Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Labelling TNR a liberal magazine

I disagree with terjen, but I'm going to try to bury the hatchet with him. I know the wiki article calls it a liberal magazine, but I don't feel it is appropriate to label it here. It is irrelevant to the piece on this page and if someone doesn't know what TNR is, they will go to the article and see for themselves. Calling it liberal is really opinion, even if it is their own opinion. I think the NY Times is liberal, but I suspect a lot of people would revert me if I labelled it as such, even though I could provide ample support from books and magazines to argue it. I feel it is more appropriate, more neutral, to simply provide the WL to TNR and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Republic, being a liberal opinion magazine, is not an objective source. Our readers should be made aware of that. NY Times may be considered liberal by some, but practices objective journalism. In contrast, The New Republic proudly labels themselves liberal, or as their editor proclaims, "invented the modern usage of the term liberal". The article we cite and quote repeatedly, "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul, is not objective journalism but opinion, if that isn't apparent from the title of their piece. Terjen (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that a source is not required to be objective, just notable and verifiable. Am I mistaken? And does a liberal magazine mean that it is not being truthful? Why is it not sufficient to allow the reader to read the wiki article about TNR themselves and draw their own conclusion instead of forcing a "warning label" on them? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur. It's a silly bit of editorializing, unnecessary at best. The opinions of Kirchick and TNR's editorial staff are not the subject of this article.
As for "initially," the point is to show the different responses issued by the campaign. In 1996, he made no claim that he did not author the newsletters, only that they were being misinterpreted. Anyway, it doesn't necessarily imply that Paul doesn't still believe the quotes are out of context, only that the response is different. Bartleby (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed "a liberal magazine" before seeing that it was being discussed here - it jumped out at me as a POV identification for this article. Let readers follow the wiki link and make their own determination of any bias the magazine has. Niteshift is right on this. Tvoz |talk 07:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a POV identification, properly labeling The New Republic as they explicitly has a liberal POV. It's not my POV - in their current incarnation, I would label them "statist warmongers" or something like that, given their long time support for the war on Iraq. If we are going to reference them and quote statements colored by their POV, we owe our readers to alert them to it. I think "liberal opinion magazine" is a shortcut in place of a more thorough exposé. Terjen (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As a Paul skeptic and a TNR reader, I don't object to the word "liberal", but strongly object to the word "opinion". TNR is no more an "opinion journal" than The Atlantic Monthly --- both have broken stories, both publish long-form and narrative journalism. Foreign Policy is an opinion magazine. The word "opinion" is also a transparent attack on the credibility of the Kirchick article, and it creates the inaccurate impression that Kirchick wrote an editorial. He did not: he broke a story, with original reporting, that has been picked up in a myriad of tertiary sources since. --- tqbf 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good point - I was focusing on the "liberal" and didn't think about the "opinion" part: both should be out. Will take it out if you haven't. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New issues

Terjen, what is the purpose of including Kirchick's quote? It appears most of us, you included, agreed that his opinions were not relevant and rather his reportage was. I find it odd that you previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint and now are attempting to make it stick out.

Uber, your problem seems to be with citing his article at all. I think you will find that you are the only person who feels there is any BLP issue involved here, and as thus ought to avoid unilaterally removing it. Even if there is an issue here, what you removed were minor facts (that Paul didn't release back issues, that online archives only go back to 1999). I think this is unhelpful. Bartleby (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, backissues (i.e. rest of the newsletters) was kept, per NYT source. "Since 1978" suggests they're still being published, whereas "from 1978 to 1995" is factually accurate. TNR article fine to cite to discuss the fact they have published such an article on Paul, but to use its content as matters of fact in implying Paul wrote the letters violates WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber, are you really going to use the "accuracy" defense? Where was this concern for accuracy when I was statig Paul got 9.96% of the vote and Paul supporters wanted to round it up to 10 since it was "easier to read"? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting that a reliable source asserted Paul was the author does not violate WP:BLP, though of course our article cannot itself make that assertion (until Paul's supporters stop challenging it, which may happen as the story progresses). --- tqbf 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if all Paul supporters suddenly left an no longer paid attention, it would be unethical to make the article assert that Paul was the author. Perhaps we have different philosophies, but I think we all should strive to achieve WP:NPOV rather than impose our own POV to the extreme and rely on somebody with an opposing POV to hopefully provide some balance. Terjen (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you look at http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html - you will find that publication of Paul's newsletters did not cease in 1995 and has continued until at least July 2007. 1978 to 1995 is just the period of controversy, not the period of publication. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is correct that I "previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint". Rather, I have favored that we explicitly state the viewpoint. I do however think we shouldn't pay any attention to the less notable Kirchick himself in the article, and only mention the The New Republic as source. I don't think Kirchick adds any authority whatsoever to the claims, and it is not our job to inflate his reputation. Terjen (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kirchick owns this story for TNR, has authored all subsequent material about Paul for TNR, and is cited in virtually every tertiary news source covering the story. It's totally inappropriate to source to TNR; some stories really are authored by TNR (ie, the TNR editorial board). This one isn't; it's simply published, fact-checked, and approved by the TNR editors. This isn't a matter of opinion or reputation; it's just professionalism. --- tqbf 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is correct in the sense that you wanted to remove his paraphrasing to avoid his POV. I fear you are trying to make him the issue instead of the reporting. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kirchick is an associate editor for TNR. He is not our story - his name is just clutter on the page as far as I am concerned. Better to emphasize that TNR published the story, as that's what gives the story credibility. His name will be in the reference anyway (unlike in most news sources, which typically has to include such information in the citation in the text). Terjen (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's Kirchick's story. If we were writing about the aftermath of 9/11, we would call it "Langewiesche's story", not "The Atlantic's" story. If we were writing about the controversy surrounding Mother Theresa, we'd call it "Hitchen's story", not "Vanity Fair's story". I know Paul supporters don't like this guy, but that's no excuse for unprofessional attribution. --- tqbf 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In many cases we don't even attribute in the text, instead using a simple reference for the citation. Wikipedia is not a place for idolization. We attribute for the benefit of our readers, not for the benefit of the author of the cited source. I suggest we move his name to the article reference. Terjen (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Terjen, we disagree about just about everything, but you seem like a smart and reasonable editor. You can't really be saying that proper attribution is "idolization", or that we should conceal or alter the facts of an article's authorship for "the benefit of our readers". I don't know who Jamie Kirchick is; first I heard of him was this story. I don't care about him. But I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by the editorial decisions we make. --- tqbf 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me again lay this out:

  • It's proper to cite the actual author of a piece
  • It's inaccurate to label Kirchick's piece "The New Republic's piece" --- a "TNR piece" would imply a far stronger endorsement of the story, and multiple authors
  • It's unwieldy and confusing, because there will be additional TNR pieces cited in the article, potentially on this very controversy
  • It's almost universally the way the piece has been attributed (according to NEWS.GOOGLE.COM)
  • The reasoning given to avoid using Kirchick's name is, charitably, inoperative: we don't cite or not cite because of concern for someone's "reputation" or "idolization". He wrote it, so we say he wrote it, and move on.

--- tqbf 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If TNR didn't endorse it, they wouldn't have published it. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to split hairs, but do you really think the editors of Slate and Vanity Fair endorse Hitchens position that Mother Theresa is a fraudulent fanatic? There's a difference between editorial oversight and endorsement. Oversight implies that Kirchick followed professional, responsible journalistic practices in sourcing and writing the story. Endorsement implies that a famous and respected current affairs publications in the US agrees with what Kirchick concluded.
Also, you only responded to one of my arguments. --- tqbf 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should write: "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters..." with a proper citation in the reference including Kirchick attributed as author. As wikipedia supports references, there are no need to mention Kirchick in our text. Terjen (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Tgbf is completely right about this - TNR is the publisher, Kirchick is the author and his name should be in the text. More information is what we're supposed to be striving for - not burying of information that apparently has some significance to some portion of our readership, judging by the vehemence with which some want to remove it. Tvoz |talk 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What I heard you say is that you take this position because you think I have some partisan reason for not wanting Kirchick included in the text. Not so, I argue this case for editorial reasons, as I think it will make that part of the article easier to read with less ignorable clutter. But it is limited how much I will bother to spend time on something that are only a minor improvement and that others insist on stalling for purely partisan reasons. Terjen (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your edit summary of "pathetic" if you're referring to my comment, and I was not addressing just you, Terjen. I haven't tried to stall anything, nor have my edits here been partisan - my edits to this article, among the top ten editors on this article in numbers of edits, go back many months and have been largely to reduce the POV edits that this article is subject to. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I recall you got here as early as last summer. You do good work.Terjen (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Beginning of May, about 3 months after you did - but back then I believe you and I occasionally agreed, on subjects like non-scientific polls. And thank you. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I did my first edit on this page in January 2007, before all this craziness. We have usually had quite compatible editorial policies, as far as my memory goes. BTW, I just checked the edit counts: you are the tenth most active editor of this page.Terjen (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to add, "thank you". --- tqbf 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean me, tgbf? I didn't forget- see above - anyone who says I do good work gets a 'thank you'! And Terjen - actually I think I'm #9 (according to this one), but who's counting. I'm #4 on this talk page, which tells me it's probably time for dinner.... Tvoz |talk 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's consider for a second the principle behind. I presume it would be that for each cited source, we should explicitly mention both the author(s) and the publication in the text, in the name of striving for more information. Now, I don't want to edit to make a WP:POINT, but we would end up with far more than the current 86Kb text if we consistently adhere to that principle for our citations. Terjen (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you know that's not what anyone is saying. Most authors of articles are pretty much invisible - they don't make appearances on shows like Tucker Carlson's to talk about their articles, for example, as Kirchick did. He has a considerably higher profile on this, as evidenced by the negative attention the pro-Paul bloggers pay to him, and eliminating his name just doesn't make sense. Lower profile authors of articles of course would be just in the citation, and even the publication often would be just in the citation. But Kirchick and TNR are part of the story, for better or worse. We mention the author and publisher of the New York Times magazine article too, in the text. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the nature of the piece is. When the piece is itself referenced directly in an article, we attribute the author of the piece. If the piece doesn't merit attribution, it doesn't merit direct reference in the article; demote it to a citation to a fact. --- tqbf 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I didnt' get exactly what you mean by "referenced directly in an article". Can you restate that rule in a less ambiguous way?Terjen (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-dent) I'm sorry, I know my comments are prolix and confusing. Restated: if you're writing about the article, and not simply using the findings of the article in the prose and keeping the identity of the source to a reference, then you need to attribute professionally. Even simpler: if you find yourself needing to say "The New Republic", then you're identifying (and writing about) the article, and the author needs to be attributed. --- tqbf 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the consensus that we should write about the article and Kirchick? Currently, writing about the TNR article is used mostly as a coatrack to include quotes directly from the newsletters, a primary source. I think our focus should be on the criticism that has resulted from Kirchick reviving the newsletter controversy, rather than about how Kirchick fueled the fire. But if we cover the latter, we may consider to expand it with additional viewpoints on the article. And we need to use secondary sources.
2. Where can I find the rule you confidently provide for how to attribute sources? I wasn't able to immediately find it in the WP:LOP but perhaps you can help.
3. You talk about us needing to attribute professionally, but this post by CNN (oops, I almost broke your rule: by Brian Todd, another guy with two first names) only mentions The New Republic with not a pip about Kirchic, and other MSN vary in whether they mention Kirchick, TNR, or neither. (BTW: I am glad to hear that you are a professional thus getting paid for doing this - how can I get in on the deal? ;-)
Terjen (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The only guidance WP provides that I can find (I looked too) says "cite the author", but doesn't do so with authority, saying "write it like XXX". WP has a thing about instruction creep.
You're right about CNN, which also did original reporting on the story and minimized TNR's article. Recall, the newsletters were "uncovered by CNN". --- tqbf 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources for revival of newsletter controversy

The claim that "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters and including images of the actual contents of some of them" had a primary source: the TNR articles. I have upgraded this to a NPOV secondary source, the Boston Globe[1]. I moved the primary sources to appropriate locations. The paragraph still appear as a coatrack for quoting from the newsletter. Terjen (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's coatrack about quoting the newsletter? The section is about the newsletter. --- tqbf 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the section should not be about the newsletter, but about the related controversy and criticism. Terjen (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not enough quoting of all the different primary-source offensive excerpts which form the basis of the controversy. People are going to look at the first paragraph in that section and wonder what the fuss is about. You don't describe a controversy with anything but the strongest sources of it. For example, the quote about Martin Luther King seducing boys and girls is probably representative of what is really fueling the controversy. MB83 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Criticism and contentious content in the biography of a living person requires the highest standards and should be written with strict adherence to wikipedia content policies. The views of critics should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully, and avoid original research including synthesis of material serving to advance a position.

The newsletters are primary sources and can easily be misused. With the recent revival of the newsletter controversy, there should be plenty of secondary sources to substantiate claims about the newsletters. We should phase out quoting from the newsletters as primary source and upgrade to broader claims cited to secondary sources, preferably NPOV ones. While this gives less ability to emotionally affect the readers by putting together selected inflammatory quotes, it will also allow more powerful, broader statements to be made about the content of the newsletters.

-- Terjen (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

NY Times magazine quotes

I see that the negative quote about Paul's newsletter explanation not being transparent was removed but the positive quote retained. Am I missing a discussion here? (That's possible - I haven't read every word on talk tonight.) Thanks Tvoz |talk 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now in edit summary - no, that's not going to work. The edit summary from the IP who removed the "not transparent" part says: I removed the last comment of that sentence since it contradict the previous one. The guy can't say on the one hand that he believes ron paul and on the other that he was not transparent.. But the actual sentences in the Times piece by Caldwell read as follows:

"Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it."

The editor's opinion notwithstanding, it is misleading at best to include half of what Caldwell said, especially when the two sentences follow one another, and arguably the second point clarifies the first. It would be equally wrong to include the "was not transparent" part and omit the "quite believeably". So, I am reinstating it as it was. Tvoz |talk 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've reinstated David Gergen's comment. Obviously the section has been edited to remove material critical to Paul - exactly what prompted the full protection that expired. So, I'm asking for at least semiprotection again. And now we have to go through all of the edits from tonight to put the piece back together. To the partisan IPs - this is not a campaign piece. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick column

Wikipedia articles should report known facts and should not report subjective opinions of columnists without at least telling the readers something about the columnists. In this controversy, CNN reported that the "Ron Paul 90s newsletters rant against gays, blacks", and the Wikipedia article correctly mentions this undisputed fact, which is documented. The Wikipedia article then mentions that Jamers Kirchick concluded that Paul was 'an "angry white man", noting that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".' However, aside from the facts presented in CNN, there is no evidence at all for Kirchick's other comments, and the Wikipedia article does not even mention that Kirchick is a columnist and not a reporter.

We see Kirchick's type of argument all the time. Bill O'Reilly reporting on the Toronto Globe and Mail's mocking of Fox News called it "far-left". Would it be sensible to include this opinion in an article about this conservative but respectable newspaper without at least informing readers of who Bill O'Reilly was? Is it really a good idea to use a columnist's opinions rather than a reporter's article as a source?

Surely Wikipedia's standards should be at least as high as CNN. People reading Wikipedia's articles should not be expected to read columns that are quoted in its pages, research the columnists and then search for evidence they have provided, and determine whether it fits the story. If a column is used as a source, only substantiated material should be quoted. If the publication of the column itself is the story (e.g., J'accuse) then the reader wants to know something about the writer.

If the source is unreliable, then so is the article.

Although this article is about a presidential candidate, and therefore controversial, one expects that high standards of objectivity should be maintained about all subjects. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletters/Nevada

Well, I originally deleted other opinions regarding the newsletters, but if we're going to include a former LA Times editor's blog entry, then I guess we should include other opinions about how the newsletters affect Paul's campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:WEIGHT

The section covering Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, probably what makes him most notable at the moment, is small and much too small compared to the newsletter bit. This, of course, creates weight problems. Newsletter section should be reduced and summarized; the campaign section should be expanded. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The campaign section is in WP:SUMMARY style, which means it is supposed to be very brief. The newsletter section is not. Presumably we could create Ron Paul newsletter controversy to address this. MB83 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Restyling newsletter section (NOT necessarily trimming/expanding, etc.)

The newsletter section is a bit difficult to read through right now because it's mostly a collection of facts and prominent opinions right now, without the prose having a clear direction. I suggest reworking it to the following structure (note that the bold text does not represent a new heading):

  • Introduction to the newsletters: what are they? How were they named? What notable claims were made in them? Why are they controversial? Note that at this point, most of the serious claims should be mentioned. There's no need to wait for a later time. It's probably easier to clearly define the newsletters at this point rather than while explaining the fact they were brought up later.
  • During the 1996 run for congress: they first became an issue in 1996. Who brought them up? What was Paul's response at that time? What did political commentators have to say at this time? Also, any prominent statements Paul made in-between 1996 and 2008 should be mentioned here.
  • During the 2008 run for president: the newsletters became an issue again. Who brought them up? What distinct passages are quoted at this time? What is Paul's response this time? What is the world's response to Paul's response?
  • Did Ron Paul really write them? Ron Paul says he did not write them, and several others say he did. At this point, several arguments (from both sides, mind you) should be mentioned and compared to one another. The arguments that haven't been mentioned because they didn't fit in the previous context should be mentioned here as well.

I think that rewriting the section to this structure will make it much easier to read through and understand. This is especially important, since I figure that a lot of people have heard of the newsletters and will come to this article for a good summary of what went down. If nobody objects (I doubt it!), I'll just start editing. Or if anyone has other suggestions, let's hear them. —msikma (user, talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the section is about the newsletter controversies, not about the newsletters themselves. We don't know whether Paul wrote the newsletters - the latest in the saga is that Lew Rockwell is the proposed culprit. Terjen (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The section should not be just about the controversies surrounding the newsletters. After all, how can we properly explain the controversies if we can't explain the newsletters themselves? We must give a detailed account of the newsletters and then we can mention why these things are so controversial. It's only very natural this way. Also, it's true we don't know whether Paul wrote the newsletters or not, but there's strong evidence that he did, and a lot of opinions by political commentators point into his direction. We shouldn't ignore these. (Of course, we should also not ignore the opinions of the people who say he didn't write them, but they are already mostly well-presented in the section as it is right now.) —msikma (user, talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the story. What we have is evidence that Paul in 1996 took the blame for controversial statements that we now credibly know likely was written by somebody else. The newsletters are interesting in context of the controversies, not the other way around. Terjen (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please put forward your "strong evidence" that Paul wrote the controversial statements in the newsletters. It better be something else than the 1996 interviews. Terjen (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
One important evidence is that there isn't really any credible evidence Paul can present other than his word. He says he did not do it, but there was a newsletter published under his name (and his name was bannered right above it in big fat letters on every single issue) by two separate organizations he's affiliated to. The person listed as "subscription manager" was Jean McIver, who is currently still employed by him (as per ronpaul2008.com). Can you have a racist newsletter published under your name by the people and organizations you're affiliated to for 20 years and not know? Would you allow a newsletter with your name bannered right above it to be published without you knowing what's in it? There is no excuse in politics for such a thing to occur.
But, you know, let's not even care about that. I'm not going to force that opinion down anyone's throat. But we should make it very clear that political commentators have said exactly what I just said. That it is absolutely ridiculous to have something like that published for 20 years and then for you to say it "must have been some ghost writer". —msikma (user, talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The section as it stands is confusing and not helpful for someone who isn't already aware of the subject. I think most of the information that is going to come out has come out, so it is safe to start reorganizing. Bartleby (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sean Paul Picture.

It very misleading for there to be a picture of sean paul in the 2008 campaine section labeled as ron paul! This need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.106.5 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it a while ago. Editor also took down the regular pic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

removed unsourced statement

i went and removed the "opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty" claim, as no one has felt like providing a source for that. if someone can get a source for that, feel free to add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The position is very clear on Paul's website. I put a citation up for you. Not sure why you'd contest it really.

Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From the campaign website under [2]
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.199.246.40.54 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Republican bias

The article continues to claim that the Ron Paul newsletter was full of conspiracy theories and support for militia groups, yet offers no evidence for these claims. In the interest of fairness, could the author please provide supporting evidence. --The Four Deuces (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, why don't you read them for yourself? Bartleby (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the letters that are referenced in the comments. Not one conspiracy theory and not one militia group is named. Please name one that you found. --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts where Paul called armed militia groups, "one of the most encouraging developments in America":
"I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
  • Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
  • If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
  • Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
  • Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
  • Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.
-- that's from the January 1995 issue. A militia group and conspiracy theories all in one. If you need more conspiracy theories, just read further for the "New World Order." Devpty01 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The article no longer exists, and I am willing to bet the quotes are taken out of context. I do not think that it is apporpriate for Devpty01 to advertise for Obama's supporters, especially on the Ron Paul biography page.Nly8nchz (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The link works for me, and the quotes are clearly not taken out of context. And I am not an Obama supporter. I have never mentioned Obama's name, or any other Democrat candidate. Devpty01 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The link is working for me too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Militia Movements

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning on the main page, I'll leave it to the other editors to decide, but Ron Paul has a strong backing by the militia movements, especially the Indiana Militia Corps. Their website, especially (and mainly) their newsletter, the Liberator, mentions Ron Paul multiple times as the candidate of their choice.

I'm not much of an editor, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be mentioned or not. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A candidate cannot be blamed for the followers he/she attracts. It's a corollary of the 16th of Niven's laws: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. Unless there is evidence that he is currently pandering to this crowd, it's not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if someone does find that he is pandering to them, then it probably should be mentioned. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's covered by the newsletters. He's been accused of pandering to militias in those. Bartleby (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

please fix

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

  • We don't link to Amazon or any other retailer, per WP:EL; just link the ISBN, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, no delegates for Iowa have been assigned yet - the two that CNN gives him are merely a forecast from the number of votes he received on January 3rd. There are county and state conventions yet to take place, and the numbers of Iowa delegates each candidate receives will almost certainly change. Please reword that phrase accordingly.Stewie3128 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve: illegal, counterfeiting money ?

Why does the article not explain his rather remarkable viewpoint that the Fed would be illegal? [3]

  • Did you discuss this already? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Actually, it's the prohibition of gold money that is illegal according to Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6, and Section 10 Clause 1. Check for yourself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Do so. You'll find that JLMadrigal isn't being 100% straight here. Section 8 says nothing whatsoever about the subject, and Section 10 only says that states can't use anything but gold or silver for paying their debts. So the Section 10 cite is iffy, but the Section 8 one is completely fake. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
C'mon; let's assume a little good faith here, Lisa! I'm assuming Madrigal is referring to Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the fifth and sixth clauses (not formally numbered), which read, *To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;" By his idiosyncratic interpretation that means the feds can't prohibit the use of gold as money. That's different from my reading, but it's not fake! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is. There's no interpretation that makes those clauses say anything at all about gold. Particularly when Section 10 mentions gold explicitly. Look, I think the Fed is horrible and should be done away with. But making false claims isn't going to help that to happen. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A little common sense, please. If states are required to make their payments in gold money (which they don't), then gold money cannot be prohibited. Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6 show that the federal government MAY coin money (which it doesn't), but it doesn't give it a monopoly on coinage. Dr. Paul would like to put competitive pressure on the private FED bank, by removing it's unlawful monopoly. His executive power would allow him to do this immediately, because it is already the supreme law of the land (AKA Constitutionally prescribed). JLMadrigal (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about Ron Paul's life, not the legality of the central bank. Bring your speculation and original research elsewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"speculation and original research" You obviously don't know what your are talking about. The FED is no more federal then "federal express" the central world banks are putting this country in the shitter, wake up! --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording his "oppositions"

I'm not a huge fan of politics, but I decided to read up on Ron Paul. Generally I've been told he's a nice, pro-life guy. (relatives knew him) Anyways, the way these views are stated seem to be somewhat bias. I just feel these views should be elaborated to a point that they reflect his actual views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.38.230 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more please? ~ UBeR (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
He's saying that the article is biased. I guess he should have elaborated a bit more, but it doesn't exactly take a scientist to point out where this article goes much too easy on him (e.g. almost everywhere). —msikma (user, talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The guest above could of meant bias either way, either for or against Paul. Such statements without specifically identifying what they refer to, help little and indeed maybe a misunderstand of the guest rather then any bias within the article. If such a guest was being specific and providing sources of relevant reference it would help greatly. ChessCreator (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationist

Shouldn't somebody write about him being a creationist, that he doesn't believe in evolution? --ChristianKarlsson.se (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He has stated he is a Christian and that be believes in God - has that been taken to mean he is creationist perhaps? If not please provide some reference to your assertion. ChessCreator (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The only source I've ever seen for this was a widely circulated YouTube video where he makes statements that could be interpreted as pro-creationist or at least anti-evolutionary. Placing this information in the article on that basis of that evidence alone would fail WP:RS and WP:OR. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Checking some other politicians, the wiki pages on George W Bush and Mike Huckabee don't say about them being Creationist. So it seems adding it to this article would be a level beyond the norm. Especially given that Paul is pro separation of Church and State. ChessCreator (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, under Huckabee's political positions, his creationism does make an appearance. If a politician takes a position on creationism, it is usually notable and should be mentioned if it appears in a reliable source. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. Have read the Huckabee article again and found it. Let's see if there is a source for Paul taking such a position. ChessCreator (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't directly matter whether other articles have such information. Maybe they don't, but should, just like this one. Ron Paul has stated that he does not accept the theory of evolution in the video. (Link points to the original blog article that was linked to on Digg.) While people with such an opinion are usually widely condemned, there was of course significant support for Ron Paul in this case. Here are some other sources: [4] [5] [6] —msikma (user, talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, shouldn't somebody write something closer to the truth about this guy? This site sounds as though he is the second coming; he has done no wrong. This entire article is written in a seesaw fashion, first championing him, and then defending him. Why is he treated as though he is a god? Why is he not written about in an objective tone? Why is he treated with such awe? He is a 72 year old with a mixed reputation. The fact that some currently want o venerate him should be irrelevant. The credibility of Wikipedia is in the balance.

When the reality of his Don Quixote quest is finally over, there must be a serious analysis of how his supporters have been able to "hack" dozens of web sites and write breathless articles about him, while "pretending" to be "fair." When they are addressed, and the unfair attitude about Ron Paul is pointed out, they uniformly are “shocked” that anyone could have misunderstood their very innocent motives. The Ron Paul supporters are so intent on forcing their “god” on the rest of society that they are willing to attest to any truth and deny any lie. Nothing is too good for their god.

This problem must be addressed so that systems can be developed and put into place in order to prevent the next cadre of devotees to adulterate an entire entity as large as Wikipedia. When the truth is told, there will be a shocking number of individual pages that have been corrupted by the idolatry of Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.0.213 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No criticism section

This article has no section for criticism. It is important that we add criticism for his actions along every stage of his career in one section.--24.97.82.65 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to add in information about this man, as there are many people who (sometimes strongly) support Ron Paul. Many people are watching the article and removing criticism, as we've seen plenty of times now. You can scream all you want, but it's simply very difficult to do anything about this. It takes a league of editors who are willing to work hard on this article if one wants to balance it out. I agree that at this moment, the article is strongly biased, and needs significant work—I personally would like to wait until after Ron Paul steps down as a candidate, as then the activity will have died down a little. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Below this line is a discussion that has little to do with the original complaint.

It will not be much longer now, his voter turnout are so low it's almost funny compare to the amount of "support" he get online. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes. It's "almost" funny that Dr. Paul is only talked about through the interactive narrowcast real-world media. Many unfortunate have-nots still haven't had the fortune of meeting their champion. Those sheep who are stuck behind the ol' talk-box will never know what hit 'em. Nyuk nyuk. They'll vote as they're told. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please dial it down a bit, JLMadrigal? Thanks. Bartleby (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's quite typical of Ron Paul supporters to blame his lack of support on his lack of media coverage. The reason why he was not covered by the media so much is because he is and has always been an insignificant candidate. Just like Mike Gravel and several others that simply never were able to make the cut. You cannot blame the media for this; either Ron Paul's message does not resonate with the voters or he cannot get his message across efficiently enough.
As for your comment about "those sheep", I suggest that you stop making fun of them like a child that cannot have what he wants. —msikma (user, talk) 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Paul Breaks Historical Fundraising Record" Now that's a headline and top story if I ever saw one. What happened? No headline. Fair coverage? Of course not. And Giuliani was given plenty air time while Paul was given almost none - long after Paul trounced Giuliani in the primaries. And Paul still earned second-place finishes in the primaries without the big media. Now that's impressive. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not so strange. After all, these are so-called "money bombs" we're talking about here, and most of the money comes from online supporters. Such things do not exactly represent the usual way in which candidates raise money for their campaigns. While these things do reach the headlines of some publications, I'm not at all surprised that it's shrugged off as an "oddball occurrence" by the serious ones. In the end, getting a lot of money from organized efforts that rally people to donate as much as possible on one single day is not an indication of him having a great amount of mainstream support. —msikma (user, talk) 14:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"oddball occurrance" Who are you kidding? The sensationalist media thrives on oddball occurrences - as long as they can spin them into "There oughtta be a law". JLMadrigal (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I don't find it very strange that they decided to ignore it. It's true, oddball occurrences are sometimes reported on in the media, but only if they're funny or otherwise interesting to the audience. A completely unknown candidate getting a record amount of funds in a certain amount of time because his followers decided to "bomb" him with donations, solely to get him into the media limelight? I'm not sure if that's interesting. Of course, it doesn't matter what I think, since I don't run a newspaper or a TV network. But what I'm saying is that I'm not utterly convinced that this is interesting news. It's such a transparent attempt. —msikma (user, talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep telling yourself that Madrigal. He's raised a ton of money and hasn't really spent a whole lot. Have you ever asked yourself what he will do with that money when the inevitable happens and he bows out? Nest egg anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He already got the nest egg covered. Invested in gold, of course... Terjen (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are his financial statements.
Gold? Hmmm. If I'd invested in gold (instead of worthless greenbacks) a couple of years ago when it was less than $300, I'd be wealthy. Too bad Paul's campaign is spending its record funds on expensive TV commercials as fast as they are coming in. He won't even move the money to his congressional campaign - much less keep it. No wonder he's so hard to criticize. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He's spending record funds on commercials? In Q4 he raised over a million for each delegate he's won so far. That's hardly what I'd call a sound investment. I wonder if he'd recommend an investment with that kind of return rate? And while it may be legal, I personally feel it is unethical to use money given to you by people nationwide for the purpose of campaigning for president and use it to retain your local congressional seat. At that point, you do not represent those "investors". To me, it is like giving money to a hurricane relief fund and having them convert it to building a parking garage for the foundation employees. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So if Paul can't be criticised for raising too little money, he gets criticised for raising too much. Interesting. He raised $20,000,000 in the fourth quarter - more than all the other current GOP candidates combined - and is completely in the black. Media darling McCain, on the other hand, is $5,000,000 in debt. What does that say about fiscal responsibility? JLMadrigal (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So? Does that answer my question? Nope. Why don't you give it a shot. Should I put the question in a different form? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is speculation, but who are you to say it is clueless? Have you discussed the matter with Paul? Do you know his plans? Or are you just speculating yourself with no more of a clue than anyone else? Don't act as if nobody has ever wanted more to retire on. What is he waiting for anyway? Half the primaries are over. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is slander. WP:BLP may apply. Terjen (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
First, learn your legal terms. What you mean is libel. Second, I've made no accusation. I have asked questions. You've answer none, but they've been asked. Sorry you don't have any good answers, but trying to divert attention with a false accusation of your own (the only actual accusation made) is a nice try. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I used the term slander deliberately. This is a Talk page, sharing features with both verbal and printed media. But we can call it whatever makes sense to you. My point is that unfounded speculation about whether Paul will pocket the campaign funds for himself is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Terjen (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Terjen, you need to learn that the border between libel and criticism does not move depending on where you want it to be. For example, Ron Paul has 20 years' worth of newsletters published by an organization he was involved with. They had his name bannered right on top of them, every single one of them. And yet, you believe that he did not write them. For this reason, you might think that publication that name them "Ron Paul's letters" are either wrong or defamatory. That's not something you can decide on, however. You also should not throw around WP policy page links like red herrings. —msikma (user, talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have maintained that we should be neutral as to whether Paul wrote the newsletters, and that we should use the neutral "the newsletters" when referring to them. Others wanted to push their POV that Paul himself wrote the newsletters, explicitly labeling them "Paul's newsletters". Recent testimonials indicate that Rockwell wrote the content, substantiating that the POV pushers were jumping the gun. Terjen (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Testimonials from libertarians, some close to Paul, don't go a long way versus the fact that they were published by organizations in which Paul was either involved in or at the helm. They're the most biased people you could possibly ask. Plus, these are just testimonials. There is no hard evidence. —msikma (user, talk) 12:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no hard evidence either way. Hence I was right in insisting on the neutral "the newsletters". Case closed. Terjen (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason you say "case closed" is because you ran out of arguments. I have not. You say that there is no hard evidence, I say that the newsletters were published by organizations that Paul was either at the helm or involved in for 20 years. There is no way he could have not known about them. Even if he didn't write them himself, it is obvious that he must have read them and approved of them. As said by numerous political commentators: there is no excuse for having this kind of homophobic, racist and in many other ways disagreeable content go published under your name for 20 years. This is not one or two articles that were submitted in order to discredit him, this is a two-decade-long career we're talking about. They also weren't published some place where Paul would never have found them, they were consistently being published by his own organizations. But no, apparently none of that matters, and you'd rather believe that it's all part of one big conspiracy against him. Isn't that true? —msikma (user, talk) 06:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not here to argue, but I think a couple observations are appropriate. It is not obvious that Paul approved of every word in every newsletter, but it is clear he approved of the general idea. It is also reported that he disagreed with and argued over the content at the time (i.e. whatever content he actually saw), but permitted it to go out over objection. Then we have a quote (Gergen?) that this should not be excused. Those things matter and can be reported neutrally. However, when we call it a "two-decade-long career" we enter into POV inappropriate for the article. First, it was no career, and second, the objectionable items are concentrated within a couple years in the early 90s. It is clear from the data that the newsletter always had an edgy style, but it only crossed the border into PI around 1991 and it appears to have been a gradual, poorly managed process (in fact, Paul's biggest mistake, which is saying a lot compared to the biggest mistakes of other players). Similarly, "conspiracy" has many meanings and is thrown about too easily; there is a clear tacit agreement by many media to downplay Paul, and another clear tacit agreement by many independent folks to play him up. So please try not to cross the line. Now this does matter; feel free to suggest sourced edits (although for weight concerns the section should still be shortened and unimportant detail moved to the campaign article, in proper WP:SUMMARY fashion, which I'm working on). John J. Bulten (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some things I'd like to note in response:
  • The things I write here constitute my opinion, and not necessarily reflect what I think should be in the article.
  • Naming it a "two-decade-long career" is something you can disagree with: no problem. This, however, does account for the fact the newspaper couldn't have gone unnoticed, even if the politically incorrect material is concentrated in the early 90s. It's an issue worth keeping in the back of your mind.
  • The word "conspiracy" is used by those who believe that the media is taking part in an orchestrated effort to keep Ron Paul out of the limelight. Of course, the media will downplay whoever they disagree with—that's a simple fact of life—but it's a really big allegation to suggest that several or even all of the large media companies have agreed to keep him away from the American crowd as much as possible. You'd need very strong evidence to back up such a claim, and yet many of the Paul supporters do claim it and say that "it's obvious". Now, none of this needs to be written about in the article, since the entire thing is more or less ridiculous, but I'm not going to leave such allegations unanswered when they are made on this talk page.
Our discussion regarding the newsletters here shouldn't have a big impact on the article. After all, there are extremely few notable publications that state Ron Paul really wasn't involved with the newsletter content. Just about every single one calls them "Paul's newsletters". The only "evidence" that supports this is a series of testimonials made by mostly libertarians, some of them close to Paul himself. I don't think there should be a big argument over whether Ron Paul did or did not approve of the things that were written: in the end, he must certainly have approved of the content, since there were way too many of these politically incorrect articles for him to have missed every single one of them. —msikma (user, talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"permitted it to go out over objection"? That's pretty appalling. "Oh, yeah, it's racist and homophobic, and I don't approve of that sort of thing, but what the hey, the rednecks will eat it up, so I'll allow it to go out with my name all over it?" What does that say about Ron Paul's ethics? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If Ron Paul really had nothing to do with what was written, then it says nothing about his ethics or lack thereof. That's what Ron Paul supporters are suggesting. However, it's extremely implausible that this was the case. He most likely wrote every single piece of those newsletters, and even if he didn't, he was involved in (or even the founder of) every entity that published the newsletters, and given the fact that they all went out under his name, he certainly must at least have checked the pieces before approving of them. As stated before countless times, there is no real excuse against these facts—and that's generally the opinion of most big publications that have ran a story on the issue. —msikma (user, talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter chrono

For reference, simple sorting of the sources already given for this article indicates there were 5 different newsletters with 2 different publishers, each with a distinct history and purpose and some simultaneous. In editing, please observe this disambiguation, which I am in process of carrying across the article:

  • Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1976-1984, original individual rights report
  • The Ron Paul Investment Letter, by RP&A, attested 1985-1993, investment report
  • The Ron Paul Survival Report, by RP&A, attested 1985-1996, conspiracy and militia report
  • Ron Paul Political Report, by RP&A, attested 1987-1992, politically incorrect report
  • Ron Paul's Freedom Report, by FREE, attested 1997-2007, new series of individual rights report

Start dates are per mastheads; end dates may be later. Note that RPPR is the only one that appears to be deliberately in-your-face with political incorrectness, but the other 4 have at times each been implicated by their relationship despite their more neutral language. Particularly, TRPIL is clearly of better layout quality than the rest and has only one questionable passage, relating to coverage of the Trilateral Commission. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Add: there were also the undated subscription letters, which Lew Rockwell has admitted writing here; and there was a one-time special report in 1993 called The Ron Paul Survival Guide, which was fully and properly bylined to James B. Powell, and a 1984 fundraiser letter properly letterheaded from Ron Paul for U.S. Senate Committee (but both were still mentioned regardlessly by Kirchick). However, keep these each distinct. Particularly, widely circulating reports that Political was renamed to Survival Report are patently mistaken speculation (and are probably due to the disappearance of Political sometime after 1992-11-15, its last attested date). Survival Report mastheads consistently give volume numbers in a series starting in 1985, while the Political series consistently starts from its volume 1 issue 1 date of 1987; also, Survival Report specifically touts 1994 as "our 10th year" and 1995 as "our 11th year". Also, Political and Investment were touted in the same fundraising letter (which mentions another special report Surviving the New Money and refers to "metal and plastic threads", suggesting a 1991 date per History of the United States dollar); and the same two were mentioned together by Frederick Mann's site, Build Freedom, in a list dated 1993. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction: the same fundraising letter appears to have been quoted in Barron's, 1985-07-29, not 1991. There is not a reliable source on the web though. Perhaps the print version could be pulled? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter controversy section has become Paul apologia

Congratulations. You've finally managed to do it. You've removed everything critical of Ron Paul in this article, including the crucial newsletter section. We can conclude the following:

  • Wikipedia is unable to prevent protrusive bias from showing up in an article if enough people want it.
  • As for the section itself, there is no mention of the terrible things that were published, and even the opening sentence contains apologia; it is immediately suggested that it is all untrue, and that it's "just an old political attack", and that "someone else probably wrote it".
  • While some of the critical material still exists, it has been carefully hidden as a subsection of the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, despite the fact that it is not exclusive to his 2008 campaign.

I know that there are strongly biased editors working on this article, but I had no idea you would be able to go as far as blatantly removing everything critical of him. This isn't just improper conduct, this is a gigantic insult to Wikipedia itself and its editors, myself included. I take great offense in this, yet I know I probably am unable to bring back any of the critical material without it being removed shortly thereafter.

I've completely lost any hope of this article reaching a level where it can be called neutral anytime soon. And the sour thing is that despite such blatant and obvious shortcomings, it's still rated A-class in every section it's been categorized in. Again, congratulations: whoever was involved in this should pat himself on the back for having successfully beaten the system. —msikma (user, talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Welcome to wikipedia. Biased editing is not an insult to Wikipedia. It is wikipedia. The majotity rules rather it is true or not. Welcome to Mob-ipedia rules.) J. D. Hunt (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No information was lost; the edits here were because this article is only meant to contain a summary of the campaign and controversy. The entire section is where it's always been: Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Ron Paul newsletters. If you feel the main section needs work, please go there to edit it. Buspar (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, it "had always" been right here in this article. Your summary completely removed anything that sounded remotely critical. It was misleading, to say the least. Tvoz |talk 07:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with my summary, feel free to change it - I make no claim of perfection with my edits, after all. I summarized it because the original entry was far too long to be considered a summary and largely redundant. It had to be cut so I stepped forward and did it. All these false accusations about "strongly biased editors" is counter-productive and bordering on personal attacks. If you want to improve the article, let's discuss points of disagreement with the summary and where it can be improved! Buspar (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The single negative paragraph from the campaign article (that Ron Paul has defended some of the newsletter's contents) is not included at all. The current section contains no mention of the contents of the newsletters or the fact that they had been bought up in the past, despite that the first is the most important thing and the second is relevant to a biography of him.--Tombomp (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I highly recommend going to that page and adding those items in, then. It looks like the newsletter controversy is two parts: once back in 1996 (and through 2001) when the letters were first brought up and again in 2008 when Kirchik brought it up again. The current section in the campaign article covers the 2008 half, so putting the 1996 events here would be appropriate (but not in the 2008 campaign section which was a big mistake for whoever had that there). The 1996 election already has a section, so it'd work very well integrated there. The section in the campaign article could then reference the 1996 section here for "Details." Buspar (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I highly recommend that you immediately revert your edits, Buspar. You can't be serious about them. The newsletter section documented Ron Paul's involvement with highly obscene rants that were published under his name. This is an extremely important point of criticism that's been picked up by all the large media. Pretty much everybody has condemned Ron Paul for it, stating that there is no political excuse for what has happened; there are a few who defend him and state that he did not write the offensive content, but these are mostly people close to him or people of the libertarian party. You have removed just about every shred of evidence that people could use to formulate the prevailing opinion: that he was involved in the writing (note that just about every major news outlet calls them "Ron Paul's newsletters", not "newsletters written by Ron Paul") and that he must have consented to the content to at least some degree.
HOW can you POSSIBLY suggest that you were only interested in summarizing it? You removed all of the critical material and turned the section into an apologia! This is highly flawed and biased editing, Buspar, and I simply cannot believe that you were only trying your best to help fix this article. If I'm wrong about this, that's too bad, but that's simply how it seems at this point. And I really have nothing against you personally, but if you really were the one who made these edits, you have done something terribly wrong that can only be interpreted as being very strongly biased. —msikma (user, talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you just stripped the only piece of criticism from Ron Paul's article and you seem to have been involved in some edit wars regarding Ron Paul in the past. So yeah, I will not believe you were simply trying to help fix the article, I believe you were only interested in removing criticism. Again, this is not an attack against you as a person, but a logical conclusion as a result of what I observed. If you disagree with me: fine, but if you stop blatantly remove important criticism of political figures you support, I'll gladly take back my words about your editing habits. —msikma (user, talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
My previous edit wars with Ron Paul articles were mainly disagreements with formatting (lists vs. prose) and terminology (the difference between active and running). I am not opposed to the presence of criticism of Paul in this article or the other. Criticism sections are standard for political figure articles and the newsletters received notable media attention. Additionally, if I was really trying to "strip" criticism from this article, why would I go to the trouble of inserting a link to the full controversy section right there? Putting a link that says "Look here for more info!" is not removing critical info, nor did it turn the section into an "apologia." Your accusations are entirely inconsistent with my actions and not constructive to this discussion.
My main concern is the proper organization of this article. I'll restate my key objection again: the section that people keep trying to add the newsletter material to is a summary of the presidential campaign article only. So it shouldn't contain material not in the campaign article. Also, as a summary, it should summarize the material with weight proportional to the coverage in that article. Since Paul's presidential article is mainly concerned with his fundraising, primary results, and Internet popularity, those should clearly be given more weight than the newsletter controversy (though said controversy should be mentioned, albeit briefly).
Instead of placing the material in the summary section (giving it undue weight), it should instead be located where every fact can be listed: that is, the 1996 campaign section and accompanying follow up. These two sections, in fact, already have something about the controversy, though I think there's still more that can be added. If the controversy material was relocated there I would have no objections since it wouldn't be cluttering up what should be a brief and lean summary section. I also have no objections to expanding the controversy section in the campaign article if you think it's lacking.
Now, can we lay off the inflammatory claims of "Paulbots are invading Wiki!" and get to the business of putting information in its appropriate sections? Buspar (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, the newsletters are an issue about Ron Paul himself. Whether you believe that they were nothing to do with him or not, a newsletter containing many offensive things was published for 15 years (? i can't remember) under his name without any action being taken. It's come up under several of his campaigns so it shouldn't be a solely 2008/1996 campaign thing. If you don't want undue weight, it's better to reference the earlier section about them rather than simply not describing them as readers might not be able to tell that information is included under seemingly unrelated headings --Tombomp (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(Response to Buspar) First off, it while you did offer a link to the full section, you did remove it from this article, despite the fact it's more relevant to Ron Paul himself than his current presidential campaign. It's not an uncommon practice to "hide" things in separate articles. This is done to prevent having the material on the most visible page (which is this one). So, yes, you could still call this a WP:SPINOUT.
Secondly, the newsletter controversy does not just pertain to his 2008 presidential campaign. Or any other single specific campaign, for that matter. It was brought up several times and does not pertain to any one event. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of the facts if you were to suggest that it does. Since there's no article dedicated to the newsletters, it should remain in this article and nowhere else. Yes, you can make summaries in other articles that point to here, but you should not move the newsletter content someplace else.
As for the "Paulbots are invading Wiki" suggestion, perhaps if people would stop removing critical content from this article (which, for some reason I cannot comprehend, is still listed as A-class in every category it's in), I'd not suggest such things. But this has really, really disgusted me thoroughly. The newsletter section already wasn't balanced. And now you've maimed it in such a way that a casual reader could only interpret this as "just a dirty trick against a decent man who had nothing to do with it". This really, REALLY proves that if given enough editors, you CAN grossly distort reality on this site. —msikma (user, talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The above point by msikma is exactly correct, and why this material has to be in this main article: it is not at all only about the presidential campaign. This material is relevant to his entire career and will remain relevant beyond the end of this campaign. At one point, a while ago, the section was balanced - unfortunately partisan editors were unwilling to allow it to remain so and have peppered it with text that is not directly relevant. So not only should the section remain, it also should be brought back into balance. Tvoz |talk 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz: if msikma was only making points about matters related to the article, this discussion would go better. However, lines like "This really, REALLY proves that if given enough editors, you CAN grossly distort reality on this site" are personal attacks and will NOT be tolerated. Say something like that again, msikma, and I will bring you to WP:ANI for disciplinary action, both for that and for your general lack of civility and good faith in this discussion. Not every editor who puts something in another article is trying to "distort reality." You have been warned. If you want to discuss where the material should be located, then discuss that without stooping to childish insults of other editors. Buspar (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well kind of new here but I can see the obvious is overlooked Ron Paul has been re-elected as congressman for a VERY long time, so he MUST be doing something right. He votes consistent even when the Polls says vote otherwise. So he's a "No Sale" to the lobbyist whuich they won't tolerate of course. All I see on this page looks like a CNN or FOX raid which would not surprise me since they've sold to corporations with interests of their own. Fact is this country needs a President to reign in this corporate sell-out Federal Government..A SUPER HIGH PRIORITY I say. But all I see here is slam work. I suggest a reset of values is in order. Or stay on CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS and keep this child's play up until the light go out for good. I'm out-a here.. Serfwrite (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)serfwrite

This is the kind of demagogy I was talking about. "He has been re-elected as congressman, so he must be doing something right." This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. —msikma (user, talk) 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"CNN or FOX raid"? You're clearly not assuming good faith and you seem highly biased. --Tombomp (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(Rolling eyes) Can we please keep in mind a couple general-content points here?
  1. Newsletter controversy is mentioned four times prior to its 2008 eruption (1976, 1984, 1996, 2001), and so discussion of the 2008 eruption should be limited basically to what is new about it; anything old should appear in one of the prior sections.
  2. Since the 2008 controversy is a summary section, details should be relegated to the campaign article.
  3. Y'know, my impression was that even this was pretty stable up until a few days ago, so it's not like this has been unresolvable ever since Jan 8.
  4. Tvoz is right: some months ago we worked out a nice, well-balanced section for the controversy as it stood then. It mostly still exists in the 1996 and 2001 sections. It is really only the 2008 section that needs balance.
  5. That being so, the use of multiple tags (one in lead and one in section) is, as usual, overkill. I wrote a fresh article just before this weekend and I came back and found five different kinds of tags in it, besides the WP:AFD. Would msikma please indicate, right here, any complaints observed about any section other than the 2008 newsletter controversy? If not, let's move that tag down to the section instead of the article. Thanks.
  6. The overall main points of the controversy obviously belong in both this article and the campaign article. However, as to details, there seems a pretty clear division between pre-2008 details (belong in this article, with summary in campaign article) and 2008 details (belong in campaign article, with summary in this article). This seems to naturally and easily resolve the apparent conflict above relating to placement, as it places the details most relevant to each subject (the details a person looking for each subject would most be interested in) in their appropriate place. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To make clear, in an initial pass I have just deleted a few sentences from the controversy, as well as cleaned up the cites and links. Everything I deleted was repeated in the prior newsletter coverage earlier in this article, sometimes verbatim (or, in a couple cases, fleshed out by my edit of the prior coverage). There are a couple more sentences that would go neatly in the earlier coverage; a couple that would go well in the campaign article; and a few clauses that can be cut back. Then I think we'd be done. But what do you all think needs to be done as well? What criticism remains to insert? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter section

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

Ron Paul

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/41819 I suggest everyone read this, it is from Ron's son, Rand. Ron Paul did NOT DROP OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.152.184 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense anyone, but I wish the Congressman would be clear on his statement. He seems to be saying he's 'sorta running' or he's not actively running anymore. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Today he went on CNN's American Morning to clarify that he is not dropping out of the race. [story] [video]


I've removed:

On March 9, 2008, a few days after John McCain formally secured the Republican nomination, Ron Paul announced his withdrawal from the presidential race. [1]

Because it is an inaccurate statement from an article with a misleading title. The article in fact alludes that he is 'winding down' not dropping out of the race. If someone wants to replace this with more accurate phrasing please do so. -RebelWithoutASauce

POV tagging

This article suffers from serious neutrality issues. I could take much of the article to task, but I’ll point out the most glaring as Ron Paul#Newsletter controversy. First off, it doesn’t explain how some specious articles Paul may or may not have written are so important, and certainly not seven paragraphs including “Ron Paul wouldn’t do that” and then a summary of his positions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I believe the articles are important, but the second sentence of the section tries to explain: "The story said that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry."" If you read the article you will see that the accusations come mostly from Guilt by Association with certain individuals and organizations, very little has to do with the newsletters. Nevertheless, Kirchick tries to piece it all together in typical conspiracy-theory style, implying that because Ron Paul doesn't speak about these associations because they're secret, instead of their being unimportant. Guilt is also implied because he does not denounce the support of these individuals, though no mention or criticism is made of his rationalization for it (skip to 3:00 in this video for it).
Prominent characters in the story were David Duke (former Ku Klux Klan member, colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives) for publishing an article that congratulated him on his Senate run and William Dannemeyer, (Dannemeyer said that he would like to quarentine those with AIDS) for a page in the newsletter congratulating him for speaking out against the influence of Lobbyists in Government. These characters have not formally endorsed Ron Paul, putting information about him on Duke's website seems to be enough to Kirchick to imply a reciprocal relationship. The John Birch Society and Alex Jones were also mentioned because Ron Paul granted them interviews, calling them conspiracy theorists for criticising organizations that openly call for World Government.
Consistent with WP:UNDUE, the newsletter section documented a short print response, a longer interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, and one high ranking NAACP witness to Paul's character. What's the problem? MantisEars (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Because not only are the attacks not worth giving such a long among of time to (we are not trying to document every single controversy, let alone one is great detail) but it also dissolves into media personalities vouching for Ron Paul's character. I could sum up the entire section in two paragraphs, max. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the controversy section altogether. This does not mean the newsletters will not be documented in the article; it just won't attract as many trolls, as Criticism sections usually do. There exists a short mention of the "controversial" newsletter in the 1988 campaign section, in the context of Paul's many other publications in his post-Congressional career. It suffers from some of the same POV issues as the controversy section did, but most of it is based in fact, and it makes sense as part of a historical timeline. MantisEars (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If the section remains gone, then my major POV concerns are addressed. I mean, this is an encyclopedic article; we shouldn't be dwelling on minor controversies when we're summarizing a man's life and actions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so if Chinesearabs and Newsroom hierarchies could get here to talk about it, I'd rather not edit war. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a deadline, so I'll not be able to get too involved. Let me just say that I generally support integrating sections titled "Controversy" into articles where possible. This, however, is not a catch-all "controversy" or "criticism" section as described above, but rather a section about a specific controversy. It would be inappropriate to simply delete the text and scatter the information throughout the article. I had to hit ctrl-F "newsletter" in the version you left us with to read about controversy, and what remained was a disjointed and confusing account.
Finally, please note that I'm all for reforming what we have here to be more neutral. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The section was not a catch-all criticism section, but because it was a main section under "Ron Paul", instead of a subsection for "1988 Presidential Campaign" where he actually wrote the newsletters, and 2008 where he was criticised for it, it functioned as one, trolls and all. Putting the text in their respective sections is very appropriate, and the account was not "disjointed and confusing". The letters were written at one point in his life, and he was criticised for them in another. As I pointed out before, Kirchick's article quotes, which editors use inappropriately and often were not only about the newsletters, they were about Paul's "connections" with groups Kirchick considers conspiracy theorists and extreme right. You cannot respond to that criticism without first explaining how Ron Paul was or was not connected to the group, and if the group has motives ulterior to their mission statement, a matter of opinion. I suggest the quotes be removed in favor of a factual account of the most verifiable items*, the newsletters. For this it is imperative you read what scans of the newsletters Kirchick presents, because his highlights are cherry-picked for maximum emotional impact. An example from the section is one of the newsletter quotes used in the article:

"only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

If you are given only this quote, you might assume that the author went on a black-bashing tirade. If you had a bit of context, you would see it is just about the opposite:

"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."

Let us also not forget what a controversy is. “A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.” A single article by James Kirchick, and a press release response is not a controversy. Any other major news outlets that carried the story reported on Kirchick's reporting, possibly the other side for balance. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is a better home for the section, because this was not a major event in the campaign that merits a mention on his personal article. At the time of this writing, a section exists in both these articles with duplicate information, referencing each other for more information. If the section is to exist in this article, it should be a <2 paragraph summary, not a day-to-day chronology of events. It should be integrated with the 2008 Presidential Campaign section, as not to tempt expansion, and to keep information relevant. This event is the most carefully detailed in all of the article's history. It cannot remain as-is.
*The accuracy of the contents of the newsletters is dubious. These are scans that Ron Paul has claimed never to have seen before, and the sole source is James Kirchick.  MantisEars (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So I just checked the articles of some other candidates in this election and noticed that none of them had this sort of controversy section on the candidate's main article. Always this sort of information was included in the 2008 Presidential Campaign article instead. I recommend that it be moved there. Enelson (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already a section in the 2008 campaign article, that goes into as much detail as anyone would like. Yesterday, the section was trimmed back some, but made up for it today with an resurgence of hateful quotes from political satire blogs. I have removed the section, as it has yet again proven itself to be an outlet for anyone with an opinion on the matter instead of an objective account of the facts. This is not a problem with the editors, it is a problem with the formatting of the section. All the relevant facts are either in the post-Congressional career section, or the 2008 presidential campaign article, and the energy put forth by editors to advance their POV in the controversial section would be better put to use striving for a NPOV in those sections with proper integration. MantisEars (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mantis! Rest assured that I too am a strong Paul supporter who believes in WP:NPOV; if I had realized the quote I selected was from Wonkette instead of New York Sun I would never have included it. (But please don't pluralize "quotes" or "blogs" if you don't need to, or cite a "resurgence" of something I haven't seen previously in this article; thanks.) My intent with that lead-in was merely to demonstrate that there was plenty of 2007 exposure, but I can see the phrase was too charged to accomplish that. I hope you would permit my observations that (1) the 2008 flareup is appropriate and significant content for this bio and the 2008 campaign section; (2) a one-paragraph "objective account" is all one needs to provide the 2008 facts; (3) the significant 2008 POVs should be represented by another paragraph; (4) a good mix of POVs is: a critic, a prominent supporter, the NAACP, and Reason as the Rockwell namer. (I had also hoped you recognized that, when I was the one who moved the seven-paragraph version to its proper place in the campaign article, I was in fact carrying out the trimming you had previously requested.) You suggest there are alternatives to these observations (not mentioning the 2008 flareup at all is acceptable to you here), but I don't think the risk of opinion outlet is strong enough to overcome the notability issue. I also like your hint that Kirchick being a "sole source" might vitiate his credit; got a reliable source that says that? But here I see the spectrum of POVs as having you on one side (0 to less than 2 grafs), then Fuchs (2 max), then me (2 but open in both directions), then Newsroom (up to 7 OK, plus content from elsewhere in article); so when you edit, you really will want to work on being suitable enough for Newsroom, not me, and you'll be likely to get me thrown in as well. On a side issue, I take it that everyone can agree with the details section remaining in the campaign article, and thus that existing redirects like Ron Paul newsletter controversy should point to the campaign article rather than this one? John J. Bulten (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I used the plural "quotes" is because I noticed a trend of editors using quotes to avoid WP:NPOV, not making clear who said what, confusing the reader into possibly interpreting it as fact. For example: The letters contained "bad bad things" instead of Kirchick writes the letters contained "bad bad things". When you made the summary, you changed this for the better, but it is still an issue.
(1) You say the 2008 flareup is appropriate and significant content for the bio and the 2008 campaign section;
(1)(a) I went to some other candidates' pages, and after seeing those, I agreed, provided the controversy is reported the same way. I still don't think they are on the same footing, as Ron Paul did not think it was important enough to call for a press conference, responding to it only in print, dismissing it as a rehash of old attacks. Reporting it would give undue weight to the accusers. If you notice how the Wright controversy was covered on Barack Obama's page, the editors did not quote FOX News or Rush Limbaugh giving their POV on how "anti-American" and "racist" the sermons were! They gave Barack Obama's response a good full sentence as they should, because the article is centered around Barack Obama, not the accusers. That style of writing is one we should all look up to, as part of a featured article. John McCain's campaign section, on the other hand, has more of a POV using phrases like "All of this paid off", still made mention of the criticism with class, leaving the reader to check the references if they wanted the news writers' opinion. What makes Ron Paul's situation any different?
(2) You say a one-paragraph "objective account" is all one needs to provide the 2008 facts;
(2)(a) I agree, with some reservations. If you are going to mention 2007 reports, you should have no objections with bringing back Ron Paul's 1996 response to the Morris attack, as the Kirchick attack is a different spin on the same content. The newsletters are always brought up in the Congressional race, and Ron Paul has always said said his Congressional constituency always knew of the letters, and voted for him anyway. I believe this contributes to Paul's unwillingness to make a big deal of this, and rehash the decades old defense. Making an appearance to address this would also be out of character, as he never sacrifices principle for politics, even if it may cause his popularity to suffer.
(3) You say the significant 2008 POVs should be represented by another paragraph;
(3)(a) This is a good plan, but there is an even better one in response (1)(a).
(4) You say a good mix of POVs is: a critic, a prominent supporter, the NAACP, and Reason as the Rockwell namer.
(4)(a) I agree, which is why they are all in the 2008 campaign article. For what this article needs, only the critic and the official press release is sufficient.
I was not sure if what you did was the trimming, because it was done so rapidly after I replied. I was so satisfied with the summary that I considered removing my message, because most of the criticisms did not apply anymore! This changed when I saw the New York Sun mention. Perhaps unfairly, I questioned your motives after I saw the inappropriate use of quotes, and the New York Sun's references returning 404s.
The controversy, as you say, *is* a notable event — for the 2008 campaign article, not for his biography. To clarify, the individual events, such as the writing of the newsletter, and the new accusations are notable, but only as part of the post-Congressional career section and the 2008 campaign section, not as a part of a controversy section. As with all things in the 2008 campaign section (post-Congressional career section is more relaxed) there is a lot of information, and it should be summarized. The newsletter section should not be copied whole to the 2008 campaign section, because it retains the weight it had when it was its own section. To remedy this, I propose a final trim, making the coverage akin to the other controversies I explored in response (1)(a). If background information on the newsletters and Paul's career is needed, the 2008 summary may link to the post-Congressional career section.
The primary reason I mentioned the single source was because I was wary of the use of
  • Direct scans of the newsletters as reference to what was written,
  • The "selections" page with Kirchick's own summaries, and
  • Stories on Kirchick's story
as if they served as reliable secondary sources, or to create the illusion of several independent media investigations. This wouldn't be done to John McCain, though many newspapers reported on The New York Times' reporting of the lobbyist scandal. Much of the material used in Reason magazine's investigation was on old newsletter content from Morris' attacks, not Kirchick's new ones, where Paul's older congressional campaign response as per (2)(a) would apply.
“ If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. ”

—Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

I understand that some editors would like nothing less than a book written about this controversy, but I also understand that the status quo only exists because Ron Paul supporters, sometimes too much like Ron Paul, were not bold in the face of the tired attack politics of the past. Finally, yes, the redirect should point to the campaign article's section, as if someone is looking specifically for this controversy, they will also be looking for detail, and the section's legitimacy is not being disputed there. MantisEars (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in Pennsylvania

There should be something on his popularity in pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.65.226 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What popularity in Pennsylvania? --Tombomp (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"supports freedom of the Internet"/my mistake

The phrase is nonspecific, non-neutral and sounds like campaign ad copy. From my POV, it is also untrue because it conflates his positions on free speech online with his opposition to net neutrality.

The first time I reverted, I failed to notice that the sentence was about support for "Constitutional rights", which of course renders my revert to the term "deregulation" nonsensical. Having now realized that, I would propose we move the line about the Internet eleswhere, or leave it out entirely. Freedom of speech or religion are constitutional rights. But "freedom of the Internet"? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of the Internet = an Internet free of regulation or filtering by the government = Freedom of speech, expression, and assembly on the Internet. MantisEars (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That borders on WP:SYNTHESIS. Not to mention, it's still POV, given that Paul does not support net neutrality (and no, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about whether that actually evidences Paul's struggle for "freedom of the Internet"; it would just be simpler to reword neutrally and factually). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Net neutrality is tricky. Paul did not say he was opposed to the principle of net neutrality, which is what the wikipedia article is about, but he is opposed to government regulation of the internet. Net Neutrality does not require government regulation of the Internet, just as discouraging illegal immigration does not require a Biometric National ID Card, but they are all too often bundled together by legislators with agendas.
Perhaps his position is better suited for the fourth paragraph, near his free market position on healthcare. He could be quoted as saying that should the problem of neutrality arise, it can be handled through contractual agreements — not government regulation as he is in the main political positions article. That nicely sums up his position. MantisEars

(talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good to me. If you don't mind, I'll let you or John handle the phrasing as I'm sure you'll do a better job of stating his specific position than I. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, based on the above I would favor keeping it out entirely. Personally, I consider it an easy subset of freedom of speech, but for WP, I recognize that he has made nuanced statements about net neutrality (which I don't understand fully), which have engendered this topic being about two full sentences previously (way too much). Since it's complicated and a relatively minor issue (if we're not net-centric), it is a prime candidate for trimmability because we would be overweight to summarize everything in the subarticle. We need to leave it at the, say, top 20 or 30 political positions, not the complex minor ones. Even the hard-money talk it a hair overweight, but I'm comfortable because it's arguably his one strongest issue. I am not policing the Positions subarticle closely so Mantis may feel free to put any sourced summary there. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel the same way. From what I've read about Ron Paul's position on the matter, he doesn't consider it particularly important either, and didn't bother to follow both sides' arguments. This may change in the future as the Internet plays more of a role in peoples' everyday lives and a proposal comes to the House, but it can be left out for now. MantisEars (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet support

In the introduction: "strong Internet grassroots support was indicated by his popularity as a web search term" makes no sense. Britney Spears has been consistently more popular than Ron Paul in web search term popularity throughout Ron Paul's campaign, don't see her running for president.--Sir Anon (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

of course you are ignoring relevancy -- does it come as a surprise that "sex" is also a very popular internet search term and "sex" is not running for president of the United States in 2008? qualify the phrase "strong internet grassroots support" with the phrase compared to other 2008 candidates or compared to any candidate who has ever attempted to elicit support on the internet, and then perhaps you will see the notoriety and relevancy. further, i do not see how searching on an engine constitutes support of a candidate. Ron Paul raised money using the internet. does britney spears gain support for her alleged 2008 presidential candidacy with an internet website? -- 128.128.98.46 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow. Obama, Clinton and McCain still got more Google searches than Ron Paul, and since when is Googling someone a show of support? I know all about the Internet support for Ron Paul, but Google is no evidence of it.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The source provided in the article demonstrates that last year Paul in fact exceeded Paris Hilton (and presumably Spears) in web searches. Your statements of "consistently more popular" and "still got more Google searches" may have resulted from a one-time test today, but last year the search popularity was noted by many reliable sources, some of which have been backed out of this article. So even if you were to source something today, it would not affect the article's correct, sourced statements about notable search popularity during the campaign being a useful measure of supporter enthusiasm. JJB 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Popularity as a search term merely demonstrates curiousity, not support. I google for people I oppose or dislike fairly often. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe sometimes, but source USNWR says otherwise. Also if you don't mind I'm moving your observation downwards because it's too much detail for the lead and it also suggests Technorati is the only evidence of web search strength. Some detail should be one level down in Ron Paul#2008 presidential campaign, and the rest two levels down in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Internet popularity, where you hear of Hitwise, ClickZNews, YouTube again, and formerly Alexa. JJB 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Having thought about this, the linking of "strong Internet support" to YouTube subscriptions and searches seems to me to be pretty clear original research. Maybe it indicates strong support and maybe not. I'm not sure what "source USNWR" is (it would be helpful to link to these sources when referencing them on the talk page). If there is a source that corroborates this link, could we discuss it here, please? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Found it, I think. [7] My opinion: Some guy's musings on a blog at US News & World Report can't be restated as fact in this article.
On the other hand, it seems pretty evident that there was a lot of Internet activity associated with the RP campaign as well as a lot of grassroots support. Perhaps someone can tweak the wording so that we do not imply a clearcut association between YouTube subscriptions/search terms and RP's grassroots support based on this "evidence". --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Aw, man, Newsroom, we've been doing so well at keeping this article out of controversy! WP:V has long said, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which means this is not "some guy's musings" but a (non-OR) analysis by a reliable source. Respectfully, of course you must be aware that your statement that maybe it doesn't indicate support is the actual OR here: we may well posit our own views of linkage or not based on our research, but the reliable source has reviewed linkage evidence and deemed it printworthy based on its own research, which generally takes precedence. (We don't know what research led the source to so conclude, but in good faith we can presume evidence for linkage is reasonable.) There had formerly been other links on this point, which were pared back; would you mind waiting until we can see what other sources have to say on the matter? JJB 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't really planning to make a "thing" over this, but it's always kind of bugged me a little, and since someone else brought it up... Anyway, it's not the fact that the source is on a USNWR blog that is problematic (and I agree on your point about MSM blogs); it's that we can't restate that linkage as fact without attributing it to some source. I'd say the same thing if it were an op-ed columnist or some other sort of news analyst. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, then the solution per prior consensus is that the lead should only be footnoted for statements which seem to need the most qualifiers, so I think your (plural) concern would make it fine to add a third footnote (brought up from the subsection). Note how the other two footnotes were similarly promoted to answer calls for qualifiers. However I will keep this on my list of points where additional sources (in the subsection) could help. JJB 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the largest fundraiser in one day anymore

This was an ify call at the time, if I remember, but in any event, I just heard that Hillary Clinton raised 10 million in one day after winning Pennsylvannia. As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per sources this is an unverifiable self-published claim of HRC, and Politico found several gaps in it. Further, per moneybomb and its history, HRC has prior history of very poor sourcing of claims. Please advise. JJB 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that the $10 million claim had panned out, but I'm content to wait until someone provides some links or other evidence to look at. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the Politico piece John referred to. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

We have been using using this article -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273302,00.html -- as a source for the statement that the Ron Paul "campaign has very strong grassroots support, as reflected in dozens of wins in GOP straw polls, [and] his lead in web searches." This article does not say this. Instead, regarding polls it says that "In most Republican presidential polls, Ron Paul appears well behind the front-runners." As far as websearches, it quotes the Paul camapaign saying Ron Paul is a popular search term, not that he leads over any other candidate. I've corrected the article to say what the source material actually says. It is highly unethical to misrepresent these sources this way, and it is either extreme carelesseness or vandalism. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That FAUX News story was not the source of either of these assertions. Regardless of what value I place in straw polls (I believe the early strength of people like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in such polls demonstrates how worthless they are in actual politics), both the web search data and the straw polls information have been thoroughly sourced over the past few months. Your accusations are both incorrect and incivil.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That foxnews.com story was the source used in the footnote directly after those assertions. Following a statement with a footnote to a source which does not support and even contradicts that statement is completely innapropriate in respectable writing, and I see nothing "incivil" about pointing out such obvious errors and correcting them. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also please see WP:SUMMARY. Every item not sourced in this summary is fully sourced in the expanded subarticle. Also, your edit here made mincemeat of the last 50 footnotes. Please preview the full page before committing to intense edits. Rearranging, or reimporting the sources from the expanded subarticle, is fine. JJB 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the problem with the footnotes because they didn't show up in the preview. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it for you. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The incivility was in your edit summaries, as well as in the phrase "either extreme carelesseness or vandalism" in this very thread. The appropriate thing to do would have been to place a "cite needed" tag in place of that to the FAUX News article, stating in the edit summary that the removed citation did not support the assertion(s) in the article and requesting more appropriate citation(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the appropriate thing to do is to correct the mistake, rather than place a tag saying the mistake needs to be corrected. I also think I'm stating the rather obvious when I say if someone who continually attributes things to sources which those sources do not say, then such a person is at best extremely careless and at worst intentionally vandalizing this article. But if such obvious statements have hurt anyone's feelings, I sincerely apologize, as that is not my intention. My intention is to make sure this article contains facts supported by sources. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You have to realize, this article is monitored intensely by lots of editors, many of us non-fans of Ron Paul. Your mistake was in failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors. There was not, as your edit assumed, a falsehood, but rather an imprecision in footnoting some statements. You've taken a "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach which has engendered considerable unnecessary ill will. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm franky insulted that you have described my insistence on some proper sourcing standards as some sort of crazy "Let's rescue Wikipedia from the Paulistas!" approach. That doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith to me. That sounds like a personal attack against me where you are atttributing beliefs to me which I have never expressed. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And now we're back at the version which attributes things to sources when those sources actually contradict the article. Could someone else who believes that Wikipedia should be based on the accuarate use of source material consider correcting this article? Orange Mike informs me that I can only correct misinformation in Ron Paul's biography and misrepresentation of news reporting a maximum of 3 times per day or else I will be banned from Wikipedia for insisting on accuracy. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's source every statement in that lede, so when Mountains comes off his 24-hour block for 3RR violations, he will have nothing to complain about. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mountains hasn't been messing with this lead. The prior consensus was that there is no need to have many footnotes in the WP:LEAD, as they are usually redundant. Everything you tagged is already footnoted in the article. While I just added a third footnote to the lead earlier due to someone else's challenge, I think six is excessive; they should only be reserved for the most controversial parts of it. Also FA's like to have lots of nbsp's. However I do not have time at the moment to press details, please see what you think is best. There may be a need to pull some footnotes from the campaign article into this campaign summary and re-sort there. JJB 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here's a new significant source: Boston Globe. JJB 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls

I'm still leery of that statement about straw polls. Unless the source supports it, it sounds like WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE to me. Burzmali (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Orange Mike's latest edit

Orange Mike's latest edit attributes the statement "Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian" to a source which uses neither the words "conservative" or Constitutionalist." He also totally broke a footnote later in the article. I'm in favor of using sources that actually say what we claim they say, and I'm for footnotes that don't contain big red "Cite error" text in them. So, let's have a hearty discussion where we debate the pros and cons of accurate sourcing and big red busted footnotes, shall we? I'm firmly in the "pro" on using sources that say what we claim they say, and "con" on big red busted footnotes. Where do the rest of you stand? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One of Mountainsarehigh's edits both created this particular cite error and removed a long-established accurate source for this particular statement.[8] JJB 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This "long-established accurate source" is "Pastor Chuck Baldwin" of "newswithviews.com". I'm sure we can do better. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1) I thought Mountains was asking for a cite on Paul being called a libertarian, so that's all I provided. I did not mean to bust another link. 2) As to the other two adjectives, I actually agree with Mountains that we need a less POV source for those; but I believe it will be ridiculously easy to find such sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I was talking about all three, which is why I put a separate request for citation after the word "conservative", and another after "Constitutionalist." But if it is ridiculously easy to find sources, let's get to it! I've found one from LA Times and added it, so we've only got one more. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
My citation to a widely-read, well-respected source has been removed and replaced with a much worse one from a tiny little newspaper. Let's use better sources people! I'll see if I can find an even better one. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article A Foreign Policy of Freedom is little more than a stub and is likely to remain so. The sources talk more about the phenomena of political candidates writing books than about Paul's book in particular. I would recommend adding the bulk of the text from the other article to the bottom of the Books authored section, together with a quick blurb about The Revolution: A Manifesto as they seem to be his best received works. Burzmali (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger. Your reasoning is sound. Unless the article on the book can be legitimately expanded beyond a stub, it seems pointless to have a separate page for it.--JayJasper (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your going to merger proposal rather than straight AFD this time. Under WP:BK, the question is whether we have multiple, nontrivial, independent, general-audience, critical sources. On first pass the two discussions on the "Tonight Show" (one also mentioned by Reason magazine) and the reviews in New American and LewRockwell.com should be considered. The Australian Libertarian Society also mentioned it while reviewing The Revolution (book), and Mises Institute cited it significantly while reviewing another author. (WP:BK contains conflicting footnotes whether the barometer is "independent of the book itself" or "independent of the subject itself".) Current Amazon stats are #588 in Books, #10 in Economics, #10 in Government, #4 in Economic Policy & Development (formerly as high as #93 in Books, #1 in Economics, #1 in Government); a WP:EL is RonPaulForeignPolicy.com. EB cited it and Freedom Under Siege as Paul's cornerstone books. I grant that several other sources focus on 2008 presidential campaign books rather than on any particular book (perhaps three in article plus [9][10][11]), suggesting potential for a move, which would also accommodate several books that are clearly nonnotable on their own. Another move target is Books authored by Ron Paul in true summary fashion, which would be easily populated. On the whole the book seems to meet independent notability, and it seems it would be unwieldy in this article given its bio style and FFAC status, but I'd like to hear discussion about the move or merge options. JJB 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe something like List of books authored by Ron Paul then? I think the book's notability is borderline as I haven't noticed much in the way of the critical analysis one would expect for a notable book of this type, but I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. Burzmali (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes except it wouldn't be a list because that's what we already have here. I'd take that as a compromise. Affirm JayJasper below also; it keeps me from having to work too hard on the Freedom Under Siege article. JJB 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger, too. It will make things much more reader friendly. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Books authored by Ron Paul article. As JJB points out, it would be easily populated. I also think it would be more reader friendly than having separate articles, and it would provide an opportunity to give expanded info on the books without creating stub articles.--JayJasper (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not support the merger. Instead of giving up we should be working to improve the books article.Zack Brown (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem becomes whether it can be improved to meet necessary criteria. Paul's latest work, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," clearly stands alone. But I can't find similar sources for Foreign Policy of Freedom. I support an article about all Paul books, with Revolution allowed to stand alone and the others being split off when or if secondary sources present themselves. Buspar (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I second the idea by Buspar.--JayJasper (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't support the merger. Why? Just look at any musician... they have individual articles for all of their albums. Why would this by any different for authors and books? --StormCommander (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
1) That's a separate problem; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for the retention of any given article.
1a) Musicians are famous for their work; therefore their music has notability (although I personally reject the "all albums by notable musicians are inherently notable; again, that's a totally different problem)
2) Plain and simple, the book is not inherently notable; it has gained support from Paulistas, but the attention it has received in the press is all attention to Paul, not to the book in and of itself as an actual book (der Buch an sich). If it were by J. Random Pundit, it would have disappeared into the echoing void which absorbs most of the tens of thousands of new books issued every year in English. Notability is not inherited. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may attempt a close, and bypassing the original question, it appears that "MOVE to Books authored by Ron Paul and EXPAND" is compatible with the comments expressed by everyone above, except the single-purpose account. JJB 14:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to call other people names. I think you owe StormCommander an Zack Brown some apologies. Just because they disagree with you and I when it comes to merging this book to another article doesn't give us license to call them names. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the MOVE and EXPAND proposal by JJB.--JayJasper (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Jay! I'll be likely to go ahead with it Pretty Soon Now. JJB 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)