Talk:Ron Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Paul article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Good article Ron Paul has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.
Archive
Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Contents

[edit] Image:Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan in 1976.jpg

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

[edit] Still Running for President

Is he still running for president? I have seen no mention of him stopping on his website or others, yet people insist on telling me that he has stopped running? What is going on?MattTheMan (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's telling you that? He's not dropped out of the race, officially; he's just spending his money making sure he gets re-elected to his seat in Congress. I don't think Dennis Kucinich has officially dropped out of the Democratic race, either; but his people aren't quite as fanatic (this year, anyway) as the Paulistas. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul won his Congressional primary in early March and is running unopposed in the general. He did not use funds from his Presidential campaign, that would be illegal. MantisEars (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703061.html OK I'm officially confused. Dennis did officially drop out though, to concentrate on Congress. MattTheMan (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paul.campaign/index.html#cnnSTCVideo Paul explaining after the story that he is still in the race and that he did not drop out. MantisEars (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that Paul was shifting money unlawfully between accounts. I meant only that he's encouraging his followers to donate money to his political action committee and his "educational" (i.e., propaganda) nonprofit now. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many links!

There are far too many links in the article. Nearly every date (like May 2007 then May 22, 2007 all linked in the same parahraph), all cities and states, all words over five characters are pretty much linked. Not to mention every time the word is said, so it gets linked several times. I went over 3-4 sections and removed some of the more ridiculous ones (shrimp? common). Somebody else will probably have to help with this.Virek (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done, removed ~100-150 links. Please add links back if you feel they are needed but don't revert as there were far too many Virek (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear enough here or on other pages where I've posted this. People have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Support brief explanation of up to a couple sentences, with link. It's case by case, but the general answer must be middle-of-the-road as you suggest, unless (for example) criminal charges link the two. Perhaps by this standard Lew Rockwell has too much coverage in this bio article. However this is not a matter of "equal treatment" per se because, say, does Mike Gravel really have any controversial associates? It's a matter of nominal "equal treatment for equal circumstances", and since no two circumstances are ultimately equal, proper weighting in each case. Some associates will need more space than others. Balance is determined by building local consensus and staking out NPOV and POV positions through a group redistricting procedure. JJB 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is too long and has too many quotes and needless detail

I came here to get an overview of this candidate, but I am informed about petty details, like his wife raising collies, the number of guests at his wedding, the number of grandchildren, and I am sure that there is more like that further down, which I did not bother to read. I suppose there are some supporters of RP around: Do that guy a favour and make this article more concise, because it is close to unreadable in the present state. Thanks Jasy jatere (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My friend, this is a biography and much of that was added per consensus and will get restored. Perhaps you wanted the campaign article instead, Ron Paul 2008, and perhaps there should be a hatnote to that effect. But please don't delete sourced biographical details in a biographical article, thank you. JJB 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)