to eloborate on controversies that were not of Dr. Paul's making to slam the candidate with someone elses unfounded accuzations and putting words in the candidates month. This is unacceptable. These individuals are also editing political positions to undermine the candidates actual positions in an attempt to spin readers into and incomplete and false perception of the man and his views. I would strongly request that other editors review the edits of these two individuals as changes are made to content. Anappealtoheaven 05:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Which positions do you think are taken out of context or otherwise present biased views? BenB4 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am not involved in all of this, but maybe it is a response to attempts to take all critical info off of this page. I think both sides can give on this one. Turtlescrubber 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Anappealtoheaven regarding BenB4. He certainly seems to have a political bias. He repeatedly misrepresents Ron Paul's opposition to federal intervention on gay marriage into opposition to gay marriage itself. He refuses to acknowledge the distinction between these two positions. Several times, I asked him for cites and he was unable to provide a single one. If he keeps up his biased edits, I'm going to put a neutrality disputed tag on this article. 67.184.23.112 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to say only that he opposes federal regulation of marriage as long as we also state that he voted against gay adoption. That shows that he does not let his libertarianism trump his faith. I have not changed my position that he is opposed to gay marriage because he has said federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty" and "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." ←Ben^B4 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He did not vote against gay adoption, it was funding for gay adoption and was an amendment to the bill that was taken out later, so it was not central to the bill. Ron Paul says he votes against a bill if there is anything in it that is unconstitutional. This is in the realm of original research on your part, without an article referring to it or a citation to the actual bill and what it was about.--Gloriamarie 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly did vote against gay adoption. And saying so is not original research because OnTheIssues.org says the same thing. When you prohibit a government from spending money on a certain kind of adoption, then it does not happen because, e.g., clerks aren't even allowed to fill out the necessary forms. And adoption is a lengthy process involving many tens of thousands of dollars of social workers' time to match and approve a placement. Therefore, defunding same-sex adoption amounts to a de facto ban on them. If you don't believe me, search on "Largent amendment" and H.R.2587 and see what other people have to say. ←Ben^B4 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue at all. However, Ron Paul pretty much votes against all government spending, so it's entirely possible that he voted against them for that reason. -- Mattworld (talk to me) 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Summarize mainlinks

The political positions and 2008 election need to be better summarized, as they do have their own articles and mainlinks. Please see WP:SUMMARY if you have any questions. Please post here if you disagree. If no one objects, I will take a hatchet to these sections as they are sprawling all over the page and have turned a good article into a middling article. Sprawl is hard to read. Turtlescrubber 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the newsletter section should also be shortened, as it's large size gives the section undue weight. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Daveswagon 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if it can be done in a manner to please all sides. It has taken a long time to settle on wording that all parties involved have agreed is suitable (the current version). Political positions is at this moment completely out of hand and needs to be summarized badly.--Gloriamarie 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it might be best to go slowly, piece by piece, so if anyone objects it should be easy to fix. I think the summary for the positions article is fine as it is, but will probably add another paragraph worth of text to make everyone happy (while erasing the subheadings of course.) Turtlescrubber 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rough summary completed. I think it should be moved further up in the article, right above the 2008 presidential section. Any opinion? Turtlescrubber 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be much further up.--Gloriamarie 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag added/Newsletter Controversy

I think that this should remain in the article but I think the current size of the section gives the newsletter undue weight. To start, one partial solution is to remove the blockquotes (leaving the quotes but removing the formatting). Full disclosure, I hate blockquote formatting. Another is to put the quotes in the footnote references. A third is to selectively remove some of the quotes and text. We could also do a combination of all three. Thoughts? Opinions? Turtlescrubber 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

edited version below

I would say that we should accurately summarize the quotations and then put the exact quotes in the footnotes. That should make this easier to read, take up less space but still convey the same info. Turtlescrubber 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think it should also be a subsection of the Campaigns section rather than its own section if it's going to appear above the Campaigns section.--Gloriamarie 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." needs to stay in, and I would like to know exactly what was said about Barbara Jordan. ←Ben^B4 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need to have that kept in it's fine. However, what do you want to know about Barbara Jordan that the sources can't tell you? I don't understand. Turtlescrubber 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remarks in the Ron Paul Survival Report Newsletter

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle^[2] alleges that Ron Paul made comments about race in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985), including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan. The article quoted the newsletter as stating that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." And also further remarking that a low percentage of blacks "have sensible political opinions" and commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking."^[3]Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." ^[3]

What do people think of this version? Turtlescrubber 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone likes it so much I threw it into the article. Turtlescrubber 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned at the top that Paul said they weren't his words. Someone just reading the first paragraph wouldn't have the whole story. That is why previously we had the quotes in the footnotes.--Gloriamarie 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum after seeing the edit removing the quotes from the footnotes: it was decided, similarly to the Tony Rezko situation in Barack Obama's article, that mentioning the quotes themselves when Paul had denied that they represented his views was giving undue weight to the controversy, so the quotes were removed to the footnotes. This was a consensus reached on the talk page. I see no consensus for changing it back.--Gloriamarie 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Under no conditions can I agree to that. Paul said he didn't write the words but admitted he takes "moral responsibility" for the article, unlike the Obama situation. And there is no such lengthy quote in the Barack Obama article footnotes. Moreover, the direct Houston Chronicle URL doesn't work any more, so people shouldn't be replacing it back in the article. ←Ben^B4 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that the entire section was whittled to two paragraphs under the subheading "Newsletter remarks" under the campaigns heading. For one thing, there was no campaign in progress at the time of the remarks. ←Ben^B4 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gloriamarie is correct. Consensus was to move the comments to the footnotes section in order to avoid giving them undue weight while still preserving visibility. There is no consensus for a change, but I'm sure we can revisit the issue if you like. Best regards. Jogurney 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a legal brief. We don't put multiple paragraphs of material in footnotes. They are called <ref> because they are for references, not prose. Finally, I disagree with the opinion that including this controversy which has been repeatedly covered in the national press is giving it undue weight. Paul took responsibility for the statements published under his by-line. That is be cause he knows just as well as we all do that even if he didn't write them himself, he hired the ghostwriter and made a conscious decision to forgo the supervision of that employee, and that reflects on his judgment. The statements are profoundly disturbing and under no conditions will I agree to relegate them to footnotes, no matter how many supporters clamor for it. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and there is no consensus because I most certainly dissent. ←Ben^B4 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So there is no compromise available to us at all. Everything must be exactly your way or thats it. No to moving the quotations to the footnotes, no to summarizing the quotations, no to past consensus on the page, no to listening to other editors and no to everything else. This is one of the longest sections on the page but barely registers in the life and political career of Ron Paul. You are being obstinate and totally opposed to any sort of compromise or open discussion. You opinion now matters a lot less because it seems that all you are interested in is pushing your pov. Turtlescrubber 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If trying to hold the article to the standards of the encyclopedia is obstinate, then so be it. At least I'm paying attention. The links to the Houston Chronicle in the version you inserted today don't even work anymore. ←Ben^B4 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure proved your point with that one. I guess its all settled. Turtlescrubber 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote your own link to what Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a democracy because its "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." I'm not sure what your point is. Consensus on the article means what most editors agree to on the talk page.--Gloriamarie 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I believe that the normal way to handle content disputes on wikipedia is to look for consensus (which was done several weeks ago regarding this item). Once a consensus is reached, it can be reconsidered, but a new consensus is needed for chsnge. One editor cannot ignore prior consensus on his/her own. In short, if you would like to move these comments into the body of the article, you have the burden of establishing a consensus for doing it. Also, please assume good faith, instead of labelling those that disagree with you as "Paul supporters". Best regards. Jogurney 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Turtlescrubber's rewrite works best. There is no need for the full quote and it gives undue weight. I also don't think the full quote should be in the references (to Ben's argument), just reference the source for the full quote / story. Also the POV tag should be removed from the article if this is the only section in dispute - use a section tag {{POV-section}}. However, I don't see this as a violation of POV policy (using Turtlescrubber's rewrite) as both points of view are presented and the tone appearers balanced. Morphh ^(talk) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You think accusations that Bill Clinton fathered illegitimate children appearing under the candidate's name give undue weight to the controversy about the article they appeared in? Why? I most certainly do not agree. ←Ben^B4 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, The Houston Chronicle does not ever call it a "controversy", so Wikipedia can't legitimately call it a controversy unless a few reliable sources do. Texas Monthly said Paul's opponent thought it would be a big deal, but it turned out not to be in the course of that election. Secondly, the Chronicle does not cite those quotes about Bill Clinton, so there would not be any point of even including them in the footnotes.--Gloriamarie 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I found a corroborating source (Searcy, R. (June 3, 2007) "The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know" Atlanta Progressive News) so we wouldn't have to refer to the article about the article over and over. But that got deleted. By the way, what the article actually said about Jordan was:

University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.

There is plenty of additional corroboration from The Austin-American Statesman ←Ben^B4 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of including the quote about Bill Clinton. It's not featured in any of those sources to my memory. Do these sources call it a controversy? The New York Times did not call it a controversy.--Gloriamarie 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Section removed until compromise is reached

Lets work this out, right here and right now on the talk page. I have been working on this section and asking for input but nobody seemed to care until it was put into the article.Turtlescrubber 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I didn't get a chance to take a look at it before you put it in. It's hard when not everyone is willing to compromise.--Gloriamarie 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thats okay. I was also unaware that there was a previous consensus version of this section. As I have said before, this info should be in the article, I am just looking for the most npov version possible. Taking up so much space throws the page's balance out of the window. So I am fine with the original consensus version too. My edits were made to meet both versions in the middle and try to find a lasting version. Turtlescrubber 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Four people do not comprise a consensus of editors on this article. ←Ben^B4 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when it's four against one (you), it most certainly does. Turtlescrubber 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON. Consensus means the absence of dissent, and I do not consent to having major controversies whitewashed and the lead biased by admitted supporters. ←Ben^B4 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus"... Some if not most of the editors who have weighed in on the subject of the lead-in have said that some of the political positions given are insignificant and most have said that they should not be included. Interesting page, thanks for the link.--Gloriamarie 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you called his position on abortion insignificant. I disagree, for reasons that I have explained in detail but are obvious to anyone who's lived in the US for a couple months. ←Ben^B4 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you obviously didn't read WP:CON. Give it another shot. Especially the parts on supermajority and unanimity. Turtlescrubber 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is just because I'm new at this, but I don't understand why any and all versions of this section have to be removed until a consensus is reached. I think I grasp the basics of consensus-building. But what's wrong with leaving a minimal adaptation while we discuss more fleshed-out versions? To not even have any reference to the racially charged comments (ghostwritten or not) or his alleged ties to the Minutemen/Patriot Movement groups -- especially when this page doesn't offer much else in the way of criticism -- seems to be a mistake. A reader would conclude that Wikipedia editors don't recognize any such worthwhile criticism, and considering the fact that we're trying to agree to what version of the criticism we want to include, I feel it's safe to say that's not true. Maybe for the time being, we could include at least a sentence or two, and perhaps a footnoted link to dKos, considering its popularity, if not, say, Orcinus or Off the Kuff? Maxisdetermined 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested removing the section in order to minimize edit-warring and reversions. I've seen it done on other articles and it seemed to work well. That said, I wouldn't oppose putting some "placeholder" comments back into the article until consensus is reached. Best regards. Jogurney 00:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I never heard about the Minutemen group you're referring to-- I don't believe this is widespread criticism from mainstream sources. The links you're giving are to sources that do not qualify as reliable sources-- they are one-person blogs.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, Orcinus has (at least) two bloggers, including an author with some mainstream credibility, David Neiwert, and seems to attract a respectable readership (100+ comments on at least two Ron Paul-centered articles). That said, one of these articles has been cross-posted on Firedoglake, which from what I can tell has (at least) 6 editors and perhaps a larger readership (226 comments on this article, about twice what appears on dKos's "Ron Paul: In His Own Words").

And you've never heard of the Minutemen, or just not Ron Paul's alleged connection to them? They're decidedly controversial. Though I must clarify: Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a strong established connection to the Minutemen, beyond inviting founder Simcox of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps as honored guest to a fundraiser (this is in Off the Kuff, which links to this Galveston County Daily story). On the other hand, he has a stronger connection to the patriot and militia networks popular in the 90s; this is documented at the above links (inc. dKos).

I'll agree with you that these stories haven't exactly made the rounds in evening news. Since they have been raised in at least one prominent blog (dKos), however, I feel it's important that we at least mention them alongside the "racist" critique. And to clarify my own position, I don't have any interest in attacking Paul or his campaign. I just came to this page and noticed the lack of any serious criticism. I later learned that someone had removed previous criticism, awaiting a consensus on its ultimate form. I'm just suggesting that the alleged ties to rather extreme groups could eventually be appended to any criticism here. And again, I think we at least some kind of "placeholder" (as Jogourney said) until consensus is reached. I could look through previous versions and draft something as basic and NPOV as possible (no more than 2-3 sentences) later, if no one else wants to. Maxisdetermined 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of these Minutemen in passing, but it's one of those things where they may be either controversial or heroes to you, depending on how you look at things. I don't see anything about them being racist within their Wikipedia articles, just that they think the feds aren't doing a good enough job patrolling the border and enforcing existing laws. None of the sources on the Ron Paul newsletters say that he is racist, either, (and in fact some make a point to say the opposite) so I'm not sure what you mean about the racist thing. I don't think it merits inclusion with just a mention on Daily Kos. (The Firedog link you give, by the way, loses credibility because it quotes the newsletters and purports that they are Paul's words without mentioning his later denial.) 100 or more comments is not rare on posts or articles about Ron Paul, because he has a very large Internet following. I can find many blog posts on the evils of, for instance, Hillary Clinton written by Joe Sixblog, but that doesn't mean their assertions merit inclusion in her Wikipedia article.--Gloriamarie 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I reverted edits that included such relatively minor issues as school prayer, capital punishment, and abortion in the beginning paragraphs of the article. The edits also gave an uncited, misleading impression of Paul's support or non-support for certain issues, such as school prayer (he is for it as freedom of speech, but not for state-sponsored forms of it), same-sex adoption (one time, he voted for a bill with an amendment that provided federal funding for adoptions by people unrelated to each other, this does not mean he's opposed to gay adoptions and as far as I know he's never addressed the issue, and Medicare and Medicaid (he has said that these programs would be "propped up" in his government and he is not opposed to them as in he wants to take away all funding immediately, in the same way he is opposed to the income tax, but just philosophically opposed and he would prefer a free market system). Abortion should not be mentioned in the lead and no other politician's article includes it. That is included in the Political positions section. Abortion should be included over any of those other issues, and I am also opposed to any positions being mentioned in the lead paragraphs.--Gloriamarie 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Paul-supporter BenB4 is trying to drum up Republican support for Paul by making mention of his "conservative" stances on abortion, gay rights and other issues wherever possible.--Daveswagon 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am trying to summarize his important positions as we discussed at length above. I happen to believe that school prayer, capital punishment, and abortion are in no way minor issues. Compare how many headlines they get compared to the number of stories about the congressional pension system which is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If I wanted to appeal to Republicans, I certainly wouldn't insist on including his position on capital punishment and the War on Drugs. I am simply trying to make a neutral article following WP:LEAD, something I increasingly am coming to believe is not possible for ardent supporters. ←Ben^B4 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of the fact that this is a summary of Ron Paul, not his political views.--Daveswagon 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I have so far:

Paul supports free trade, tighter border security, gun ownership, school prayer,^[4] and a return to free market health care. He opposes abortion, capital punishment, NAFTA and the WTO, the income tax, Medicare and Medicaid, universal health care,^[5] the War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations.^[6] He voted against same-sex adoption.^[7] He is pro-life and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, arguing that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue," but voted to ban partial-birth abortions.

Are there any problems with that? ←Ben^B4 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with Gloriamarie. The Political positions page is the proper venue. The last sentence is contradictory without a broader understanding of Paul's political philosophy. (see my earlier deleted edit.) JLMadrigal 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD which says it should be "summarizing the most important points." How do we do that for a politician so far from party lines without summarizing his positions? If his political positions are important enough to have their own article, why are they not important enough to go in the lead? I appreciate that you don't think the last sentence is nuanced enough, but it is factually accurate and shows that his opposition to abortion trumps his libertarianism. ←Ben^B4 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"...his opposition to abortion trumps his libertarianism..." Negatory. A large percentage of libertarians oppose abortion, and an even larger share oppose partial birth abortion in which living babies are drowned, &c. The partial birth ban was an effort to undo the most catastrophic effects of the RvW dilemma - which was an unconstitutional supreme court decision. The legislation neither trumps his libertarianism nor is contradictory. Through RvW, the federal government has unconstitutionally claimed jurisdiction. Not for the intro. JLMadrigal 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So for whatever reason, a large number of libertarians are opposed to abortion, and a large number are opposed to restrictions on abortion. That bifurcation is exactly why it is important to state which side of the debate Paul is on. ←Ben^B4 04:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One possibility to summarize the positions in the introduction without listing specifics is to report on the principles, ideology and philosophies underlying his positions. Terjen 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I say remove the whole thing as it is already summarized on this page and has it's own page. You cant condense someones views down to a small paragraph. Also, user Ben won't compromise on this issue (or any other) so it's best to just remove it wholesale. Turtlescrubber 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Tell me his refusal to participate in the congressional pension system is more important than his political positions. ←Ben^B4 04:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is more important than putting all of his political views in the lead. There should be a two or three paragraph detailed summary of all of his political positions in the lead. We should absolutely try to fit very complicated and elaborate political positions and vote histories into two or three word sound bites. This should be longer and more in-depth than the lead on the political positions article. We should delete any reference to congressional pension systems as they hold no importance whatsoever. Turtlescrubber 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the positions should be removed,and the congressional pension thing can as well and the whole thing rewritten.--Gloriamarie 08:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Are there any problems with that?" Yes, there are big problems with the above paragraph, because it contains many unsourced statements and misleading ones.--Gloriamarie 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Here are just a few, to give an editor who keeps saying his additions are sourced the specifics of what I object to:

School prayer. Saying he "supports school prayer" on the same level as something like free trade implies that he takes the position that many Republicans do, which is that there should be some sort of official moments of silence or official prayer. He supports the right of individuals to pray on their own time, but does not support any official type of prayer as a violation of separation of church and state. That falls more under "freedom of speech" than school prayer. The issue is also not that important in the scheme of things and is ridiculous to include in the opening.

Philisophically he opposes Medicare and Medicaid, but he has said that he would not get rid of them as President and would fund them with money saved from ending foreign intervention. This juxtaposition makes it seem like he is opposed in the same way he is opposed to the income tax, as in total abolition. Not the case.

He has said that he opposes the FEDERAL War on Drugs; he has not said anything about the states not being allowed to continue it if they wish. (as far as I know) I have tried to insert the word "federal" but that has been reverted several times along with my other edits in an edit war.

Gay adoption. This bill was for funding of gay adoption, not banning it. Paul votes against most federal funding bills. It's misleading and ridiculous to put this in the opening of his encyclopedia entry. It is only acceptable if it says something like "the federal funding of gay adoption" or of adoption in general.

Each time this is inserted in the article, it reduces the quality and gives misleading information to readers.--Gloriamarie 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think saying he supports school prayer implies anything more than that he supports school prayer. If people want to know the details, the reference is there. The previous paragraphs make it abundantly clear that his views are not in line with the Republican party's. He's introduced seven constitutional amendments to allow school prayer, for goodness sake. Would saying he "supports non-compulsory school prayer" sufficiently address your concerns?

As for Medicare and Medicaid, I agree on reflection that they should be removed. He is opposed in principle and refused to accept either, but has signaled that he would not try to dismantle them.

I've addressed your misunderstanding about his vote against same-sex adoption above. He voted to defund it. Voting to defund it amounted to voting for a de facto ban on it. Period. I have shown abundant willingness to compromise on representing his stance on gay marriage -- there is more than enough evidence based on Paul's choice of language to show that he abhors it. In return, I ask that you balance that with the clear description of his vote on Largent's amendment. ←Ben^B4 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gloriamarie's points here. They way some of these things are worded can give the wrong impression. Also, the lead should include more of the article for summarization. It jumps right to political opinions.. where is the rest of the article in the lead? There should be at least one sentence for each section in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length above. What else in the article is more important than the candidate's views? He's running for the highest office in the land. Note that while WP:LEAD recommends inserting controversies surrounding the subject, I have never asked for or inserted the newsletter controversy in the lead. I am not being unreasonable here. ←Ben^B4 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I inserted a compromise proposal addressing two of Gloriamarie's three issues, but it was subsequently blanked by Turtlescrubber. ←Ben^B4 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise with your edits on the talk page and not in the article. Turtlescrubber 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I don't think any political positions should be mentioned in the lead. IF there is consensus to include them, and there definitely is not as most people are against including them, my suggestions above come in. "Non-compulsory school prayer" is better, but "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" would get the point across even better and would be more worthy of being included in the lead. Why leave out the federal war on Drugs? I'm interested by why you think voting against federal funding for something becomes a "de facto ban"... people can't pay for their own adoptions with their own money? That is certainly not a ban. I wouldn't mind having the federal government pay my electricity bill, for instance, but if they pass a law saying "we will not pay for electricity bills" that doesn't mean I can't just pay my own as I always have. That doesn't mean there will be no electricity bills from that point on. They'll just all be privately paid.--Gloriamarie 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD which recommends at least three paragraphs for an article of this size. As a politician, what defines the candidate more than his political positions? You agree that the bit about the congressional pensions should be removed -- so what do you think is important enough to be in the lead? I didn't leave out his opposition to the War on Drugs; it was in there.

An adoption is not something that you go in to an orphanage and plop down money for. By law, adoptions are lengthy processes that take several weeks of background checks and professional civil servant social workers to evaluate the potential parents. Perhaps libertarians thing that just anyone should be able to go in an purchase a child up for adoption without any effort on the part of civil servants? I'm sure that would go over great with the pedophile crowd. ←Ben^B4 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all adoptions involve civil servants of this country; many adopt from other countries because of the expense and difficult bureacracy that is found in this one. There are more people who want to adopt than are allowed to. I'm not sure what the libertarian view on adoption would be, but I know that the people I know who have adopted paid for their own with their own money, somtimes supplemented with money from their companies.--Gloriamarie 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some ideas that could make up an additional paragraph: more of a summary of his political career (served in the '70s-80s, then in '90s-now), participation in the Republican debates, his popularity on the Internet, he ran for President in 1988, he has often gone against his own party in many votes, his emphasis on individual liberty-- there are a number of things that are more appropriate than a laundry list of positions.--Gloriamarie 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Plainly, though, you can't include his positions on the Iraq War or mention his libertarianism without also mentioning his positions on abortion, capital punishment, and same-sex adoption. Those are equally valid and important political positions; I would strongly oppose any lead that provides a vague, handwaving view of his beliefs as "libertarian" or gives any mention of his position on Iraq without also specifically noting his views on abortion, capital punishment, school prayer, and so forth. To do otherwise is to cherry-pick the parts of his politics that are covered in the lead... I could see removing all description of his politics entirely (John McCain's page makes no mention of his position on the Iraq War, for instance, an area where he is vastly more famous for his position than Paul), but I absolutely do not think we can put any mention of Ron Paul's position on the war or try to give an overview of his principals in the intro, while leaving out his equally significant positions on other major issues. --Aquillion 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In removing the second paragraph, you deleted two named references that are used later in the article, making two blank references. Could you please replace them where they are cited? Thank you. ←Ben^B4 22:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! I found and restored one reference, but I couldn't find the other... maybe you meant one reference that was used in two other places? --Aquillion 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquillion-- Well, since the Iraq War is the #1 issue among politicians in Washington right now, and libertarianism is in large part what Ron Paul bases all his views on, I must disagree with you on this assertion. Capital punishment is simply not as important as the war in Iraq. Any kind of adoption, same-sex or otherwise, is not as important as Iraq. Abortion is not as important as Ron Paul's libertarian ideas. That is ludicrous. Especially in the case of a president, who really has no power over abortion (except for possible Supreme Court justices) or adoption, views on war are certainly of a different and more important stripe. If I were writing the lead for Barry Goldwater, for instance, I would not say he was against or for abortion, I would say he was for small government. That is more informative and revealing and more appropriate for the lead.--Gloriamarie 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I have placed a {{totallydisputed}} tag on this article because removal of the newsletter controversy section amounts to a biased whitewashing of the major controversy surrounding the candidate (I feel that relegating the newsletter quotes to footnotes is similarly biased.) Furthermore, I believe removal of the summary of his political positions from the lead is similar bias by whitewashing, because pro-Paul editors have repeatedly said that they object to such a summary; I can not say why, but I note it does show less-popular and possibly contradictory views in some cases. Finally, I do not believe the statements on the candidate's position on gay marriage remaining in the article present his views in a factual manner. ←Ben^B4 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I want the newsletter controversy on the page. Check all of my previous edits. I think the manner in which it is currently written (the version you wrote) constitutes undue weight on the section and therefore throws off the balance of the entire article. You ignore attempts at compromise and any previous consensus version. ~~You refuse to discuss any change and call any edits whitewashing or pov. There is no bias here, except for your own.~~ I think you should step up to the plate like a real man and remove the disputed tag and start engaging in some constructive conversation. Turtlescrubber 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In your previous edits, you have removed it twice. We do not blank entire sections because they are in dispute, and it is particularly bad form for someone who has been downplaying something to blank it entirely when their edits are challenged. What policy or guideline did you think you were following when you blanked the section? We blank unreferenced disputed material, not sourced material. And I most certainly am not refusing "to discuss any change," as anyone can plainly see. Such personal attacks are prohibited by policy and I am striking them. ←Ben^B4 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get you to discuss it on the talk page instead of reinserting your one and only version. See the notes I left on your talk page, my talk page, this articles talk page, the deleted controversy article discussion, .etc. Oh, no. Strikethrough. Whatever shall I do. Too bad it's true. Turtlescrubber 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My one and only version? As noted earlier, I fixed the URLs in that section, and found out what he said about Jordan and Clinton -- the version prior to that had been in the article (with part of it in the footnotes periodically) for more than a month. But then you chopped it to two paragraphs. And now you have removed it altogether and are demanding compromise while continuing your personal attacks. Do you think anyone would be inclined to compromise with someone who can't even follow the civility policy? ←Ben^B4 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the section? Someone else buddy. That's what happens when you try to keep a pov type section in an article. I tried to compromise, have you? You started the incivility with your insulting edit summaries, yeah, now I am pissed. Turtlescrubber 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You deleted it. ←Ben^B4 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit on you. This was a at a different time and place, right when you started edit warring.Turtlescrubber 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those were not personal attacks, Turtlescrubber is telling the truth about how you have repeatedly discussed things on this talk page. How is it compatible with any Wikipedia policy to strike comments out of another editor's words? How is it compatible with any Wikipedia policy to not allow for discussion of changes to an article and say that you refuse to have it any way but your own, which almost no one agrees with you on? I have worked on scores of articles and have never encountered the Wikipedia policies you follow. I also want the newsletter section in the article and I have repeatedly restored it when editors have blanked it. However, it was previously discussed and decided that-- since he says he did not say them and that they don't represent his views and at least one magazine has even commented on that-- the specific quotes were better off in the footnotes. --Gloriamarie 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that I "refuse to discuss any change" in the midst of this very discussion? You also agree that I "call any edits whitewashing or pov" when there have been hundreds of uncontested edits since I started editing here? You also believe that I am a unique source of bias when I have been finding and fixing references in the disputed sections and addressed two of your specific concerns in the disputed lead section? Hogwash! Please review WP:NPA#Removal of text and WP:RPA which at one time recommended such striking but has been changed to suggest removing the text entirely. ←Ben^B4 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of these very same things in your edit descriptions. What is the policy on that?--Gloriamarie 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the only thing I have called your changes is biased. Calling an edit biased is allowed. Calling an editor (by name, not as a group) biased is not allowed. The policy is WP:NPA. ←Ben^B4 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice rationalization of your incivility towards the good meaning editors of this page. So, are you ready to start discussing the content of the article and the disputed sections? What in the newsletter section would be agreeable to you? What changes can be made? Can we summarize the quotations? Can we put them in the footnotes? Can we shorten the section at all? What is agreeable to you? Turtlescrubber 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the version that was in the article for more than a month, without foonnotes, before you got here. ←Ben^B4 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So no compromise whatsoever. No listening to the concerns of other editors. Is that how it is? Btw, I have been here far longer than you realize so stop it with that month stuff. Turtlescrubber 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a compromise because I think the section should include the basis of the remarks against Bill Clinton and Barbara Jordan. Why shouldn't it? ←Ben^B4 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just transcribe all the sources word for word. Yeah, that sounds great. So can you make any compromise whatsover. Yes or no? Just answer the question. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(back left) Yes, obviously. I have offered to go back to the version that stood for a month. I provided references for the position summary when Gloriamarie demanded them. Why should I believe that you are even willing to compromise when your response to something you don't like is to delete it? Why do you think two paragraphs on the subject is appropriate when every news article or commentary that mentions it quotes the article in detail -- the same quotes we had here before you chopped them? ←Ben^B4 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you still won't compromise even in the slightest? What's the bottom line? What would make you happy? Turtlescrubber 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "I have offered to go back to the version that stood for a month" do you not understand? ←Ben^B4 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "compromise" do you not understand? What version are you talking about as no version has stood unaltered for more than a month? Are you talking about the current version that is currently under dispute? Turtlescrubber 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This version which stood unaltered for far more than a month, but with the footnoted paragraphs inline. ←Ben^B4 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are now okay with having the quotes in the footnotes? Turtlescrubber 01:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I said I wanted that version with the quotes inline, but please see my newer compromise proposal below. ←Ben^B4 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter/pov discussion continued

Clearly there is a dispute over the level of inclusion of the newsletter remarks. My understanding is that nearly every editor involved in the dispute agrees that the controversy about the remarks is notable and should be included somewhere in the page. What is in dispute is the method of doing so. Until a compromise is reached, it is probably best to leave the content out of the article (I have seen this done on other articles), with the understanding that the content will be added back after a compromise is reached. Let's assume good faith, and try to work out a compromise. My preference has been to keep the comments within the footnotes (similar to the treatment of the Rezko controversy on the Barrack Obama article), but I understand that others prefer to include it in the main body of the article. I don't completely oppose doing that, especially if the coverage is not so detailed or lengthy as to give it undue weight when compared to other aspects of the body of the article. Best regards. Jogurney 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that the Obama article is a Featured article.--Daveswagon 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section and am not opposed to having the comments in the footnotes or having the text in the main body, if it doesn't give the section undue weight. Turtlescrubber 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How much do you think would give the section undue lenght? By height on my screen, the last revision was about the same height as several other sections, and shorter than at least two, not counting subsections, of course. ←Ben^B4 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my compromise version above? I think that is a succinct but still covers all the bases. Is one of your goals to make this section long? Turtlescrubber 01:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes in the Obama article contain no quotations from sources, and certainly not two paragraphs of them; at most they have a single sentence of explanatory prose apart from references. I challenge anyone to find any article in the encyclopedia that has two paragraphs of source text quoted in footnotes. ←Ben^B4 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit above implies that you are okay with two paragraphs of text quoted in the footnotes. Was that a mistake? Turtlescrubber 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, here is my compromise offer: replace your two paragraph version, fix the URL so that it works, include that the article claimed Bill Clinton fathered illegitimate children and used cocaine, include exactly what it said about Jordan ("fraud" and "half-educated victimologist") and put back the summary of political positions. Agreed? ←Ben^B4 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a level of inclusion similar to the Obama article. Best regards. Jogurney 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we revisit the earlier discussion here: [17]? I think there was a reasonable version there which had some of the remarks in the body of the article. Jogurney 02:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some substantial differences between this and the Obama situation. First, Paul took responsibility for the comments, at the same time saying an employee wrote them. Second, the comments were published under Paul's name. Third, it wasn't just one controversial thing that the article said, it insulted Clinton and Jordan at least twice, and black people at least three times. Finally, I think you have a misunderstanding of what "undue weight" means; please review WP:UNDUE. Reporting Paul's newsletter remarks is not something that happened in just a few fringe sources. The remarks have been reported in several major newspapers and have been from 1996 through to this year. The policy of undue weight simply does not apply. That said, I have agreed to an expanded two-paragraph version per my compromise proposal above. ←Ben^B4 02:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obama has admitted that his financial relationship with Rezko was a mistake ("boneheaded"), so the situations are quite similar. Additionally, Obama's relationship with Rezko has been widely reported in reliable sources (much more frequently than the Ron Paul newsletter controversy). That said, it was agreed that providing links along with a short summary of the issue was sufficient coverage. Best regards. Jogurney 05:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Libeling a sitting president, a colleague in the House of Representatives, and an entire race of people is not comparable to a single questionable financial deal. ←Ben^B4 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The newsletter does not constitute "libel", and the two issues are absolutely comparable. I am trying to assume good faith, but your actions smack of POV-pushing. Jogurney 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's not libel because Clinton and Jordan are public figures. But how is the incident at all like a financial deal. ←Ben^B4 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Paul and Obama made decisions which they admit were mistakes. Both involved questionable conduct - hiring a ghostwriter to prepare his newsletter and not reviewing the totally inappropriate content by Paul, and financial dealings with a fundraiser indicted on corruption charges to his apparent benefit by Obama. Both involved poor judgement but no actual wrongdoing. Please explain how they are not comparable. Jogurney 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you write something up and put it on the talk page. And don't lecture people on policy, we all understand undue weight very well. That is my only real issue with this section. Turtlescrubber 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go:

Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section)

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments.^[2] The article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."^[8] The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking." Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."^[3]

Is including that and replacing the position summary in the intro an acceptable compromise? ←Ben^B4 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above section reads ok for me - It is much better then the blocked section of direct quotes. You could probably put a one sentence summary in the lead - something simple like "Ron Paul has been criticised for disparaging comments published in a 1992 publication; written by a ghostwriter, Paul stated that they do not represent his views." Also, it is correct to say he is opposed to universal health care - I think the statement in the prior sentence says it better with free-market health care (could be universal depending on system and charity). Morphh ^(talk) 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one noticed my posting above regarding an earlier version that seemed to have consensus, I'll post a link to it - [18]. That version describes the controversy within the body of the article and provides links with more detail of the disparaging remarks in the footnotes. I think it's preferable to the version suggested above. Anyone agree? Jogurney 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The section composed by ben above looks more or less acceptable to me. Some small grammar changes to better identify the sources, in the first and second sentence would be good. But as far as content goes I don't have a real problem with it. I'll make some slight changes and repost it tonight when I have a better internet connection. However, I cant say that I am opposed to Jogurney's suggest above either (except for the blockquote formatting). Turtlescrubber 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Either of them are acceptable to me; I suggest that it would make the Ben one better, if it includes the Barbara Jordan direct quote, to include the direct Barbara Jordan rebuttal. At least one of the direct quotes from Paul should be used if the quotes are going to be given from the newsletter. They're both pretty acceptable. I also don't mind the summary given below by another user and it might be best for not giving the issue undue weight.--Gloriamarie 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Barbara Jordan apology should be in, and I'm sorry I left it out: I was editing an earlier compromise version which left it out. ←Ben^B4 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben B4

In light of the above discussions, I assert that Ben B4's edits could properly be classified as vandalism. His repeated flagging of the article can only be seen as an attempt to discredit the Ron Paul political campaign for as long as possible. Ron Paul a racist? Good grief! No compromise. JLMadrigal 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as this article stands there is not a single bit of criticism against Paul, whilst criticism does exist, it has simply been removed by editors who do appear to be trying to minimise its inclusion. The simple fact that you state that BenB4's actions are 'an attempt to discredit the Ron Paul political campaign for as long as possible' shows that you are incredibly biased on the subject and fail to understand our WP:NPOV policy.

So, rather than attacking BenB4 - who is simply trying to include sourced information in this article - why don't you try and work to get that information back in?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was the only editor here not on the campaign committee. Since JLMadrigal deleted the dispute tag before the dispute was resolved, I replaced the latest compromise version of both of the disputed portions. ←Ben^B4 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a screwed up thing to say. I myself would not vote for Ron Paul and don't agree with a large amount of his positions, why would I be on his campaign committee? Stop casting aspersions when you know absolutely nothing about the intentions of the editors on this page. Turtlescrubber 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that all editors should stop making things up regarding the voting stance of editors - saying that editors are here to discredit Paul or here as members of a campaign committee are simply personal attacks with the goal of discrediting each other.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tension level in here is getting out of hand. I believe that almost everyone is looking for consensus. It make take longer than 15 minutes to achieve, so everyone should be patient (without adding inflamatory tags to the article or calling other editors names). Best regards. Jogurney 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the totallydisputed tag there for? It seems the content that is disputed is the lead that is no longer there (as it is under discussion). You should only have the tag if the disputed material is actually in the article. As of now, we're just reviewing and gaining consensus on adding material to the lead. This does not require a tag. Morphh ^(talk) 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the tags are used when the content is not in the article also. As I said above, the article lacks any criticism - even though there is some available and it was included. However, I believe that it may be a bit strong of a tag to use, maybe one more intended to deal with neutrality would be better (rather than this one which states factual accuracy is questionable).-Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says that an article has to have criticism? Look at John Edwards' article. Does it include anything about the haircut, the house, or the poverty speeches for $50,000? Those incidents were covered widely in nationally read magazines, but the consensus has been that they are not important enough for his article. What wide criticism has been leveled at Paul that is not already included in the article? It is not a template or something to have a "criticisms" section. --Gloriamarie 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, we are supposed to be comprehensive. For another, WP:LEAD says that the major controversies should be summarized in the lead. As for critiques that haven't been in the article, the affirmative answer to their being a question about global conspiracies comes up a lot. Also the stance against foreign interventionism is widely criticized, even above on this talk page with regard to Darfur, but only his vote shows up in the article (why can't you agree to the same with gay adoption?) The bit about no income tax gets a good pounding from those convinced of the value of progressive taxation. There are also a lot of people who support NAFTA and the WTO, being able to point to the progress they have made on free trade. Furthermore, most mainstream economists think the gold standard would be damaging.[19][20] ←Ben^B4 06:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The links to the articles about taxation, currency standards, noninterventionism, libertarianism, conspiracies, international organizations, &c, provide all of the controversy that information seekers need. Cross-reference makes the article comprehensive. By your logic, any disagreement with Ron Paul is justification for a tag. In that context, every Wikipedia article would be tagged. (BTW, I'm not on any committee either.) JLMadrigal 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't agree to the admission of the Darfur info and didn't think it belonged on this page, but rather on Political positions of Ron Paul. Every politician has "major controversies" over their political positions. One glaring example I can think of would be Hillary Clinton, but does her article say that her political positions are disagreed with by Republicans, some independents, libertarians and other assorted groups? No, even though millions of pages have been written by people specifically disagreeing with her views and actions. This is an article about the person, a biography article, not about their political views if they have a separate page for that, or every perceived controversy about them. Major controversies that should be summarized in the lead are something like the Lewinsky scandal for HRC, or her health plan. A senator being with a prostitute would be classified as a major scandal, especially when that's what they're mainly known for. None of what you describe is a major controversy. Also, Ron Paul has not said that he would go for a full gold standard, but simply the admittance of gold as a currency and hard currency (gold and silver) being allowed in the marketplace. Name a political position that any politician takes and I can give you the argument against it. EVERY political position has two sides and is controversial to someone.--Gloriamarie 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but who are you to say what is a major controversy? On this subject, ie. Ron Paul, these are major controversies when you look at his life. The policy doesn't mean 'major controversies in the scheme of things' it means 'significant controversies which have meaning to that subject matter'. To make a judgement call like you are saying would mean that only the cream of the crop of controversies would ever get a mention on articles on WP.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding, because I am not saying what I think about it at all. I'm instead saying that it would have to be termed a major controversy or even a controversy in the first place in order to be referred to as such in the article. Are every politicians' beliefs major controversies in their life? Only to their opponents! (in most cases) I don't see the logic here, and I have often removed politicians' political positions from "Controversy" sections to "Political positions" sections. This is no different. Here's an example. To someone who is pro-life, John Edwards' abortion stance is going to be controversial. To someone who is pro-choice, Tom Tancredo's abortion stance is going to be controversial. Should their stances appear as controversies? No, even though they may each be controversial to 50% of the population. 50% will think it's horrible, 50% will think it's great. It's not a controversy, it's just a political stance. The above "controversies" listed are not controversial to many people, but are good political stances. To others, they may be abominable. The same reaction could be had from any politicians' views. Political positions are different from actions which are covered as controversial in the media and are widely thought to be so.--Gloriamarie 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PATRIOT Act and Iraq war

Can we please replace the bit about the congressional pension system with the sentence "He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War," which was in there at the beginning of the month. (I didn't take it out.) ←Ben^B4 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you want three paragraphs, if that is put back in, couldn't it just be another paragraph at the bottom?--Gloriamarie 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You said yourself that the congressional pensions stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Have you changed your mind? ←Ben^B4 06:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there is better information that could be put in the lead in a good way, in the same style as other politicians' articles in a summary way, I'd support it instead of what's there. I'm not very good at summarizing a whole article in a few sentences, so I'm just waiting for someone else to work on that while I work on other things. I don't think that political positions are the best thing for the lead, though. Not taking the congressional pension is a rare thing, maybe even totally unique, and interesting, but it doesn't have to be there if it can be replaced with better summarizing information. (not specific political positions, though :))--Gloriamarie 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The congressional pensions thing may well be unique, but the only one it affects is him. The part about not accepting foreign travel junkets captures the same essence, and I think in a more fair way, because, e.g., he doesn't opt out of the congressional health care plan. Another thing: I haven't found definitive information yet, but from what I have, it seems that the congressional pension system is not unlike employer participation in any retirement plan. It's bonus money, but not out of line with what used to be standard for most companies in terms of the amount the employer pays.

As for political positions in the summary, nobody can truly summarize an article of this size in three paragraphs. You have to pick and choose. For someone like Paul, who is so unlike any other politician or party in so many ways, don't you agree that (1) people are likely to be looking for his political positions more than for most politicans (2) people are likely to be looking for his political positions more than for any other information about him, and (3) therefore we should summarize them? If not, please explain. I know you are opposed to the summary, but so far you have only presented a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument against it. Are there any other reasons? ←Ben^B4 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jogurney 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate?

The tag on the page says the "neutrality and factual accuracy" of the article is in dispute. Which facts, exactly, are being disputed as inaccurate?--Daveswagon 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, is it the entire article, just the lead, or a particular section. Each of these have different tags to apply. What material is missing that is the challange for the POV? The lead in work does not seem to be one that is overly directed at one POV or another - it is more of an expansion and summarization of the article (which the lead should be). Morphh ^(talk) 0:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change the tag to the solely POV one if I don't get a response.--Daveswagon 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a sound change to me, from what I have picked up reading the talk page there seems to be a dispute over neutrality or point of view of the article more than the factuality. Enelson 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the #Totally disputed section, the factual dispute is about Paul's stance on gay marriage. I tend to agree: if we dont say what Paul said about "understandably fear" and "profound assault on liberty," then we really aren't telling the whole story accurately. --BB44 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he was talking about *federal intervention*, not gay marriage itself. Please stop trying to mislead people. 24.14.76.94 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have sibling articles. This article isn't supposed to tell the whole story.--Daveswagon 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also still don't see how "lack of inclusion" equals "factual inaccuracy". There's nothing stating Paul hasn't made those comments or doesn't hold those views, so where is there an untrue fact in the article?--Daveswagon 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth and nothing but is not as accurate as the whole truth, especially in this case which in Paul's words involves a profound assault on liberty. A profound assault on the liberty of gays? Nope! On the states that want to keep them from marrying. Paul is a libertarian in name only. --BB44 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This an encyclopedia article summarizing a topic, not a court testimony. I assure you.--Daveswagon 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are you the same user as BenB4?--Daveswagon 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was on a boat without internet most of yesterday and today. BB44 has captured the essence of why there is a factual dispute -- based on Paul's own words -- and I am replacing the totallydisputed tag. I will agree to remove that tag if others agree to replace the summary saying up front that he voted against gay adoption, and to replace the newsletter summary per Turtlescrubber's compromise version below. ←Ben^B4 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When did Ron Paul ever say he was against gay adoption? AFAIK, he was against *federal funding*, not gay adoption itself. Do you have a cite? 24.14.76.94 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, I see no way in which this article breaks the guidelines that would be exemplar of an article with factual inaccuracy. Not saying the "whole story" is not the same thing as having wrong or unverifiable facts. Enelson 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Paul's own words show that simply saying he opposes federal regulation of marriage is as factually misleading as saying the Sun is larger than a breadbox -- technically true, but strongly supporting false induction. I would not go so far as to say Paul is a Libertarian in name only -- plenty of people stray from their party lines -- but on this issue the truth is clear, and what supporters are trying to make it into isn't it. ←Ben^B4 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the only one being factually misleading right now is you. You keep trying to twist Ron Paul's position against federal intervention of marriage into something different.

Consider that regarding education, the article states "Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level." That's pretty much Ron Paul's position on lots of topics. You can take that same sentence and substitute the words "gay marriage" for "education" and it would be correct: "Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over gay marriage and gay marriage should be handled at a local and state level." 24.14.76.94 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4 placed the tag, but I agreed with it when he kept inserting the paragraph into the lead with misleading and possibly false statements on Paul's views (see above discussion on Lead). Since that paragraph is gone, I see no reason for the factual inaccuracy tag.--Gloriamarie 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4 has repeatedly tried to transform Ron Paul's position against federal intervention of gay marriage into being against gay marriage itself. These are two completely different viewpoints and his attempts to blur this huge distinction violate Wikipedia's policies on NPOV as well as factual accuracy. A lot of people have complained about him. I don't understand why someone so obviously biased is allowed to make changes to this article. 24.14.76.94 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine, and my opinion is that my edits are for more accurate and less biased than yours. There are plenty of vocal supporters here, and I believe you will find that if you take action against me because you believe I am biased, you will only draw more non-supporters to scrutinize the article. ←Ben^B4 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, I want more non-biased people editing this article the better, because they'll drown out your biased edits.

Ben, are you threatening this anonymous user? Turtlescrubber 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You may not share BenB4's POV, but it's no reason to call for him to be banned from editing. I'm not pleased with all of BenB4's behavior (such as when he calls editors that disagree with him "Paul supporters") but to my knowledge he has not been disruptive and has been trying to come to a consensus on improving some of the more controversial sections of the article. Jogurney 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter - new suggested compromise

The "disputed" tag on the whole article should be removed soon. It does not look good on Wikipedia for an up and coming person, for which Wikipedia might become a first port-of-call for info on this person. The newsletter issue is notable, but is old and has been acknowledged as an error by the person in question. Couldn't we just put in a POV-section tag instead? If you look at the George W. Bush entry, only a sentence or two is given to the controversies surrounding his military career and his likely drinking problem. The article is getting long already. We need to provide an overview, not provide detailed ammunition for either side of the pro- or con- Ron Paul camp. They can Google instead. How about this much shorter compromise (which still keeps the references)?

"An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments. President Bill Clinton was accused of cocaine use and of having illegitimate children. It also argued for the lowering of the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults to 13 because of the perceived threat from young black males in Washington, D.C.. Paul has since said this was written by a ghostwriter, was not sufficiently reviewed and did not represent his views.^[2] ^[9]^[3]"Janbrogger 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that as a step forward.--Daveswagon 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a step forward, but you may wish to note that GWB has 3 articles devoted to criticism, calls to impeach and public perception, so claims that he only has a couple of lines are bogus...-Localzuk^(talk) 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Janbrogger was referring to the main GWB article (as we are working on the main Ron Paul article). His point is well-taken. Jogurney 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your meaning. The main GWB article is written in summary style, and as such only a minimal amount of each section is kept there, as a summary. Here, we don't have enough to create a seperate page, so summary style is not required. His point is not well taken.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the GWB article (or take the Obama article) are examples of how controversies are summarized on a biographical article. If the controversy is notable enough (such as the ones you refered to for GWB), separate articles can be created to address them in more detail. Best regards. Jogurney 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that approach would not be compliant with our NPOV or forking policies, or the structures to avoid guideline. Information should be fully explored within the main article it is relevant too until it becomes too large to be enclosed within that article, at which point summary style would be used and the main body of that section put in a sub article.

Now, whilst I am saying that, we should also be paying attention to NPOV policy to ensure undue weight isn't being given to the controversy. Counting the fact that the sub articles (meaning articles which are summarised here but would be included within this page if it weren't for their size) plus the text on this page comes to a very large size, in excess of 100 paragraphs, asking for the controversial information to be discussed in adequate detail is not going against this. By adequate detail, I would say that 2 paragraphs is a good size for it.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it wouldn't be compliant (otherwise the Obama article has the same problem). In any case, do you agree with the alternative version I proposed above? Jogurney 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an attempt to form a "Ron Paul controversies" article (by myself) and it was listed for deletion and subsequently deleted after a vote. That option is clearly a route the Wikipedia community does not approve of.--Daveswagon 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Daveswagon. It is a POV fork and they are not allowed.

Anyway, I prefer the version under the heading 'Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section)' as it goes into the right amount of detail.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The controversy should only be discussed within this article. I think the only question is the appropriate amount of space and detail. I'm of the view, that most of the detail should be in the footnotes, but apparently, few agree with me. Jogurney 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with putting most of it in the footnotes. If that kind of thing is good enough for the Obama article, its good enough for this one.--Daveswagon 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the small summary is done pretty well and I would support it. But, what section would it fit in?--Gloriamarie 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as a subsection, between the 80s and 90s congressional service, chronologically. ←Ben^B4 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't really fit there. The 1988 presidential campaign is between those sections, it didn't become known until later, and the only reason it did was because it was pointed out by his 1996 opponent. I think it should be a subsection of Campaigns because of that, or at the end where it has been to this point. It's not on the level of the 1988 presidential campaign or his congressional career, so it doesn't necessarily merit its own top-level section. I'm willing to go with what the consensus is on this, though.--Gloriamarie 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in a section on its own at all - it should be within one of the other sections. To put it in its own section is like segregating it - and is against the guideline I mentioned a few sections above.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What??? All articles with controversy sections have them at the top level, and since the entire article is in chronological order, it goes in that way. Put it in where the controversy broke, not when the article was written. 209.77.205.2 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't fit in the article chronologically, either when it was written or when the story originally broke. The 1996 campaign is covered under Later Congressional Career, and it would have to be done under a subsection of that to be done chronologically.--Gloriamarie 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Section

Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents.^[2] According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."^[10] The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking. Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."^[3]

Made one or two slight changes and I am okay with this. I think it's a decent compromise. What do other page editors think and where should this (or any other version) be placed in the article. Turtlescrubber 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (after an italicization) ←Ben^B4 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

did not represent his way of thinking." Should there be an opening quotation mark somewhere, or does this one need to go? Maxisdetermined 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this one... The space given to the quotes is lengthier than the space given to his explanation/denial, and the denial should perhaps be included in the first sentence as it is in one of the compromises above. The second paragraph, I believe, should include the exact quote or reason of why he takes a moral responsibility for them-- this is kind of hard to follow on that point. Perhaps "... responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him because they were printed under his name, despite that fact..." The Bill Clinton comments do not appear in either of those Texas publications, and only appear in the Atlanta progressive paper, so I'm not sure why they appear first or why they're there at all. Finally, "made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents."-- I don't understand how that makes any sense. It seems odd to call Bill Clinton Paul's political opponent since they never ran against each other. Barbara Jordan never ran against Ron Paul. That's confusing. Also, if it includes the specific quotes on Barbara Jordan, it should include the direct quote of him saying something to the effect of "it was especially sad about Barbara Jordan, because she was a delightful lady." I liked some of the compromises above better than this one.--Gloriamarie 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind posting a version that you think is acceptable, using the above template or not. Either way. I think that would help the process. Turtlescrubber 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work on a version that's better.--Gloriamarie 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps relevant for the newsletter controversy that according to a 1992 study, An estimated 70 percent of Black males in the District of Columbia are arrested before the age of 35, and 85 percent will be arrested sometime during their lives. See e.g. Crime, Communities and Public Policy by Lawrence B. Joseph, page 141, as displayed by Google books. Terjen 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives