Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Removed criticism section

I have removed the criticism section for two reasons:

First of all, Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 have no criticism sections.

Secondly, there was no decent intellectual criticism in the section to begin with. Two huge paragraphs about a couple politically incorrect fellows donating to his campaign. Does anyone actually think that is legitimate political criticism? If people actually consider who donated to someone's campaign to be appropriate criticism rather than a sensible critique of their policy decisions then I am very disappointed. --RucasHost (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... alright. Hillary's page does have an Opposition section; on Romney's page, there was a discussion about the criticism section, and it seems the section there was removed. Mike Huckabee's page has a section, as does John Edwards' article. I'm not opposed to the removal of this section, as long as the text is integrated elsewhere. The stuff about him not returning Don Black's donation could be factored into the Campaign developments section. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to think of a more biasing edit to make in this article; the article collects every piece of favorable detritus and minutiae (four "words" - "Hotties 4 Ron Paul") that has the flimsiest claim to WP:RS, but you advocate that we strike everything negative? It's not your place to determine "legitimate political criticism" or "intellectual validity"; that's WP:OR. Things are fair game if reliable sources write about them. Feel free to attempt to balance the text with exculpatory reliable source quotes. --- tqbf 14:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The stuff about Stromfront's donation isn't even criticism, it's just trash that people are tyring to smear on him. --RucasHost (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But if it's actually true - and it is, we have sources to verify it - then it should be mentioned. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I haven't looked at the content of what was deleted or reinstated regarding this, so I'm not commenting at the moment on that - but the reason that criticism sections are removed from other pages is that they are integrated into the text of the articles rather than separated out as a collection of criticisms. If they are valid, notable, sourced critical points or controversies, they should be worked into the articles with appropriate responses, if any, as per WP:UNDUE. But as Gzkn once said, think about whether a "praise" section would - or should - survive in an article. However, again, this is not an excuse to remove criticism or controversy, it is an argument for integration. I haven't looked yet to see if you've done that, but if you haven't, you need to. Tvoz |talk 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about integrating any notable criticisms into the Campaign developments section? The TNR stuff was done that way for a brief instant. All of the criticisms look to me to be dated, so they would fit into the quarterly report format.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly, and I'll get started. I want to offer a heads-up though; starting in 2008, criticism of Paul and his campaign gets more pronounced:
  • The Kirchick article broke, and then appeared on MSNBC, and is now rippling through the media (and may pick up force on Friday). See Google news; reverberations now through The Atlantic blogs (citable RS --- it's The Atlantic Monthly), alt weekly papers (citable RS --- printed newspapers), and others.
  • The campaign is beginning to accrue losses, and, in particular, citable RS is now pointing out the disparity between Paul supporter predictions and actual voting booth successes. --- tqbf 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Difference between predictions and successes would go in grassroots or polling, not criticism, though. However, I'd wait a little longer before including analysis of Paul's performance in the primaries and caucuses. The experts still don't even know why Obama lost to Clinton and that's getting lots of attention by the experts. At this point, voting success analysis would be early and too much speculation ("Wiki isn't a crystal ball," overused previously, actually applies in this case). For example, most of the meaningful (read: neutral) analysis of Dean's campaign came after the primaries were well over. Better to just post breakdowns of what happens (number of votes, counties, comparison to other candidates) for right now. I am fairly certain there will be expert analysis of why Paul got the results he did later on that can be used. Buspar (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how slanted that sounds to people who have worked the other side on the Ron Paul Revolution and Moneybomb content? Now that Paul's unpopularity is beginning to be demonstrated verifiably --- NOW we should stick to the bare facts. But we should still write "Ron Paul is the only candidate to have signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge" or that the "thousands of fliers" put up by volunteers organized on Meetup.com were done as an end-run around "perceived media blackout", and so on?
My take? No. Heads-up: there's a lot more negative stuff about Paul in the most recent news cycle than in pretty much all previous cycles put together, and my inclination is that the article should be including it aggressively. Will wait for other editors to chime in. There are coming up on 10 reliable sources commenting on the neo-Confederacy story alone. --- tqbf 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There's really no reason to have either, but having both for now won't hurt anything. This article is around 120 kb long. The articles on Kerry and Bush's 2004 campaigns are 39 and 21 kb. Once this election is over, for better or worse, this article is going under one hell of a knife. We can fight over the fine details of what to include then. Burzmali (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the Neo-confederacy story - that has reliable sources, so it can be included (along with Paul's rebuttal, of course). I was talking about your comment on including analysis of the difference between his primary results and what supporters predicted. What I've read has consisted largely of speculation - we still don't know why there was a disparity, the same way we don't know why Clinton beat Obama. Pundits biased against Paul are crowing about how they knew it all along, while some of the conspiracy-minded Paul supporters are going on about vote fraud. Since the primaries aren't over, analysis of the end results is premature (this applies to all candidates, not just Paul). Your example of him signing the Freedom Pledge is a poor comparison, since that's a fact that happened. The primaries are still ongoing. Buspar (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove or edit down...This section is giting out of hand, as well editors are using this section for POV warring. Apparently we CAN use the words of David Frum, former Bush speech writer and senior adviser to the Rudolph Giuliani campaign. But we cannot use the words of Ron Paul on Glenn Beck? What is this except “mud slinging” the source has a POV interest. Of corse they are going to slander other candidates. This is ridiculous... What's next a NY MTA worker quote?--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

David Frum was notable enough to be a guest of The Daily Show, multiple times. This isn't the general election, it's the GOP primary, and Frum is an intensely notable person in the GOP. The comparison to an "NY MTA worker" (most of whom would not be disposed favorable to Giuliani) is nonsensical. --- tqbf 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
--What is nonsensical is not allowing a direct quote form a presidential candidate (RON PAUL) from a notable news source (Glenn Beck)! I notice you have No rebuttal for that?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what this has to do with the matter at hand, and your issue is with a different editor, not me. I'm sure you're not suggesting that you're punitively cutting text out of an article to settle a score. --- tqbf 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Frum's observations are worth noting, though. He works for the Giuliani campaign, so he's clearly not going to have objective views of Paul or any other rival candidate. The other candidate articles generally don't include criticism leveled at them by other candidates or their press releases, after all. If he had said those things just as a former Bush speech writer, then it might mean more. Buspar (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that Frum's opinion is "worth noting"; he's part of the GOP establishment. He hasn't said that Romney gets "disturbing" the more you look into him. I agree that there's a bias. But sources don't need to be NPOV; the text does. The text notes Frum's current affiliation. Someone famous got on the Daily Show and said Paul was a disturbing person; after months of larding this article with NN endorsements from community college professors and unsigned music acts, I think you're going to have a hard time with your argument. --- tqbf 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(I suspect you disagree Frum is "worth nothing" rather than "worth noting"- unless you have had a sudden conversion...) Terjen (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you notice, I generally only add comments by pundits. For example, Sean Hannity's criticism of Paul is something I've added, because he's a pundit who works with and knows a lot about politics, same with Tim Russert. Frum's not the same, since he's there to spin facts in Giuliani's favor, not offer critical analysis. I hope you can understand the difference between someone who explicitly does PR for someone and someone who at least has the appearance of being an outside observer. Also note that I'm not the one who inserted those endorsements you mentioned, so your attempt to impugn my worth as an editor fails. Buspar (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer on the Paul Newsletters

Here is Buspar's edit describing the Paul interview on The Situation Room. It includes:

Wolf Blitzer has stated that, based on his own experience of interviewing Paul over several years, the comments are not consistent with what Paul's views and should not be taken as his.

Here is the transcript of that interview, now published on CNN's website. It says this:

I've got to tell you, congressman, you and I, we have talked a lot over these past several months. And when I saw these newsletters, I didn't know anything about them until I saw that article in "The New Republic," I was pretty shocked. Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time.

At no point does Wolf Blitzer instruct his audience not to "take comments as Paul's"; Blitzer simply expresses shock that Paul (or, one assumes, any rational American) could have written the things that appeared in The Ron Paul Political Report.

Am I missing some other part of the transcript (please quote), or is this as egregious as it looks? --- tqbf 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Something close is said by Blitzer about 5 1/2 minute into the interview. Terjen (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Strike that, I messed up. Terjen (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I watched the whole interview, paying close attention to 5.20, and it corresponds very closely with the transcript. Any other things I might have missed?--- tqbf 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit you did inserts (after the section on the Blitzer interview with Paul) that "CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen objected to Paul's response". However, the transcript shows Gergen's comment being ahead of Paul's response, apparently about a statement by Paul's spokesman. It will have to be changed and moved to avoid misunderstanding and appearance of WP:SYNTH. Terjen (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You changed the word "objected" to "said". I don't have a strong opinion; fair enough edit. The editor who added the Wolf Blitzer comment simply made something up and attributed it to a CNN anchor. --- tqbf 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid every time a fly buzzes it's wings in criticism of the Paul campaign it will wind up in this section, this is getting to be a bit much for me, In a year will it matter to a hill of beans what Blitzer thinks? -NO, does it matter what his boy wonder-side kick thinks, -NO, is it encyclopedic, -NO (Every talking head on TV has on opinion). Will we be putting opinions up on Hillary’s page when she does not match her Manolo Blahniks to her hand bag and lose votes with New Yorkers? Have I made my point yet?--Duchamps_comb MFA 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No. It was a Paul supporter who added the Blitzer comment to the article. Again, this objection to "every talking head on TV" is, to put it charitably, ironic. --- tqbf 06:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Blitzer's views are somewhat important, given his experience with Paul and his reputation as a reporter. I think the same way non-notable endorsements and blogs have been culled from this article (or still need to be culled), non-notable criticism would also be removed (thus keeping things consistent with other candidate articles). And remember: any criticism of note also has to include Paul and other's rebuttals to keep things NPOV. So I'm fairly sure the criticism section won't be used to unjustly vilify Paul. Buspar (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you write that Blitzer said that Paul's newsletter comments "should not be taken as his", Buspar? (Am I misattributing this edit to you?) --- tqbf 06:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I put that in there. I wrote it as Blitzer was talking (I watched it live); I can't say I was perfect in my summary. Feel free to correct it with the transcript. It's why I went back and added the ref to the article on it later so I could fix it later. Buspar (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m feeling dejevue, Tqbf to quote you “Everything CNN, ABC, CBS, etc say does not create a license to add content to this article; if it did, the article would be vast and useless, a series of mashed up TV show transcripts.” --- tqbf 18:08, 5 January 2008 –Ironically you were talking about a Wolf Blitzer quote.... --Duchamps_comb MFA 07:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: I didn't put the Wolf Blitzer comment in the article. How ironic! --- tqbf 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that Paul’s response to the allegations should be in it’s entirety. To understand his feelings/views. And they should not be edited down.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree on that one. I think the gist of his response should be included as a quote, with the rest linked to via the citation. That's normal Wiki formatting. Buspar (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I summarized his response (again). We are not including paragraphs from the New Republic article "so we can understand the allegations in their entirety", so we should not do that with Paul's response. Paisan30 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate section cleanup

The debate section has too much redundancy with the main article is the major sin. I don't want to just chop stuff willy-nilly, however. Other candidates have ~7 paragraphs and I think this can get cut down to it or at least close since there are a lot of good citations here. My proposed method:

1. Remove material that's in the main article already. Drop mention of the debates he wasn't in, except when it was covered by multiple sources (and even then, just a couple sentences will do).

2. Allot the most space to Paul's exchanges with other candidates that received a lot of media attention. The Paul-Giuliani exchange is clearly central both to his campaign and his publicity. The exchanges he had with Huckabee and McCain are also worth mentioning.

3. Move polling results to the main article, since the polls featured all of the candidates. Just summarize how many polls he won in this article.

4. Cut out more of the quotes. The Paul-Giuliani quotes are important given the exchange's notability, but some of the others can be moved to Wikiquote or into Paul's political positions article.

5. Maybe one paragraph featuring comments by outside observers on Paul's various debate performances, since that doesn't belong in the main debate article.

Thoughts? Buspar (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The section needs to be heavily shortened. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Separating criticism

Duchamps separated out the criticism section to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism, and tqbf reverted it. I'm in agreement with tqbf on this action; the criticism section should be on this page. Separating the criticism section out is awkward, and is a move that is seldom done around here. I'm tempted to put that page up for deletion. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with tqbf too, the criticism section isn't long enough to warrant its own page, it fits fine where it is. Fin©™ 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The criticism should most definitely be kept on this page, though I'm still in favor of integrating it into the article as campaign developments. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs with campaign developments. Other criticism sections are usually kept separate because of their inherent nature to toe the line of NPOV. Critical comments have to be balanced by rebuttals and so on to keep both sides in equal measure. Putting it in the developments segment would clutter that part up, especially since 3rd party comments aren't from the official campaign. Buspar (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Criticisms are separated for article flow. Criticisms aren't separated because of NPOV. Criticisms and accolades are two sides of the same NPOV coin, and we certainly haven't isolated "Praise" for Ron Paul in this article. --- tqbf 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) All else aside --- we do not split out articles, especially portions of articles that are (a) in contention and (b) actively being edited, without proposing it on the talk page first. It looks like Duchamps marked this as a "minor" edit too. This isn't how we work.
Having said that: one by one, the breakout articles from this oversized article are dying in AfD. We should not create new ones. I am absolutely unsympathetic to the argument that there's "too much" criticism material in the article now; this article was absurdly overweight before any criticism was added, and virtually nothing has been done to correct that problem. --- tqbf 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The PROD was removed, so the article is now listed on AfD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have recommend Delete. Not enough content, and the entry may be construed as a POV fork. Terjen (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD on Houston Chron quote

The quote, as I wrote it:

In an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, political reporter Julie Mason called Paul's explanation "plausible, but incomplete". To Paul's claims that the newsletters were part of a political attack, Mason responded "They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings", continuing that Paul's response was itself "a disservice to the young true believers supporting him."

ʋTerjen wants to remove "a disservice to the young true believers".

I think the nut of this editorial is the word "disservice"; it's editorial backing for a direct criticism of Paul's campaign --- unlike many other sources (such as AP and Reuters) that are simply reporting on the controversy, a mainstream news outlet covering Paul's region has made a judgement call, and that's notable.

You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike:

  1. Keep my text
  2. Paraphrase (losing words like "young true believers", which I'm not wedded to either) to keep the spirit of the critique
  3. Keep Terjen's text, which removes the editorial assertion in the Houston Chron search
  4. Lose the critique entirely, despite me saying it's one of the first and most geographically relevant overt critiques of Paul

No action or opinions, and I'm reverting back to my version, but I'll go with what the chorus here decides.

--- tqbf 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To address your core reason for inclusion, note that the Julie Mason commentary is not an editorial but instead an op-ed representing solely the views of Julie Mason. It thus cannot be taken as the official opinion of the newspaper. It is not "editorial backing for a direct criticism of Paul's campaign" nor proof that Houston Chronicle "has made a judgement call".

-- Terjen (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Julie Mason is the Chron's political reporter. --- tqbf 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
IOW, I can concede that it's not the Chron's opinion, and continue to insist that the criticism itself is notable. --- tqbf 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Julie Mason does appear to be a pundit with political expertise, so her comments are notable as an outside observer. I would add a "...continuing to add that she believed Paul's response..." It's only her view, not the paper's, so specifying it's her belief is important. Buspar (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording:

 : In an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, political reporter Julie Mason called Paul's explanation "plausible, but incomplete". To Paul's claims that the newsletters were part of a political attack, Mason responded "They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings", continuing that she believed Paul's response was itself "a disservice" to his supporters.

No comments and I'll WP:BOLD this into the article. Thanks! --- tqbf 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with the changes, although I still think it is unimportant that Julie Mason believes Paul's response was a disservice, and would prefer it not included. Terjen (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Great more talking head mombo jumbo! Not noteable...--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Honorific "Dr" Title

Two things:

  1. You obviously cannot edit a direct quote from a source, even if they call Paul "Mr." instead of "Dr."
  2. Per WP:MOS, specifically WP:MOSBIO (see "Honorifics"), we do not refer to Paul as "Dr. Paul" throughout articles; we establish once that he's a doctor, and then simply use his name. That's not an opinion; it's the MoS guideline.

--- tqbf 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can edit a direct quote using brackets when they get something wrong so long as it doesn't change the intent of the quote, such as spelling. "Mr. Paul" is a grammatical mistake, since that's the improper title. Not to mention they wrote it "Mr" without the period. Buspar (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please cite the WP policy that allows you to edit, amend, or inject editorial comments into material from external sources. --- tqbf 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOSQUOTE: "Where there is a good reason not to do so, insert an editorial explanation of the changes." A spelling or grammatical error is a good reason to do so, per standard academic and journalistic style guidelines (which MoS acknowledges complement its own guide - see the references it provides at the bottom). If you want, we can take this to the MoS talk page and get a ruling. Buspar (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
While "Dr." might have been more accurate, "Mr." is not "wrong" nor a "grammatical mistake" and there's no good reason to change this. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What sets me off is that the MSM does not refer to Paul as "Dr. Paul", unlike Paul's reverent followers. The words "Dr. Paul" change the interpretation of a quotation, at least for me. I'm willing to be told I'm crazy about this, but would strongly prefer we just honor source text unless it is grossly inaccurate. --- tqbf 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The insistence on calling him "Dr. Paul" is a Paulite-internet affectation. To change a direct quote because it fails to use that honorific is highly inappropriate. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If it were a typo, and they'd referred to him as Mrs. Paul, that would be appropriate to correct. This "correction" falsifies the quote in order to make a point of reverence. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He has an MD and worked as an OBGYN, which to me means a news article ought to use Dr. since that's the proper honorific. If he was a PhD, I'd be less concerned on the issue. I blanked it out using "..." which keeps the tone of the quote and compromises between the two versions. Is that okay? Buspar (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not with me, it's not. It may seem a petty point, but that ellipsis indicates that text is missing. Leaving the reader to wonder why and what text is missing is not good editing practice in general. And since this version is not "wrong" (The Economist uses a British style manual, I'm sure and I believe "Mr" and Mrs"--without the .--is still in common use), there is no reason to change the text the way you have. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you're writing the manual of style for the Economist? It seems like the consensus is to honor the source text. --- tqbf 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is grammatically incorrect to refer to Ron Paul as "Mr." it is and always correct to refer to him as “Dr.” or “Congressman.” What school did you ----- go to?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You should read WP:MOSBIO. --- tqbf 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You should read [1] --

Titles

Use the title Dr. when referring to a doctor of any kind, on first reference only. Dr. Harry Junkins, director of the genetics lab, did not foresee the cuts, according to his staff. Junkins was, said many, upset when he heard the news. Use the title Dr. both for individuals who have received honorary doctoral degrees and for people with earned doctoral degrees. After first referring to an individual by using his or her full name, use that person's last name, even if he or she has a professional or religious title. When referring to faculty, use the title or rank given them by the University. If the person also is a doctor, use Dr. on first reference, then last name only for remainder of text. Dr. Mary Hartman addressed the group on March 31. Hartman discussed the theory of trickle-down economics. Avoid using long titles before the names of people, such as Associate director of development for the Annual Fund Joe Smith Instead, say Joe Smith, associate director of development for the Annual Fund The word the should be used before Rev. when referring to most clergy on first reference. On second reference, use only the person's last name. Use the Rev. Dr. only if the person has an earned doctoral degree and reference to the degree is relevant. Use Rabbi before a name on first reference; use only the last name on second reference. When referring to an endowed professorship, always use the full title on first reference, whether or not the title stands alone. the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies Jane James, holder of the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies After that use the Doctor Chair .....

Duchamps_comb MFA 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own non-controlling source (we write according to WP:MOS here, so articles are consistent) disagrees with you. FIRST REFERENCE ONLY. --- tqbf 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the rule is even more limiting than that - at WP:MOSBIO it's very clear: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." Refer to the Drew Pinsky article for an appropriate example. Townlake (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is still at all interested, the Economist style guide states that "Dr" is preferred when describing people with a medical degree. However, this isn't really a style manual issue as this is a direct quote from a publication other than Wikipedia. I think it's bizarre to describe the use or misuse of an honorific as a grammatical issue; this is certainly a meaning of "grammar" with which I'm unfamiliar. They used "Mr" because Paul is most widely known in his capacity of politician and presidential candidate, not as a doctor. When referring to holders of public office, the Economist uses "Mr," "Mrs" or "Miss" and a surname. "Mr Bush," not "President Bush" or "President Bush, MBA." --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New Republic vs. New York Times/New Yorker

What the New Yorker said many months prior to the NRO story is irrelevant to the NRO story; the New Yorker writer was not privy to the NRO's analysis or findings. It is inappropriate to add it inline to the editorials that actually discussed the NRO findings --- doing so obviously creates the impression that the New Yorker refutes the NRO, which it certainly does not. --- tqbf 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Christmas" Controversy

I agree with NH: the Christmas quote in the NR article is important --- it's further evidence that Paul himself wrote much of the content in the article. The identity of the author of the newsletter is critically important. Eliding the "Christmas" material helps create the impression that Paul had little to do with the newsletters, which is (at least) disputed. I don't want to revert this content, but neither should Buspar.

--- tqbf 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


And here's the text that has been removed twice (the first time without explanation, the second with a note stating that "Christmas example adds nothing; it's already in the citation"):
at least one closed with a personal note with Christmas wishes from Ron and "my wife Carol and our children and grandchildren.".
--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That the newsletter was written in the first person is sufficient to make the point over the confusion on authorship, though. The controversy is that someone published this in his name, not that he may have written it. How about just putting in a more general, "The newsletter included personal greetings from Paul" and letting the citation handle the specifics? Also, do you have a source that says those personal greetings were written by him? The newsletter is a primary source, not a secondary, which means it crosses into WP:OR territory. Buspar (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're calling a direct quote WP:OR; your proposed compromise waters down the direct quote, to soften the impression that Paul may have been directly involved. The quote is small; why not just let the reader decide whether Lew Rockwell wrote Christmas greetings from "my wife Carol"? --- tqbf 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No, no; I'm calling the citation WP:OR. The newsletter is the subject of the controversy, so it's a primary source. It would be a good idea to find a secondary source that analyzes the newsletter and mentions the point about the personal greetings as evidence Paul wrote something for it. It's not a good idea to imply he authored something in the newsletter when it's the subject of his relation to the newsletter that's the main topic of controversy. Also, mentioning the specific case of the Christmas greeting is redundant the same reason we don't have all of Paul's response published included: a person can check the citation if they want an example of a personal greeting in the newsletter. Buspar (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a direct quote. There's no analysis or synthesis. It's not WP:OR. --- tqbf 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two parts to this: the quote itself and the citation. There should be a general statement (personal greetings were included, Paul may have written them) and then citations to back that up with statements by secondary sources. A lone anecdotal example isn't as good. The citation itself shouldn't be a primary source (the newsletter), but a newspaper article or something that analyzes the newsletters and mentions the personal greetings. This is similar to if someone gave Paul's campaign newsletter as a reference with a quote - it wouldn't be nearly as good as a newspaper as a reference with the same material. Buspar (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is grammatically incorrect to refer to Ron Paul as "Mr." it is and always correct to refer to him as “Dr.” or “Congressman.” What school did you ----- go to?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not even replying to the right section, and you should read WP:MOSBIO. --- tqbf 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tqbf argues that "Eliding the 'Christmas' material helps create the impression that Paul had little to do with the newsletters". This is nonsense: Eliding the 'Christmas' material avoids creating the impression that Paul may have been directly involved with the newsletters, which is (at least) disputed. We should avoid creating the impression that something is a fact when it is disputed. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH applies. Terjen (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing citable facts from reliable sources because they create an impression you don't like is OR. Citing the facts is not. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. --- tqbf 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that. You claimed that eliding material from the text would create an impression. That is nonsense, and not only for this special case. Eliding material from the text obviously avoids creating an impression. You create an impression by adding to the text. Terjen (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Terjen 100%.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Candidates opposition/Criticism

Mitt Romney opposition section was killed.

Barack Obama opposition was killed.

John Edwards is two sentences.

Hillary Clintons opposition is bullet form.

Rudy Giuliani=none

Mike Huckabee has a section, Political attacks and Critcism

John McCains "Opposing forces" is bluuet form.

Romney 2008 talk page: Criticism Section I am not and have never been a big fan of criticism sections. I would like to integrate the section into the article. I understand there has been discussion of this above but I think it can be done in a very npov way, as some of the "criticism" isn't really criticism. What do other people think? Turtlescrubber 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Sounds good to me if you can find an eloquent way of doing it. — Frecklefsst | Talk 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some (or all) of it doesn't belong in the Campaign development section because it isn't pertinent to the development of his campaign. Specifically the Marriott board section...I don't think that belongs in the article at all. Joseph Antley 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Marriott has also been criticized in the past for allowing alcohol in hotels even though he himself doesn't drink. His reply was that if a hotel wants to stay in business, it needs to sell drinks. (Apparently, drinks are high markup... I'm assuming that porn is even more cost beneficial, and therefore crucial to a competitive edge.) Rawkcuf 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

i feel as if there has been sufficient opposition to romney to warrant an opposition section on his page. and also his continued employment of illegal immigrants to do his yardwork (this is only mentioned in the article in a john mccain quote). i am actually very surprised that this hasn't come up anywhere, since it impacts his campaign. DrIdiot (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any standard for how these campaign articles are structured; there are several variants currently being used across the 15 different articles for 2008. I know 'Opposition' sections are used in several of the articles, but to me they are kind of silly — of course political candidates have opposition, that's the whole point! Something like the employment of illegals for his yardwork belongs in the chronological narrative of his campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I'd like to know how such a section would have any more consequence than Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsements. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As User:Wasted Time R mentioned, all political campaigns have opposition. It wouldn't be politics with out it. I do not personally think an "Opposition" section is warranted, I do how ever find it quite strange there is no Criticism/Controversy section in this article, because that definitely is warranted in my opinion. Especially in one of the most negative campaigns in this election that has been met with much criticism and controversy. Public opposition through public criticism would naturally fit into such a section and I believed we should look further into that. Rtr10 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary 2008 talk page: Opposition from... opponents? I removed a bunch of pork barrel subsections in the Opposition section that were from other candidates. It's true that Clinton can be a polarizing figure, but we don't need sections devoted to standard political jockeying for position, going after the front runner, mud slinging or whatever you want to call it. Every candidate has beef with every other candidate or they wouldn't be running against each other - which is not the same as the legitimate information about people like Dick Morris (who may stand to gain money from Hillary bashing but has no inherently vested interest in seeing her fall). Nualran 14:19, 21 September

AS you can see there is no consensus across candidate but I believe the current section is not in balance with others (am most DO NOT even have a section) with two of those that do are structured differently. If we are not for another page I would like it deleted.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? Where is this copied from? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As usual, what you want is going to take a back seat to what everyone else wants. --- tqbf 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I got a headache after two sentences, so I apologize for not reading that whole thing. We've been through this on other pages, and I agree that "opposition" sections are kind of weird. However, most of the other major candidates' campaign pages (not bios) have such a section. Paisan30 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I changed it to "Controversies and Criticism". Did the same to Huckabee's page. Seems more neutral, as any criticism of a political figure can be called a "political attack". Paisan30 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can settle this one pretty easily. It turns out, the campaign articles that don't have criticism sections have criticism threaded through the entire article, instead of broken into a section, just as NH wanted. If you want to lose the criticism section, find places in the article to move the criticisms to. --- tqbf 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks POV warriors! Now the Criticism section is the second largest section on the page only behind 2008 GOP Presidential Debates, only on Ron Paul's page would we have such an issue. No other Candidates page would this be allowed to happen... Something must be done to balance the section and chop it down it was fine a week ago, until the New Republic-POV hit-piece was added in.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you please stop blanking out entire spans of talk page comments that you don't like? --- tqbf 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Previous section should be restored - you can't delete it just because you don't like the content. Fin©™ 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This guy actually wrote me up for 3RR last night (I only found out because I peaked at his contribs), so I'm not reverting the section back in right now. I also note that NH commented here after Duchamps blanked the talk page; if he doesn't want it back, I'm inclined to defer to him. --- tqbf 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just on general principle, Duchamps should not have deleted that, but I don't really care whether it's restored. Not that I owned that section or anything...--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Reading the criticism section again, some of it really is just a list of people who don't like him. I'm going to try moving some stuff out of there, and clarifying other statements. For example, the Mona Charen article is reffered to, but not cited anywhere. Paisan30 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Problems

First off I think "The New Republic" hit piece is not even close to NPOV... But I guess It must be seen and rebutted...


"In January 2008, David Frum, senior adviser to the Rudolph Giuliani campaign and former Bush speechwriter, appeared on The Daily Show and, responding to a question about Paul's standing in the GOP, said "Ron Paul is one of these people who -- in a time of trouble, people turn often to some pretty terrible answers. And he is absolutely an example of that.". Later he continued "He's one of those people who, the more you learn about him, the more disturbing a personality he becomes." ---Conflict of interest

"In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals - not collectively. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.[178] Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews and the campaign. -----We have talked about how much TV journalism is to be added, so no final thoughts.

In Reason Magazine, Matt Welch questioned in a blog---&--and An Economist blog post continued, "if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that...Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views." Blogging for the UK's The Spectator, Clive Davis called Paul an "irrelevance", echoed a comment comparing Paul to David Duke, and said he was unconvinced by Paul's CNN denial of the comments.-------I put in a New York times blog, it was shouted down, now these are here?--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the Frum quote. He is a Giuliani adviser, so he is supposed to attack other candidates. Nothing particularly noteworthy there. The Blitzer thing makes sense to keep, since Paul was responding to the NR article. I tend to agree that there is too much reaction coverage to the newsletter story. Reason Magazine and The Economist are legitimate sources, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to include so many third-party opinions on the New Republic article. I think the article, newsletters and Paul's response should be adequate. Paisan30 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice analysis, I concur, the New Republic should stand on it's own with Paul's full responce. --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you do. You believe Paul didn't write the material, that he should be our next president, and that there should be as little coverage of his racist newsletter as possible. I hope you can see why your opinion isn't simply controlling for this article. --- tqbf 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking your concerns numbered 1 on,

  1. (New Republic) Sources don't have to be NPOV; the article text needs to be.
  2. (Frum) I agree, I think the conflict is obvious, I don't object to a graceful spelling out of the conflict, and I reject the idea that someone calling Ron Paul "disturbing" on the Daily Show can be kept out of the article (as it stands) because of a conflict. Sources don't have to honor WP:COI, the article text needs to.
  3. (Blitzer) I have no idea what this even means.
  4. (Reason) Read WP:RS. Blogs are RS when they are associated with print publications, and blogs are RS when they're written by prior published subject matter experts.

The only criticism that seems even slightly exposed here is the Frum critique. I'd have less of a problem letting Frum go if the rest of the article hadn't spent months and months collecting community college professor endorsements and "Hotties 4 Ron Paul". Now, I think the RP supporters don't have a leg to stand on. If anything, WP:WEIGHT goes far too heavily the other way. --- tqbf 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR?

JLMadrigal has inserted this three times:

Despite the controversy over his newsletters, no recorded audio or video of Ron Paul has been found in which he makes a racist or homophobic remark, and no vote in his 30-year voting record has favored one race over another.[179][180] He has been welcomed and supported by libertarians for consistently opposing groupism in all its manifestations - particularly racism.

The refs are to Project VoteSmart and On the Issues. The last statement is uncited. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "VoteSmart" link is clearly irrelevant; it basically says, "you can go look it up, if you want to repeat my research". --- tqbf 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And the "OnTheIssues" link is irrelevant for the same reason.
I agree with NH (unsurprisingly). A reliable source needs to write that his record contains no racial bias. Note that we can't write Paul is a racist --- even though some of us definitely think he is --- we're restricted to what reliable sources write. --- tqbf 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The entire statement is uncited. The VoteSmart and On the Issues links do not assert anything about every piece of audio or video that has ever existed regarding Ron Paul. Paisan30 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, JLMadrigal

Regarding this edit --- read the first sentence in WP:V. Don't argue about what the "burden of proof" is; do the legwork and get a cite that says it. I helped write the sentence you're reverting back in, I even agree with the voting record part of it, but you got challenged. The answer isn't to yell at the opposing editor. --- tqbf 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have included two cites that tabulate his entire voting record. BTW, by your logic, one would have to find cites to refute the statement: "The devil has a tail". If a record is challanged, the correct procedure is to put in a cite tag, not delete the diputed item. The comments of journalists are much less important than the actions of the person in question. And remember, one is innocent until proven guilty. The charge that Ron Paul is a racist is indeed baseless. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but studying an entire voting record and drawing conclusions from it is WP:OR. You should read that link, because there is a reason 4 different editors (none of them me) are reverting your changes and putting you over the 3RR limit. Find someone who has asserted that about Paul's voting record and cite them, or give up. What you're doing now is just going to frustrate you. --- tqbf 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK then, how do you suggest citing a 30 year voting record that does not hint at racism. Help me out here, tqbf. The media is foaming at the mouth about this. JLMadrigal (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
By finding some reliable source, somewhere, who makes the point that Paul has never voted for a racist measure in congress. If nobody has ever written that anywhere, consider whether:
  • There may not be merit in what you're saying, or
  • You've discovered something important that you should get on the record in a reliable source somewhere else.
There's nothing wrong with original research; you just have to do it somewhere outside Wikipedia. If it lands in a reliable source, you can then cite it here. --- tqbf 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The US Constitution in Basic English

For the benefit of the editors of this page, and in order to better understand the nature of the Ron Paul Revolution, I am including a link to a more readable version of the US Constitution - in case the original is not readable enough. All of his supporters have this document in common as their basis of support. Since obedience of the US Constitution is the heart of the revolution, any attempt at understanding the campaign is otherwise futile. As Ron Paul has said, "I take my marching orders from the Constitution." Here is the link:

http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/USConstitutionBasic.html

Pay particular attention to Article I, Sections 8-10 JLMadrigal (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No.--Tom 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please? JLMadrigal (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, consider whether someone else might think it's offensive to be told that they need to re-read the Bill of Rights; if you want some perspective, consider also that editors here could be from any country in the world, and that in no way disqualifies them from editing this article. What were you trying to accomplish with your original comment? What does it have to do with how we edit this article? Try rephrasing it. --- tqbf 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
JL, you're being uncivil. Stop assuming the worst of everyone. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Uncivil? Hmmm.
1) Article I, Sections 8-10 is not the "Bill of Rights", tqbf. It is the enumerated powers of Congress (AKA what the Congress has the authority to do). You will note that there has been no amendment removing the gold standard, or the two year limit for standing armies...
2) Anyone who is editing an article about RP needs to know who he is, in order to write authoritatively. I have been following him since 1988, and sandboxed this article in March - when he began his campaign. Anyone from any country or planet who knows who RP is can write authoritatively about him to the extent that they know who he is. Your claim that he is a racist speaks volumes. Do your homework, tqbf.
3) OK, I'll rephrase my request in Basic English (a language designed to help people with a limited knowledge of English understand it better):
For the good of the people who make changes to this page, and in order to be more clear about the Ron Paul Revolution, I am putting in a link to a more clear version of the US Constitution, which will help you read it - if the original is not simple enough. All of the people who are behind him have the US Constitution in common as their reason for supporting him. Their belief is that politicians should do as they are ordered by the US Constitution. This is the heart of the Ron Paul revolution. Any attempt to be clear about the campaign any other way is foolish. As Ron Paul has said, "I take my military orders from the Constitution." Here is the link:
http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/USConstitutionBasic.html
Put special attention on Article I, Sections 8-10 JLMadrigal (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, JLMadrigal. I wasn't paying attention to what you were citing in the Constitution; I have no interest whatsoever in your constitutional interpretation of Wikipedia policy. You are taking a lot of time without improving the article or, I suspect, convincing anybody that you are correct. Please note that even Paul supporters are reverting your article changes. --- tqbf 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My "constitutional interpretation of Wikipedia policy"? You're still not paying attention. Just read the blasted Article I, Sections 8-10, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It will give you a revelation about Ron Paul. And it'll only take about 10 minutes of your life. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-dent) You appear to be trying to convince me to support Paul, and not making suggestions about the article text. Perhaps you're too close to this material, maybe just today?, to edit it. --- tqbf 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I'm "too close to this material"? Interesting concept. Too knowledgeable? I'm just helping you know your material in order to keep this article unbiased. I'm helping you do your homework. If you (and your foreign editor friends) still think Paul is a racist, you haven't been paying attention. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Stormfront Material

We've now changed the source for the Stormfront donation from AlterNet to a message board thread (specifically disallowed by WP:V).

I don't buy that we can use AlterNet either. AlterNet is going to tend to favor my viewpoint (that Paul is a neo-confederate crackpot), but if we allow it, we also have to allow things like OpEdNews and a myriad of pro-Paul coatrack news sources.

I also think the Stormfront charge is inflammatory and that the bar we need to clear for sourcing it is higher.

I can't revert Terjen's latest change, because Duchamps_comb called 3RR on me, but until we have a good source, we should remove the graf.

--- tqbf 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll remove the section about Bill White's claims until a better source can be found. PRËTËNTI0üZ (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced Bill White's claims to an earlier a post in the on-line magazine of the New York Times. Terjen (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Which was retracted. I think the coverage we have now --- which minimizes the controversy --- is adequate. I'd be surprised if you wanted to spend more than a few sentences on it. You know, he's appeared smiling in photographs with the guy. right? --- tqbf 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate coverage

I'm in the process of editing these.

I'm writing detailed edit summaries, but I want to discuss what I did with the first South Carolina debates here; if consensus accepts it, I'm going to keep doing it.

  1. I'm removing lengthy quotes from the debate itself; we're writing about the debates, not hosting transcripts. Where appropriate, I've including short notable quotes.
  2. It's inappropriate to explain things like "Operation Ajax" inline in debate coverage. I've cut much of this out. This is what wiki links are for.
  3. I'm removing text Wikipedia editors have added about how Paul's previous statements and actions harmonize with his claims in the debate, for a couple reasons: (1) it's too damn wordy, (2) Paul's debate claims haven't been disputed and don't need justification, (3) it repeats points made elsewhere in the Paul Galaxy of WP articles, and (4) it puts undue weight on Paul's arguments, implying that he is right.
  4. I'm removing coverage of Paul's appearances on TV before and after the debates, for a couple reasons: (1) they don't say anything other than that he appeared, (2) it's completely obvious that he would appear on TV bracketing the debates, and (3) it's too damn wordy.
  5. I'm removing Paul campaign responses to the debate and its coverage, except where there is some dispute that the campaign response addresses. Every campaign will produce a press release after a debate, fellow editors.
  6. I'm collapsing coverage of debate performance endorsements and online poll performance.

I want to write that these polls are "unscientific" (this isn't really a matter of opinion --- there's no such thing as a "scientific" self-selected poll), but I've avoided doing so until Terjen and Buspar can help come up with a neutral way of saying this. --- tqbf 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be delighted to do that - I was an early critic of such self-selected web based "polling" as non-scientific, including publicly speaking out about them at the Third World Wide Web Conference in 1995 in relation to a presentation on using the web as a survey tool. Rather than explicitly labeling them as "unscientific", I in general favor consistently using more precise term like "vote" and "voting" (and in some cases "petition"), avoiding the term "poll" all together. There is an entry for Open access poll that can be linked if the term "poll" is used. Terjen (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a bitch.

I tried really, really hard not to make any changes that altered the editorial stance of each section --- at no point did I introduce language to suggest that Paul had or hadn't "won" a debate. My intention here was to strip the coverage down to bare facts, so we can get a handle on how to condense it further. Comments, particularly from Terjen and Buspar, would be welcome --- I'll do my best to fix anything you think I've broken (clearly you can just go fix it yourself if you want). --- tqbf 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you move anything to the main article? Also, did you check to minimize redundancy? A version without all the headings might work better, with the lesser debates grouped together in paragraph form. Right now it looks like a list. It's a good start, though. Buspar (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising

I have a simple question:

Why are there six paragraphs of information about fundraising in Q3'07?

--- tqbf 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is because fund-raising achievements seem to be the biggest accomplishment of the campaign thus far. Every time I discuss Paul, the "he's raised so much money" thing comes out. Raising money is great, but if you can't convert it to votes, there's not much point. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And for what it's worth: I'm fine with that --- I'm fine if this article has more debate and fundraising question that McCain's or Obama's, because this is a campaign that is notable primarily for debate appearances and fundraising.
But I'm really specifically interested in why Q3'07 has six grafs for fundraising. It's huge. Buspar? What's the deal here? --- tqbf 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now there isn't. Make a case for why we needed 3 grafs of OR about itemized donation counts on a state-by-state basis (hey, fundraising isn't a state-by-state contest!), especially when nobody cares enough to dispute it --- this whole thing fit in one graf, and no longer reads like a 1040. --- tqbf 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements vs. Donations

We cannot list donations --- especially donations mined out of donor lists at OpenSecrets --- as endorsements. People can have a variety of reasons for donating to candidates. They can be donating uniformly to a party. They can be trying to "throw" the nomination, as the GOP tried with the Dems in '04. PACs and corporations routinely donate to both sides of an election.

I just sniped several of these, but barring a loud and convincing objection, I'm going to scrub the endorsements clean of the ones that are synthesized out of evidence. Strong evidence of endorsement it may be, but it's not going in the article unless it's verifiable. --- tqbf 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the idea that a donation isn't an endorsement. Let me ask one further: Why are we listing very unnoteworthy people? I plan to ask this on other candidates articles as well, but this seems to be one of the bigger listings. I liked Buffy too, but is the endorsement of a supporting actress from a show no longer being made really that relevant? Or the son of Tim Russert? Guys who ran for an office at some point in some state and lost? I know they are listed on Paul's site, but are they relevant to the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements section

I advocate splitting this into a separate article. Here is my rationale: the endorsements section allocates a huge number of references. This article currently has over 250 of them. The inline list of endorsements makes it more difficult to audit references, contributes substantially to the size of the article, and could easily be summarized with a paragraph of prose in this article. Just a thought. Any opinions? --- tqbf 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just say no to sprawl. How about we split up the list and mercilessly edit down those that aren't really full endorsements, or those that don't really need to be listed. If the list is still too long, then split. Burzmali (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ow my brain. I cut ~10k out of the article by:

  • Following the lead on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and condensing celebrity and "other" endorsements into a single graf (note that Hillary's list includes people like, oh, Steven Spielburg, and Paul's includes people like "former race car calendar model Bunni Hossenfeffer" --- hyperbole, but not much, and my point is if it's good enough for the guy who made E.T., it's good enough for Paul).
  • Removing NN academic cites --- I feel like I made a concession here by retaining the names of schools for which NN professors had endorsed Paul
  • Removing NN celeb and "other" cites, and particularly NN former political candidates, and how do I know they're NN? Because they don't have articles. And how do you dispute that they're NN? By creating a stub article and seeing if it dies in AfD --- but please don't.

And my real point is, the list is still too long, and if someone wants to make another pass great, but I'm still in favor of splitting it. Also, ow. --- tqbf 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep hope alive!

We're at 88k now. If we keep pushing, keep getting rid of redundant stuff, finish merging stuff out to the split articles, then the main article for this campaign could hit 60k this week! 60k means "maybe doesn't need to be shattered into a million pieces"! If you will it, it is no dream! --- tqbf 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Herzl, Dude. State of Israel. If you will it, is no dream. Paisan30 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This ain't 'nam, dude. There are rules! --- tqbf 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What do we think of the Tea Party?

See this diff, which adds back 3k worth od text that I think is already well-covered in both this article and Moneybomb.

If there isn't a strong consensus to keep it, I'm just going to remove it again. Would be grateful if someone else did it for me, though. --- tqbf 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to have an entire section on it. I will just add a little more to the place where it's already referenced, and remove the superfluous section. Paisan30 (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
These are significant events in the campaign and should be covered with reasonable details. The Moneybomb article is more general and doesn't cover Paul specifics (but I am not arguing it should). Terjen (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I kept most of the content. It has several citations, and the main details of the event. Paisan30 (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it, it is a 2008 developement, very short. And "Would be grateful if someone else did it for me, though." DO NOT look for meatpuppets please.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been added to 4Q it looks OK. But I know how you guys work in a few days you will simply go in and delete that info too. Thanks...--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you don't know what a "meat puppet" is, for what it's worth. The Tea Party discussion has continued below; the Tea Party is a "Money bomb" (gag). --- tqbf 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Moneybomb

Note that the Moneybomb article is Paul-specific; if we aren't merging Paul-specific Moneybomb material from here to there, I'm probably going to AfD it --- tqbf 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, we already tried to AfD that page and it failed... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well aware; 'no consensus. Several hundred edits later, more POV problems, and a less favorable news cycle --- I'm guessing, Moneybomb dies. You going to vote for it? I hear any Paul skeptic say they vote to "keep" a Moneybomb article that claims to be not-Paul-specific (thus keeping Moneybomb content here) and I'll hold off. --- tqbf 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The page hasn't been touched in twelve days, and it's still WP:COATRACK to me. So yeah, I'm in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am agnostic about the moneybomb article. But I do note that the entry currently isn't Paul specific, contaning sentences like "In the case of lesser-known candidates it is also intended to generate significant free mass media coverage the candidate would otherwise not receive" and "Unofficial drives set up after November 5 in support of Fred Thompson,[2][13] Barack Obama,[4] and Dennis Kucinich[14] were referred to by the media as moneybombs." It's your time, but perhaps the entry could just as well stay around in case the term sticks (if it hasn't already). Terjen (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The current entry isn't Paul-specific because editors including John Bulten and Duchamps_comb believed --- I think --- that they needed to keep it neutral to have it survive AfD, deletion review, and RfC. The "neutrality" of the article is its primary defense against being merged back here.
I am not advocating that we simply AfD Moneybomb --- rather, we should call it what it is, a WP:SUMMARY branch of this article. We'd lose another 5-7k worth of (mostly redundant) verbiage if we did, and that's a win. I'm guessing approximately 0 people per month ever go looking for "Moneybomb" on WP without looking for Paul. --- tqbf 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A benefit of keeping a neutral moneybomb is that we can just link to it and save our entry from a more detailed explanation of the concept. Details about the Paul money bombs should stay in the presidential campaign entry rather than being forked out. Moneybomb is currently linked from History of the United States (since 1988), Trevor Lyman, Grassroots fundraising, Mike Gravel and Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008. Terjen (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectively, neutral, Paul-specific, neutral, not present, and not present. Note also, one of my biggest problems with Moneybomb is the attempt it makes to brand other campaigns with a Paul-specific term, as if Obama and Clinton were "learning" how to raise funds from Paul. Would rather this be made clearer, not muddier. --- tqbf 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, the "media mentions" of, say, Obama fundraising as moneybombs? Heavily disputed. Much of this was referenced to blogs, or to passing comments in news stories where one campaign was being compared to another. --- tqbf 07:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NEO also kicks in on Moneybomb. Moneybombs were all the rage before the primary season, but now? There are zero mentions of the term "Moneybomb" in Google News in the last week [2]. Burzmali (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, although a google news search for money bomb suggests that has become the preferred way to write it, with several recent mentions. Terjen (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I looked up the article cited on Barack Obama in the Unofficial drives section Terjen pasted, and the term "moneybomb" isn't in that article. The term is used by participants in the article's "post comments" section, but not in the media source itself. I'm not going to tech-check the other citations in the article, nor am I gonna go in and start editing it since I'm distant from the material, but just an observation that there is evidence of WP:COATRACK there. Townlake (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to take a quick show of hands? Merge out Moneybomb content here to Moneybomb, delete Moneybomb, or keep as is? This isn't binding, of course.

  • Merge out is my take. --- tqbf 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep --Duchamps_comb MFA 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. These were major events in the grassroots campaign, and should not be forked out and hidden away. The moneybomb entry will benefit from not getting all the Paul campaign specifics, and may be generalized or deleted in the future depending on whether the term has taken hold. Terjen (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moneybomb has gotten enough attention to warrant a separate article. Buspar (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchamps_comb Rosa Parks comment

Here and here are two edits by Duchamps_comb that inject the following into the article:

...Rosa Parks were personal heroes because they stood for individual rights. That we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin....

(Addition bolded). I have three objections to this language:

  1. It's a sentence fragment.
  2. It's tonally incorrect for an encyclopedia
  3. It adds nothing to the article --- it is patently obvious that Paul claims not to be concerned with the color of people's skin from the previous text.

Here is my article text, which I propose is the correct text:

He stated that he had "never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts," and asserted that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were personal heroes because they stood for individual rights.

I invite anybody, especially Duchamps, to come up with compromise wording, or validate that the text is fine the way it was before Duchamps_comb changed it.

Fair warning: the following Duchamps_comb edits are reversions under WP:3RR

Can someone else here talk to this person? I'm done; he filed a 3RR on me (declined) behind my back, and then an ANI case, and if he keeps reverting, I'm going to start escalating this. --- tqbf 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that extra sentence is out of context with the rest of the paragraph, and does not add anything further to it. I, in my spin-watch glasses, see its addition as simply show how accepting Paul is. Though, like I say, that's a tainted opinion. Fin©™ 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

tqbf's POV problem

As you can see from the following edits tqbf has an obvious editing history. With such statement from edit summarys:

-next! Houston is adjacent to Paul's district [3]

-let's play "cut the most negative/newsworthy thing out of every quote" again, buspar [4]

-and Reason Magazine. Good luck spinning that one; the editor at Reason just called Paul a liar. [5]

-and now we have the Economist --- with actual reporting! Another fun one to try to spin [6]

-hey look! The Washington Post isn't much a fan either; here's an actual straight editorial on him [7]

-heh, turns out, if you're an RP supporter, you don't want to look too closely at this one! [8]


So Should someone with such distane for a canidate (Ron Paul) be so agressavely editing this page? Look at his controbutions [9] is he single minded, or close to being a SPA?

Here's a few comments on this talk page:

“Again: editors are not required to be NPOV (that's Orwellian). Content is. Paul is a fringe candidate.” --- tqbf 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

“I've fixed the section. Naturally, Paulbots will revert it, but at least that's time taken away from create yet another 20 articles about the candidacy. Just a few more days to go!” --- tqbf 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

...”Now that Paul's unpopularity is beginning to be demonstrated verifiably...there's a lot more negative stuff about Paul in the most recent news cycle than in pretty much all previous cycles put together, and my inclination is that the article should be including it aggressively. Will wait for other editors to chime in. There are coming up on 10 reliable sources commenting on the neo-Confederacy story alone. “--- tqbf 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

“I am absolutely unsympathetic to the argument that there's "too much" criticism material in the article now; this article was absurdly overweight before any criticism was added, and virtually nothing has been done to correct that problem”. --- tqbf 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoping for meatpuppets?

“I can't revert Terjen's latest change, because Duchamps_comb called 3RR on me, but until we have a good source, we should remove the graf.” --- tqbf 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, just so we're clear --- "puppets" are things that interfere with formal debates. You can't "canvass" for "meatpuppets" on an article talk page. If you feel like you need that explained to you formally, feel free to ask Help Desk. --- tqbf 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I'm over 3RR on the relevant page, and trust that other editors will revert inappropriate changes until Monday. --- tqbf 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have is active, aggressive, productive editing, not an edit war, and WP:BRD is working fine. We have a number of opposing editors who have agreed not to count edits, but apparantly Duchamps_comb isn't one of them.I had to look at this guy's contribs just to find out he had written a 3RR report--- tqbf 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some one needs a break...--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A better summary of my contribution is here, or you can check out my user page --- starting at "Articles I Have Given A Shit About". I'm sorry you feel this way, but you are exceedingly unlikely to convince me to edit differently this way. --- tqbf 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
While I agree tqbf can be a little too antagonistic in his edit summaries and comments, I think his editing is a balance to the amount of pro-Paul editing that goes on in this article. Like he says, editors do not have to be NPOV, just look at anyone's user page. Also, duchamps, this is not the place to bring up a problem you have with an editor, see one of your previous contributions for precedent. Fin©™ 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to play fair, Duchamps, take a look at your own contributions. Having said this, although I think this conversation needs to be had, it shouldn't be done on this talk page. The sheer number of edits around here is far more than it should be. I don't see Duchamps or tqbf laying off, and I don't really they should. But perhaps reading WP:CIVIL would help some. And if not, then we need to take this higher to RFC/U. Should this go higher than that, everyone's comments around here will be scrutinized. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious about how many edits we think we should have here; this page still needs drastic editing. --- tqbf 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The article gets at least 50 edits a day. You'd think that, somewhere in there, things would get fixed. Consider, for example, that the edit war on the Liancourt Rocks page was fixed in less than 50 edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's tough to fix things quickly when most of the editors have squared off on opposing sides, but I'm going to point out that the article went from 130k to 88k in one day of editing (yesterday), without undue drama --- and yeah, we had to spend some serious editcount to do it. 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by tqbf (talk • contribs)
Also, HA, let's be careful about the words "edit war". Spirited editing with occasional reverts and frequent talk page edits may be annoying to follow, but it is not an edit war. When we get reverted in mainspace, we may bitch a lot here, but pretty much none of us are simply reverting things back blindly. --- tqbf 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say this page was an edit war; I said that Liancourt was. I only meant that if a page that has been the source of so many problems can be solved that quickly, surely this page can be resolved. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is at 140 kilobytes, knock your selves out...--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a slight difference. John McCain could be the next President of the United States of America. Paisan30 (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Wiki is not a crystal ball and neither are you. What you think of McCain's chances are irrelevant to the topic at hand. The length of Paul's article is determined by the coverage he receives, not his chances of winning. So long as the edits and cuts are based on removing poorly sourced material or increasing the efficiency of the language, there's no problem. (Not that there isn't some debate on just how well this is being followed by both sides of the debate.) Buspar (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
He's just fucking with you. Is anyone seriously suggesting this article should be cut down because Paul isn't viable? I'm not. This article should be cut down because it's sprawling and out of control. Look how much we were able to cut out of the debates, just by not writing as if Paul actually appearing on television or actually being addressed by Mike Huckabee was a notable event in and of itself. POV issues are going to keep this from being a GA, but we're within a few days work of meeting the prose writing requirements for it. --- tqbf 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there; a sprawling article benefits no one: it reflects bad on Paul's campaign and it's not good for Wiki, either. If not for school now taking precedence over Wiki (Winter vacation ended too soon), I'd be able to help more than I have been recently. Buspar (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea. Sorry, I was getting frustrated with the complaining. :) Paisan30 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the time it seems like you feel we're just making stuff up. WP:SIZE has guidelines. --- tqbf 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NAACP edits

My addition regarding the defense of RP by the NAACP president was up for 8 minutes before tqbf deleted it in its entirety. So much for unbiased. So much for this "support" he was talking about (as if an NAACP defense is not noteworthy). JLMadrigal (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your original edit was POV, logically unsound (one black guy's say-so makes all the racism go away?), factually incorrect (Austin president, not president) and cited with an unreliable source (Prison Planet). I was in the process of deleting it myself. I still think the Prison Planet ref fails to meet WP:RS, but I imagine this will hit a more reputable outlet in time. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-dent) but he's the president of black people, NH! :P

The solution to the Prison Planet problem in this case --- because I think we'd have a bitter fight trying to keep the NAACP thing out of the article --- is to simply say, "According to online conspiracy theorist website Prison Planet, ...". --- tqbf 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, tqbf, "according to NAACP Austin president." Gotcha. Don't shoot the messenger. And boy it's obvious you want to do a smear job! Guilty as charged. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is relevant. Prison Planet is not a reliable source. That said, I'm willing to exercise a little common sense and, given that there's YouTube audio, assume that this utterance happened, even though neither of these meet WP:RS. I am not in favor of accepting Prison Planet interpretations of what those utterances mean, which is why I removed a description of Linder decrying a "smear" on Paul's candidacy.
I didn't describe PP as a "conspiracy theorist website" as per tqbf's sugestion, though I have no real objection to doing so. It just didn't fit into the sentence very smoothly. I did add a link to Alex Jones (radio) though. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about Alex Jones, but I took an hour of my time yesterday to clean up the "Endorsements" section and learned that the authors of this article have listed him as a "conspiracy theorist". Then I visited "Prison Planet" (which I knew by reputation) to find out that it was Alex Jone's site. And there you are. --- tqbf 04:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So by your logic, the radio show on which Linder makes Paul's defense discredits that defense? Hmmm. I believe the correct term for that smear method is "guilt by association." JLMadrigal (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What part of the content there do you want changed? --- tqbf 13:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements (part II)

The Endorsements section is still part of why this article is bloated. Many of the links are to non-notable people (former communications director of a minor third party); or are not links to an endorsement, but to a campaign donation (not the same thing, as people have noted). I'd like to see this trimmed back, in spite of the person who said something like "But we really need this to show how popular Ron Paul is." (If you don't see the POV in that objection, you need to think really heavily about editing any RP-related articles for a while.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Burzmali has started doing this; but he started with state legislators (current and past), who are automatically notable, as I understand it, whether redlinked or not. Am I not correct on that? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask what makes a state legislator (former or current) "automatically notable"? In many states, it's not even a full time job. they are often one of hundreds in that position. I've followed some of the links that have wiki-articles and they are up for deletion because of lack of notability. A governor would be notable, but a state legislator, in most case, would not be in my opinion. Same with former candidates for office (they ran, but haven't been elected to anything). In reality, how notable are former one-term congressmen? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll have a hard time finding a successful AfD of a state legislator; see this AfD for an instructive counterexample.
Having said that, just because someone can claim de jure notability doesn't mean they are notable, just as a claim that someone is a state senator in a list of endorsements doesn't mean that they actually are. My suggestion is, politicians who don't have articles should either:
Wikipedia:Notability# (people) (section) "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Be removed from the list of endorsements, or
  • Have stub articles created for them, so we can keep track of what needs to be verified.
Happy to do the legwork myself (may not wait for consensus just to create a bunch of stubs, either). --- tqbf 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
... also, painful as it is to say, statewide elected officeholder endorsements are significant --- more so that celebrity endorsements. --- tqbf 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed only former state legislators who were red-linked. I don't see it so much as an issue of notability as one of relevance. My assumption was that they were all probably notable, but only those relevant to the current political climate should have their endorsements listed. By default, if they lacked an article, I took that as a sign that they were not currently considered relevant. I left the current state legislators alone because holding such an office makes them relevant. Burzmali (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I cut a lot out over the weekend (and a sincere thank-you to the Paul advocates who didn't revert or contest every change, as I would have done to them in the inverse); I stopped when we started getting close to the stuff that Hillary Clinton had in her campaign article. I think the size of this section is a problem, and it's a problem shared with all the campaign articles; it is not Wikipedia's place to provide full, up-to-the-minute listings of endorsements. We should be focusing on the notable ones. --- tqbf 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Austin NAACP Quote

JLMadrigal and I are disputing the graf on the the Austin NAACP guy's quote. Does anyone else think the article should contain the entire quote? Everyone else's quotes are integrated (sometimes poorly) into the prose, and this NAACP guy now gets more space in the article than Paul himself.

--- tqbf 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't contain the entire quote, just enough elements to show that the leader is well informed about Paul's views, and to show his take on who what when and where of the hype. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Now it contains the quote that is relevant to the issue. Paisan30 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate that we can't just write about what he said, instead of copying it in, but I'm OK with this as a compromise. --- tqbf 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If y'all need to butcher the quote, can you at least keep the elements from both of your patches? JLMadrigal (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a summary with a fragment for the gist should be sufficient. The whole thing would make the section too long. Buspar (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cutting opinions on newsletters

I'm happy to see us cutting back the section, but I'd like to see this precedent become binding; if we're keeping it to the facts, there's a lot of other sources I'm going to be scrubbing out of the article as well.

--- tqbf 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to avoid opinions in a Criticism section. Some of the current statements should be removed not because they are opinion, but because they are irrelevant:

Dan Kennedy criticized the media for not following up on the stories, saying Kirchick's New Republic findings "deserve a broader audience". Opining that many of Paul's votes were likely to come from anti-war liberals, Kennedy wrote "at the very least, those folks need to know precisely for whom they are voting."[10]

The first sentence is a critic of mass media, not Paul. The second is an underhand voting advice and not a criticism: Imagine the Hillary Clinton entry containing opinions from pundits saying progressive or liberal voters shouldn't vote for her.
-- Terjen (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean, I disagree --- there's obviously a phenomenon of left-liberal voters advocating Paul, and a reasonable person (such as myself) could clearly argue that they've been sold a bill of goods. I think it's a valid and valuable point to make in the article. But I'm not going to get militant about it. --- tqbf 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It would indeed be a detour if the entry were to include a discussion about whether Paul supporters from the left have been sold a bill of goods by Paul... or by those convincing them to to be liberals in the first place. Some say there is a peaceful revolution going on, perhaps this is a piece in the puzzle. Maybe soon we will have an article on the subject were we can document these developments. Terjen (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I took out the Guardian, Atlantic Monthly and CBS entries because they were merely opinion pieces. The original story is cited, and the newsletters themselves are linked. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I kept the Reason magazine article because it uncovered new facts, and the NAACP quote because it's a civic leader's response to the controversy. Paisan30 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Romney's Mormons"

How do I hate this quote? Let me count the ways:

  1. It implies Mormon votes are somehow counted differently than "human" votes
  2. It presents the OR proposition that had Romney not been in the race, those votes would have broken proportionally for Paul
  3. It's yet another "Paul is #1 among those who voted for Paul" bit of spin, which hurts the tone of the article
  4. It presents a fact that had nothing to do with the final rankings: as AP notes, had no Mormon voted, Romney still would have won decisively

Ok, I guess there's just 4 ways. But they're good ways.

Let's not fix this language, or neutralize this language, or downplay this language. This is an article about the Paul campaign. Take the Mormon thing out, please. --- tqbf 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. I would have deleted it, but I'm getting sick of battling with Paulites about every letter. This implies that Mormons vote Romney just because he is Mormon. Imagine if someone attributed all of Obama's black votes only to the fact he is black. How long would that stand on his page? Could they have voted for him because his values reflect theirs? Approx. 25% identified themselves as Mormon. Even if you take them all away, Romney still beat Paul by more than 10%. Further, this stat requires presuming that everyone who answered was truthful. Voter registration doesn't include religious preference and people aren't always truthful about who they voted for. If they were, exit polling wouldn't be as wildly inaccurate as it has been sometimes. tqbf hit it right on the head: This is pure spin, another "Paul is #1 among those who voted for Paul". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The linked AP article also says that Romney won among Protestants and Catholics but that info is not present here, presumably because it does not fall within the scope of the article. And neither does the Mormon quote. The way this information is presented is misleading, decontextualized and practically begs the reader to draw a particular conclusion--presumably that Mormon tribalism was the leading factor in Romney's win over Paul. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Our Nevada section states that Romney got 51% of the vote, with Paul "far behind" implied and said explicitly originally. If we are going to make that a point, we owe our readers to explain the reason. According to NPOV sources, Mormons came out disproportionally in this election (25% GOP voters were Mormons yet they are only a tiny 6% of the entire Nevada electorate[11]) and almost all voted as a block for Romney, explaining about half of his votes.[12] Only 11% of registered republican voters showed up in the election.[13] Without Mormons coming out to vote disproportionate to their numbers, Romney's percentage would be down in the twenties with Paul trailing close below. Later in the paragraph we state that "Romney and Paul were the only two Republican candidates to campaign and run ads in the state". Isn't that perhaps misguiding our readers to discount Paul's second finish in Nevada? Terjen (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You're falsely assuming that if Romney wasn't in the race that the same Mormons would not have voted. There is no way of showing that those same people wouldn't have voted and chosen another candidate. In fact, if you want to project, if that same 25% split between McCain and Huckabee (probably more would have gone Huckabee), Paul would have ended up third. Mormons or not, there is NO WAY you can spin this to make it a Paul victory. I'm willing to bet that the only state he stands a chance of getting more than he did in NV is Texas because it's his home. Other than that, he's going to be 4-5 every place else. Just be happy with the fluke that he got second and leave it alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You say "there is NO WAY you can spin this to make it a Paul victory", but I am not. You are correctly pointing out that I have no way to show that the Mormons wouldn't have come out in disproportionate numbers even if Romney, a fellow Mormon, wasn't in the race. I leave it up to the reader of this talk page to evaluate this for themselves, although we know Romney ran a get-out-the-vote campaign targeting Nevada mormons. The statement in our entry only states that "About half of Romney's votes came from Mormons", citing an NPOV source. We could expand it to provide more context if this is needed to remedy reasonable concerns including its relevance for the Paul vote. Terjen (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If there's no direct conclusion you can draw without WP:OR about Paul's own performance in the caucus, the fact is inappropriate for the article. Even if the fact is defensible as germane to the article, flow and weight concerns militate for its removal. Paul didn't win Nevada, but he came in second place. Congratulations! Let's move on. --- tqbf 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I struck the content. I've watched 3 revisions of this content add progressively more context, and the more context we add, the more obvious it is that this is not a fact that belongs in the Ron Paul article. It's an obvious bad sign when a fact about Romney demands more references than those about Paul. --- tqbf 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Huckabee is a Baptist minister, yet Baptist vote for plenty of other people. The implication is that Mormons voted for Romney solely because of his religion, which can't be proven or disproven. Considering the amount of fighting Paulites have done over the implications of the newsletters, I'd think they'd be very sensitive to the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline order of Nevada

Usually, facts are stated in time-based order. Events that occur prior to an election should be stated before the results of the election. Specifically, the facts that only Romney and Paul campaigned in Nevada prior to the election should appear before the results are presented. Let's discuss. —XSG 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The section is titled Primary/caucus results. It thus makes sense to open with the results before providing context, rather than writing "Paul campaigned and ran ads in the state. He finished second in the Nevada Republican caucuses with 14% of the vote." Terjen (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case then, based on the title, the information isn't relevant and should be struck anyway. Instead, this information belongs in the "Primary/caucus campaign" section. —XSG 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I think it makes sense to provide context for the results, but I am happy to comply with the consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Explaining Romney's extraordinary result

Terjen just made the comment: "if Romney is not relevant, then he shouldn't be included, if he is, we also need the context explaining his extraordinary result". Here is the explaination: The reason Romney got over 3 times as many votes is because 3 times as many people voted for him. That it! Stop trying to "explain" why your guy got trounced. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for Romney's extraordinary result in Nevada is more complex than that he got more people voting for him. See e.g. Mormons Key for Romney in Nevada from Associated Press. I think it makes sense to provide context for the results, but I am happy to comply with the consensus if that is to not mention Romney. Terjen (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I honestly feel that it smacks of stereotyping and implies that they voted for Romney solely for religious reasons. Further, even without them, Romney would have won by a significant margin. Why the arguing about lumping a group together when one of Paul's principals is the individual over the collective? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Romney and Paul were the only candidates to campaign in the state. That is THE major factor in both candidates' totals. That's the reason to mention Romney. It's just common sense to also mention Romney's percentage. Paisan30 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are several significant reasons for the result, including Mormons disproportionately coming out to vote for Romney. We should mention the significant ones, or none. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should figure out why McCain did almost as well despite not campaigning there. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, just leave it as "half Romney's vote came from Mormons". I am pretty sure that Nevada will be the only primary in which Ron Paul is even close to being a factor, so I guess a little more detail is OK. The article is very long already, and will probably be shortened after February 5. Paisan30 (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a crystal ball (either) but I suspect this will go on until November, whether or not Paul wins the Republican candidacy. See you around! Terjen (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You honestly think he even has a chance at the nomination? LOL! As for a third pary run...he has said several times that he won't do it, so it'll just make him look dishonest. I highly doubt he stays in until the Repub;ican convention. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't be an ass, Niteshift36. This discussion should be about how to make Wikipedia articles as good as possible. Save the silly commentaries and speculations for your own talk page. —XSG 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your personal attack above, we don't do that around here, XSG. If you haven't already, take a look at WP:CIV and WP:NPA. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If Terjen can offer his prediction, so can I. His opinion is of no greater relevence. I laughed at it, but I didn't say he was stupid for having it. Nor did I call him an ass. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Google employees donations

According to the article, Google employees have donated $22,650 to Ron Paul. As Ron Paul has received millions of dollars in donations, I don't think that the factoid is really relevant or accurate as the employer field in OpenSecrets.org is blank for millions of dollars of donations to the Paul campaign. Burzmali (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps you should remove it? —XSG 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a reliable source that wrote a full article around that Paul is by far the most popular Republican candidate among Google employees.[14] Terjen (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So, I can find reliable sources claiming all kinds of things. How is that relevant to the article? A better statement would be that he has received far more money from people listing their profession as "SELF" in OpenSecrets.org, admittedly WP:OR but at least relevant. Burzmali (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting conundrum. If a report states something in an article as fact, does that establish it as a source for presenting the fact in Wikipedia? What's more, since the reporter made the statement at a certain point in time and the situation will likely fluctuate, would it be more viable as a fact if the statement read, "As of 20 December, 2007, ..." Are there any Wikipedia policies which might provide insight as to how we should procede regarding this "fact"? —XSG 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#STATS. Unless this info can be placed in a meaningful context in a non-confusing way (which is probably impractical in this particular case), I'd respectfully interpret the guideline to discourage inclusion of this fun fact. Townlake (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That Google employees is the top contributor is hardly a "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" or lack context (as suggested by WP:NOT#STATS) - the sentence is in our Fund-raising section. Terjen (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)