Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

lx=simple

Could someone start an article @ http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul , I tried once before an failed, so it was deleted. I also put it in the wrong spot :? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.114 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does he support lobbying in Congress

Seems like most of our problems are special interest lobbies.

Dr. Paul's position on lobbyists is that they exercise a first amendment right to petition the government, so it's fine and dandy to be a lobbyist, and he would place no restrictions on lobbying.

That being said, he contends that lobbyists exist in the first place because of the unconstitutional concentration of power in Washington. Lobbyists try to get members of congress to vote for tax breaks, regulations and subsidies for their clients' economic advantage at the expense of their competitors and the taxpayers in general, and Paul's position is that the federal government shouldn't have the power to interfere in markets and confer such advantages to anyone.

SPAM

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.48.49 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement. This is an article about the political views of a presidential candidate. It isn't going to be deleted as spam. Life, Liberty, Property 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does belong here

"Ron Paul has committed himself for over 30 years to eliminating the Federal Reserve Board, which is a privately owned entity that has a coercive stranglehold on the U.S. Ron Paul has many a times confronted these issues to congress which subsequently "disallowed" any audits of the Federal Reserve Board. Hypothetically speaking, the same group of people that owns our Federal Reserve Board must also have a stranglehold on all of the world's existing "central banks." Investigations suggest that the families behind the Federal Reserve Empire, are the same culprits responsible for the world's war agendas dating back to the American Revolution if not further."

Hypotheticals, conspiracies, and coercive strangleholds? Is this what we should expect from a supposed "encyclopedia" article? This is pretty shameful, even by Wikipedia standards. Just a complete disregard for objectivity, which isn't really all that much of a problem in the grand scheme of things, but it's pretty disappointing to know there will be those who actually form opinions based on this kind of stuff.

What? What information is more relevant about a politician than his political views? Do we expect articles on Hitler, Lenin, or Mussolini that don't explain Nazism, Leninism, or Fascism? Seems like Paul believes in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States: Natural Rights.

The man's political positions are here in black and white. I would think such clear statements of what a politicians stand for would be a great resource to thier critics most of the time. If you disagree with him, here are his positions clearly stated, so now you know it. If you think the politician is dishonest or inconsistent, what better way to prove this than to look at his professed political beliefs and compare them to his voting record?

He's a ten term congressman, so critics are now well armed to comb his past speeches and voting record. Call him on any inconsistencies or hypocracy. How many politicians today are honest enough that an article such as this would stand, open to public editing based on thier voting record? Critics should love such opportunitiies. So have at it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

-Added by DC7, on 6/6/2007

Sam Brownback is more popular as a candidate, and Chuck Hagel is approximately as popular as Ron Paul. Why are there no articles for their political views? Consistency is important. I would, however, suggest that this is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Speedily.

How is Brownback more popular as a candidate? Cite the polls... they're even or close to even, and I'm willing to bet Paul has raised more money than Brownback has. Chuck Hagel isn't a candidate in this race yet. When did you write this and who are you? Please sign your posts with four tildes or you make Wikipedia talk pages very confusing.--71.65.202.41 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does belong here. It helps citizens interested in the United States presidential race gather more information and make an informed decision. However, from Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election, Ron Paul came in sixth place in first quarter fundraising among all Republican candidates. Republican candidates who out-raised him include Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo.

Ron Paul did much better in the second quarter, and as mentioned in either this article or the main Ron Paul article, has more cash on hand than John McCain. This is because he hasn't spent much money campaigning:

"Arizona Sen. John McCain, once the early favorite to win the nomination, reported raising a disappointing $11.2 million in the second quarter with only $2 million cash on hand — $400,000 less than Paul. His campaign said his support of immigration reform legislation hurt his fundraising ability.

Paul, with only 11 staffers on his campaign, runs a frugal campaign. The Texas Republican rarely travels to key campaign states." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/06/paul-has-more-campaign-cash-than-mccain/)

BareAss 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Xvall Pretty much every candidate has one of these now. It's equal and everyone is happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I Agree - This article belongs here. Of course it doesn't balance his opinion with others....that's what its supposed to be, information about HIS view. So what if it looks like it was written by his campaign team - political programs ARE important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.4.90 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't belong here

This article in its current form does not belong in wikipedia or any other site that tries to be a neutral source of information. This entire article reads as if it was written by his campaign team.

There's very little criticism or analysis of this person's views, but plenty of outlines of his key policies, exactly the kind of policies that he'd want to advertise as a presidential candidate. There's evidence that he annoys his colleagues, but his candidacy is apparently built entirely around this kind of anti-establishment reputation, as he wants to attract the votes of those disillusioned with politics.

Phrases like "He opposes surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations - thus supports withdrawal of funds and participation." are so politically loaded as to be meaningless.

(Reply: No, this statement has a very clear meaning. These are all words in common english usage, and clearly defined in the dictionary. Perhaps "He's against giving up the United States' right to self determination" or "He claims granting legislative authority to organizations outside the US, not composed of representives elected by it's citizens, is to surrender sovereignty" are easier to understand? To me, the meaning seems very clear, but if you find the phrasing biased, please suggest a neutral way to say it. -Added by DC7, on 6/6/2007)

His supporters have been placing him at the top of Digg and various other news services, and I strongly suggest that this entry be made far more neutral or tempered with opposing views. If it isn't, you can expect even more candidates in every election under the sun to start adding and maintaining similarly one-sided pages in the run up to the relevant vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, most of the opposing views I've seen on those services have consisted of smears and accusations that his supporters are spamming, just because he's not promoted very much in the mainstream media. Such material as some of what I've seen would be unfit to be included in Wikipedia and is borderline defamatory. If you can find an article written by a credible news outlet criticizing Ron Paul (other than questionable claims that his supporters are spamming, which I would assume would be considered unfit to be included in Wikipedia), feel free to use it as a source for adding criticisms. The articles for most of the other candidates, if not all of them, have the criticism in the main article. If you want to change some of the wording around to be more neutral, go right ahead. Much of the text in this article has been moved from the main Ron Paul article. I'm going to try to edit the phrase you mentioned to try to make it more coherent. Life, Liberty, Property 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the article has been fairly well-balanced in its treatment of Rep Paul's views, though some cites (i.e., the one on H.R. 2587 there seems to have been some deliberate misrepresentation of the content of the bill in oder to make Rep. Paul look bad to traditional liberals, I clarified it.

This article needs serious rewriting in parts, for instance the section on immigration where it calls jus soli citizenship policy a "constitutional loophole", which is simply nonsense. Birthright citizenship was granted by the Fourteenth Amendment, and was very much intentional (the fourteenth amendment was largely aimed at guaranteeing the rights of former slaves). Calling it a loophole is just plain wrong and distorts the issue. While it would be equally editorial to imply that Ron Paul opposes the Fourteenth Amendment or equal protection, this phrasing issue and others like it must be addressed if the article is to live up to the NPOV standard. User:70.171.20.227 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Woods in this seminar[1]. The problem with the 14th amendement is that no one really knows how to interpret it and is used for all kinds of situations nowdays at whim. Woods says even the writer of the amendement himself didn't answer coherently when asked about the interpretation Lord Metroid 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does belong here

"There's very little criticism or analysis of this person's views, but plenty of outlines of his key policies." This is an online encyclopedia, your descriptive criticism I believe is self-explanatory. Criticism of different policies can be found within discussions solely dedicated to those positions. A politician's page ideally is limited to outlines of his positions, not analysis; interested parties can undertake that activity on their own, and in seperate entries. The reverse policy would lead to endless rebutals that needlessly entangle the larger scope. One need not debate the merits of slavery within Abraham Lincoln's entry, for example.68.174.133.172 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

68.174.133.172 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)butlmat

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism: Immigration

Explain this sentence: "Paul believes that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally."

Does this mean that both legal and illegal aliens should be treated equally, that immigration should be colorblind, what? Is he an open borders guy or a or immigration reform? No offense, guys, I understand diplomacy, but I have no idea what that means.Yakuman (数え役満) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Today immigrants of high notability get to immigrate on request while not so for the common man. Hence it isn't an equal playing field. Maybe that's what he means? Lord Metroid 08:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One aspect of this, perhaps, is that H1B visas are only allowed for large corporations, so they're basically a form of corporate welfare... large companies such as IBM can import workers from elsewhere for much less than they'd pay an American (although the law says they have to pay them the same, it's not done in practice at all), but a small company who would seemingly benefit as well from these visas isn't allowed to use them. Milton Friedmann said this, and I wonder if Ron Paul does as well? Also, maybe he thinks Mexican immigrants are given advantages and easier paths to citizenship than immigrants from other countries? From the UK, I believe, we'd only accept immigrants if they're family members or highly educated workers, but from Mexico we may accept laborers or the unskilled. I'd be interested in an elaboration on this as well.--71.65.202.41 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Ron Paul's is as likely to win the Republican nomination as I am to sprout a third eye. Thank heavens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.172.17 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We care because this is not about who will win, we care because this is an encyclopedia Lord Metroid 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

POV and sourcing/citations

First, as this article stands now it is a political advertisement. The article essentially eulogizes Paul and covers little to no criticisms or other sides of the issues. While his politics may be noble, Wikipedia is not the place for this content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not an encyclopedia article.

Second, because it is a political advertisement the sourcing is extremely poor. In the article's current state I believe it may violate WP:OR due to the fact that nothing is verified. Much of the article cannot be sourced except from the Paul campaign who obviously have a POV. While a citation to the "homepage of the the United States House of Representatives" may sound good, these are all press releases from the Paul campaign. I believe these are essentially self-published sources. Sources from reputable third parties would be better. I also think the sources by Lew Rockwell are poor. This website and "commentator" seems nothing more than a blog/mouthpiece for Paul.

I therefore don't know if this article can be fixed, its problems are large and many, but I think someone knowledgeable on Paul should try. I am going to give it some time before moving to WP:AFD. KnightLago 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed? It ain't broke. In fact, it's an excellent piece on Paul's political views. Let's have some specifics, KnightLago. Please tag the specific areas that you feel require citation. If you have some dirt on Paul, by all means, let's have it. But you'd need a darn good reason to take the article to AFD. I'm removing the tags in lieu of a more specific request. JLMadrigal 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in a few fact tags just starting from the top, I will add more later. The citations to the us house and press releases direct from the Paul campaign are still all in there, all violate WP:NPOV. I also think the references to Rockwell violate NPOV as well. If I can not check a fact from a third party reliable source, then the fact shouldn't be in that article. More citations latter, re-added tags. KnightLago 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the article is not on Ron Paul... it's on his political positions. How can that be POV or not? He has these positions; there's no point of view about it. Give some specifics, please.. I'll take a look at the fact tags you put in but I'll remove the neutrality tag if I don't find anything that merits it. I think you're misunderstanding what neutrality is. References to legitimate sources such as press releases and major blogs do not violate NPOV. I think you need to study NPOV a little more. Sources can be POV, and in fact many sources are... for example, The Economist has a definite POV-- free markets, socially liberal, dictatorships are bad, etc.-- but that does not make it an invalid source for Wikipedia and it is often cited in articles.--Gloriamarie 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"While his politics may be noble, Wikipedia is not the place for this content." I would imagine that an article entitled "Political Positions of Ron Paul" would be exactly the place for content on Ron Paul's political positions. The Lew Rockwell links are articles written by Ron Paul himself on his political views. There is no better source to a politician's views than that politician himself! I draw attention to "written by Rep. Ron Paul, MD" at the top of the Lew Rockwell links-- they were written by him and that is why they are sympathetic to his own ideas. Much of the article can be sourced from sources other than Paul, but it doesn't make sense to do so, because those media sources would simply be relying on Paul himself. I don't understand what your complaint is and I'm removing the tags.Gloriamarie 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not flattering.

I thought the first two paragraphs were very unflattering. My take, as a Ron Paul sympathizer, was that it was written by someone who had a bias against him. Later, the mention of the nickname 'Dr. No' while interesting, could also be seen as a negative and perjorative description. In any event, he deserves a spot on Wikipedia, so I hope we can create a page that everyone can agree meets the standards of Wikipedia.

The article is not supposed to be flattering or unflattering-- it should just give the facts. If you want to rewrite something, you can go ahead and change it to make it more NPOV.--Gloriamarie 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Shouldn't there be a section on how he feels about the Arab-Israeli conflict and how he would change American policy towards it? ~ Rollo44 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How would he change policy?--Gloriamarie 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I was hoping there was a section on it. More involvement in the peace process? Or a completely hands off non-interventionist approach? ~ Rollo44 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't said that much on the issue, but from what I can recall, I believe he has mentioned for the U.S to stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. a small section about it should be included. Manic Hispanic 04:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a transcript I made of comments Ron Paul made on Tucker Carlson's show on 6-14-07: "I think we should be on the side of neutrality and friendship with everybody and not subsidize either side... Intervention doesn't lend itself to a peaceful world, especially for us. We lose a lot of men and women now being killed and a lot of money being spent and there's no more peace than if we weren't there. As a matter of fact, I think Israel would do quite well without us there. They'd probably have a peace treaty with Syria. They want to talk peace with Syria and we interfere with that process and say oh no you can't talk to the Syrians. So Israel would have a great incentive to work out agreements with some of its neighbors... I don't think we add a whole lot to solving that problem over there." I think this answers the question of how he sees the issue. ~ Rollo44 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism as a political position?

There is a section in this article on Paul's criticism of racism and alleged racist remarks, but I don't see how this is a political position of his. Has he advocated or tried to implement racial legislation?--Daveswagon 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The section starts with his explicit political position: racism equals collectivism, which he clearly despise. His voting record demonstrates that he is against racism such as affirmative action based on racial criteria. Terjen 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the voting record should be in the section. Simply equating something with collectivism is a bit of a stretch to be a "political position".--Daveswagon 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The voting record is a manifestation of his principles, but the principle is the core of the political position, and he goes beyond just equating racism with collectivism in the quote we provide. But I agree that the voting record on affirmative action and alike should be in the section on his positions against racism.Terjen 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani has stated that he hates abortion. However, his political stance is pro-choice. What is that?--Daveswagon 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency? Or perhaps a separation between his personal view and what he want to push on others through public policy. Terjen 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. A personal view isn't a political stance if it's kept personal.--Daveswagon 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the other sections and just left the first paragraph. While he is against affirmative action for these reasons, I believe he votes against federal funding for it for the same reason he votes against almost all federal funding: unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.--Gloriamarie 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He does not vote against affirmative action because he's against minorities-- he votes against it, as most Republicans do, because it is favoring one group over another. In the case of the federal government, I believe affirmative action policies would entail providing funds to favor one group over another. He usually does not vote for most federal funding for any purpose he believes to be unnecessary, and he does not believe in sorting people into groups as he said in the last debate. If affirmative action is mentioned, it should be in its own section and not one on race-- it's not really a race issue... it also includes women, so it can't be classified as a race issue. I would probably benefit from affirmative action policies, but I'm against it on principle as well. That doesn't make me a racist and it is muddying the issue by implying that to be the case in this situation.--71.65.202.41 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gold Standard

The article contradicts what Paul says in this interview where he says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," but that he would "legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender." He says this does not mean he would amend the constitution, but that he would legalize it. [2] What is meant by this? Free gifts 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The constitution explicitly forbids a mandatory fiat currency system like the one we have today. It authorizes the federal government to coin money, but does not authorize a monopoly on coinage by the federal government. It also forbids the states from making anything but gold or silver legal tender or issuing "bills of credit" (IE, fiat currency). RP recognizes that reversing nearly a century of unconstitutional monetary shenanigans can't be done overnight.

His policy is to remove the barriers to using gold as money, such as: eliminating capital gains taxes for exchanging fiat currency for gold and back, since the apparent increase in the price of a commodity currency over time is in fact a drop in the value of the fiat currency. He would stop the federal government from interfering in private coinage, so you could strike coins of any weight in any metal or alloy you like, and offer them on the market.

His model for how to return to sound money is bascially the historical example of the withdrawal of the civil war greenbacks. First, you stop printing any more fiat notes. Next, you establish a fixed exchange rate at which the fiat notes will be redeemed, and you destroy the fiat notes as they're turned in to exchange for real money. The key is that you must stop the inflation entirely, by legislation forbidding the creation of any more of the fiat currency.

Drug policy

For anyone who's interested in pursuing expanding or further referencing the drug policy section, an archive of (currently) 128 sourced articles referencing Ron Paul and focused largely around the issue can be found at the Media Awareness Project of Drugsense website via the link [[3]] — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting Rights Act

I have put back the information on Paul's vote on the Voting Rights Act renewal, although I have added Paul's justification for that vote. Voting against the Voting Rights Act, whatever the reasoning, is a relevant political position in which many people are interested. Frankly, regardless of his stated reasons, I have to question the motivations of a man who in his own newsletter says "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," when he votes against voting rights for minorties. (And yes, I realize he has claimed that this was the work of ghost writer. Whether or not he wrote or agrees with the statement, he was obviously not too terribly upset about it, since it took him nine years from the publication of those remarks (and five years after they were reported by the Houston Chronicle) to repudiate it.) Elakazal 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the place for commentary of the subject unless it has to do with the article.--Gloriamarie 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely has to do with the article--you competely removed my inclusion of Paul's vote on the Voting Rights Act. I replaced it and provided justification for its relevance and importance, which includes not only the specific measures included in the bill but also its relevance to the fact that Paul is considered by many (whether he is or not) to be racist. I think most people would consider that to be an element of his political positions. You have through many, many revisions allowed Paul's anti-racism statements to remain, suggesting that this is indeed relevant to the article, but have removed racist statements, which should have equal relevance. In my opinion your edits of this article, in this area and others, do not reflect an attempt to create an informative, balanced reference piece, but rather to promote Ron Paul, and the article shows it. This is a tremendously one-sided article. Elakazal 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph should NOT be if the statements were said, but rather if Ron Paul supports the statements. He says he does not, and the rest of the article is based on his words, so lets take his word this time too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.114 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have many concerns about the quality of this article. Most importantly, I am lead to question the extent of its purpose, insofar as it dictates what is and is not appropriate content. I feel that it is important that an article such as this consider many different factors and sources, beyond the expressed positions of the individual and the arguments of his supporters.

Persuant to this position, I believe the article should adhere to a certain well-organized standard. As such, I suggest at least the following:

First, in their current issue-centric format, the individual sections should either define, or provide a link to a definiton of, their respective issues before discussing anything else about them. These definitions should be consistent with a general understanding, and cited or referenced.

Second, the sections should state, and cite with multiple sources if possible, Paul's stated position (or cited lack thereof) on their respective issues. It should note any historic trends, including changes in position or refinements of more broad arguments.

Third, the sections should cover Paul's actions relevant to their respective issues, including, though not necessarily limited to, his voting history and his proposed legislation, noting well any discrepancies or apparent contradictions.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the sections should include criticism of Paul's position and his actions. People oppose these things for a variety of differing reasons, and their motivations and interests in stating such opposition are important to qualify their criticism.

All of this should be done within the general parameters of Wikipedia policy--maintaining a neutral point-of-view, not containing "original research," citing statements with reliable sources, etc.

I have a great deal of respect for Rep. Paul and his positions. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia and not a collection of partisan essays.

I am willing to put in the work necessary to improve this article, both for the benefit of Wikipedia and my own personal enrichment. Before I commit to anything, however, I would like to discuss the article, its purpose, and the points I have addressed here further.—Kbolino 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly believe that this is a page for criticism of his political views, and the many other politicians' pages that I have worked on also do not usually include critical commentary unless it is extraordinarily notable (as one example, Ted Kennedy's support for wind power, but not the Cape Wind project visible from his vacation house.) If editors prefer the page that way, that is acceptable, but I have not seen precedence for this on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 06:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The type and nature of the criticism is important to its inclusion. With Paul's limited visibility, there are few instances of direct criticism upon his views (as opposed to the general ideas espoused by his views). I would certainly not expect the article to include generic socialist arguments against the free market, for example. It might be worthwhile to consider a separate criticism article; either way, I feel it is important to at least link to critical discussion of his positions.—Kbolino 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"War on Religion" -- Obviously incorrect information removed.

This page will be undergoing heavy editing to correct omissions and factual errors.

Ron Paul never released a paper titled "War on Religion". The web site lewrockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html) calls the paper that. The official version at house.gov is called "Christmas in Secular America" (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm).

It took about five seconds to find out this information.

During the course of editing this Wikipedia page I noticed this that the personal webs site lewrockwell.com is used a lot as a "source" (over 15 times)

" Add only information based on reliable sources "

Consider the use of lewrockwell.com for the incorrect "War on Religion" headline all opinions "sourced" to the personal web site of Lew Rockwell should be investigated.

Furthermore any other "sources" suspected of bias for or against Ron Paul need to be checked against the facts.

The idea that the incorrect and inflammatory title "War on Religion" was used from a "source" which is someones personal web site is yet another notch on the bedpost of reasons that people shouldn't blindly trust Wikipedia.

Please sign your contributions to the talk page using four tildes (~), otherwise it's difficult to keep track of comments. Lew Rockwell is Paul's former chief of staff and republishes many of Paul's commentaries, and Paul publishes many of his own commentaries on the site that do not appear anywhere else. I agree with you that the original source should be used in this case, and in any case where the official house.gov site duplicates a Rockwell page. But, some of the pages linked to here only appear on Rockwell and are written by Paul.--Gloriamarie 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell also started an economics college, which publishes economic journals (like nature, and journal of psychology). He is a reputable source himself, and should not be taken as a "personal blog" as much as an educated one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.113.114 (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

More on Small Government

It surprises me that nothing about Paul's most recent appearance on The Colbert Report is included in this article. In this interview, he said many revealing things about his political views. For example, regarding small government, Stephen Colbert listed many government programs and asked Paul to raise his hand if he would try to eliminate that government program if he were elected president. Throughout the entire list of programs, including the IRS, the United Nations, the Department of Education, and others, Ron Paul left his hand held high, indicating that he would attempt to eliminate every single government program Colbert listed. This information seems extremely relevant to an article on Ron Paul's political views.

I don't have a transcript of the interview to cite, but I'm sure I could find one or that someone out there has this interview on video to provide more accurate quotes.

BareAss 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul talks about this stuff all the time, and it's already covered in the article: "Paul believes in decreasing the size of federal government. He supports the gradual abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve." --Gloriamarie 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that claiming he would eliminate the Department of Education warrants specific mention in the article. Sure, people hate the IRS and the Cabinet departments that serve no purpose, but education is a huge issue in the United States. Many people feel that the Department of Education needs to be made stronger, not abolished. Hearing that Paul would not only eliminate goverment programs that are hated but those that are liked and arguably needed made a huge impact on me. I think readers of this article ought to have the opportunity to learn of this truth, as well.

BareAss 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the transcript or a reliable account, I'd say add in the information if it's not already specifically represented. This is after all an article on Mr. Paul's political positions, and the level of detail would not be incongruous with the rest of the article as it stands. --Evil1987 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Education section says that he would prefer education be handled at the state and local level than federal; that is what abolishing the D of E would accomplish. Many people agree that the Dept. of Ed needs to be abolished as well; there are always two or more sides to every view. Key word is "arguably needed"-- people will debate both sides. His argument is that it is not needed and in fact takes money away from public education by being such a federal bureacracy.--Gloriamarie 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title and lead section

I disagree with the recent revert of my edit (where I removed the bold from the article title in the lead section). In Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, it states:

If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver’s chief electrical characteristics can be shown as a curve, representing the …

This seems to me to be the same sort of thing. --Evil1987 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul on Abortion

Excerpt from this article: "Paul holds that the 9th and 10th amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion"

How is this reconsiled with Ron Paul's sponsoring of a Bill: "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." Where as this is proposed at a national level.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01094: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

LucidWay 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a bill or an amendment to the Constitution? I thought he asked for a Constitutional amendment, which would make it Constitutional. (Your link doesn't work.)--Gloriamarie 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the quote above is from the bill's "findings", not from its suggested changes to legislation. The bill would have removed abortions from the jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court. Terjen 19:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Legislative findings and declarations have the force of law. The findings in question were designed to strike at the heart of Roe: Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "If personhood is established, the case for legalized abortion collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." (Roe v. Wade, Majority Decision, Section IX) ←Ben^B4 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does not Ron Paul set aside his principles by advocating a State ban on abortion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstender (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Denies involvement in 9/11 conspiracy theories

Just wondering, how exactly is this a "political position"?--Daveswagon 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Him stating that he does not believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy is a politcal position, because any statements about one's position in regard to government are by definition political positions. How can it not be a political position? Apparently, it's considered important to know his position on this since he's asked about it so much. Therefore, his position on this is important. Operation Spooner 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a political position an opinion about how one feels the government should be? This seems like a perspective on the facts of a historical event.--Daveswagon 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, opinions on Watergate back then were probably considered positions. ←Ben^B4 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions about the ethics of Watergate or about the facts?--Daveswagon 05:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This really needs a source. I just tagged it as such in the article (though forgot to enter an edit summary. sorry!) --Crypticfortune 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and took out the allegation; it's just a denial now, and the quote explains that he's been accused of it just fine. ←Ben^B4 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

71.239.218.226 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC) This needs to be removed "Gibson later expressed doubts over Paul's explicit disavowal, claiming Paul does believe the government staged the 9/11 attack: "9/11 truthers evidently raised millions for Ron Paul. Why doesn't he just admit that he's with them, blaming the U.S. government for the 9/11 attacks?"[" Ron Pul specifically stated that he does not believe it was a conspiracy. Just because some low level fox employee thinks he is lying is not reason enough to include his opinion in wiki. The artical is about Paul not Gibson.

Darfur Divestment

I would like some clarification regarding H.R. 180: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. The summary originally stated that the federal government would provide support for state and local governments that wished to divest from Sudan. The summary was then changed to state that the federal government would provide federal funding for state and local governments. However, I cannot find any mention in H.R. 180 of federal funds being diverted to state and local levels. It seems to me that the support would be in the form of information about companies that do business in Sudan.

Would anyone be willing to provide some clarification on this? If H.R. 180 is intended to provide federal funding for divestment, it would be helpful if a specific section of the bill could be shown to state this, as I have been unable to find it. Otherwise, the summary should probably be corrected.

BR48 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The text of H.R. 180 on THOMAS at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.180: does not appear to support a claim that the bill would have provided federal funding for divestment. 98.197.101.8 11:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Harmonious With Stated Subject

The subject of this article (correctly signified by its title) is "The Political Positions of Ron Paul." It is a summarization of Paul's views. If people who are against Paul wish there to be a "Ron Paul's Political Positions: Critiques & Complaints", or something to that effect, then create it. Don't pretend that the article violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy as a tactic for getting it taken down.

Jack Brooks 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the people recommending deletion are few and far between. It's certainly not going to be deleted. ←Ben^B4 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

His position on "intellectual properties"

I expected to find information about his position on copyright, patent and trademark legislation in this article. Has anyone seen an interview where these issues have been discussed with him? If so, could you provide me with a link so I can add his position on the matters under the "Technology" section of the article page? Tommy 01:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some insight in his column Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs. Terjen 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gay Adoption

Is there really any proof that denying federal funding for adoptions by unmarried people would have BANNED adoptions by same-sex couples? I still see nothing to indicate that it would, other than an assertion at the cited page. PenguinJockey 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The federal government controls the local DC government budget, and local government officials are required for adoptions. Usually it involves weeks of work by social workers, registrars, etc., but by defunding it the way the amendment proposed, it would have been unlawful for a government official to spend any work time, even to delegate the work to a private agency, for example. ←Ben^B4 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual portion of dealing with adoption is only a small part H.R.2587. This part deals with: "Federal payment to create incentives for adoption of children in the DC foster care system". Here is the actual text:

H.R.2587

Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000: Provided, That such funds shall remain available until September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a program established by the Mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That funds provided under this heading may be used to cover the costs to the District of Columbia of providing tax credits to offset the costs incurred by individuals in adopting children in the District of Columbia foster care system and in providing for the health care needs of such children, in accordance with legislation enacted by the District of Columbia government.

The Largent Amendment has been characterized as a ban on gay adoption. Here it is:

H.AMDT.356

Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:

SEC. 167. None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to carry out any joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

It is clear the Largent Amendment is not a ban on gay adoption. Gay individuals would still be free to adopt, and even have thier adoption supported by funds from H.R.2587. It doesn't prevent joint adoption by gay couples. But if those couples are unrelated, funds from H.R.2587 can't be used to pay tax credits for costs incurred by the joint adoption. The Largent amendment only prevents couples unrelated by blood or marriage, gay or straight, from using these funds for joint adoptions.

There are many reasons a legislator would have for supporting this amendment besides "banning gay adoption". The most obvious: The alamingly high number children who must face the break-up of thier parents, family instability, and custody battles. Seems plenty of reason not to use these funds to encourage joint adoptions by unmarried couples. Even married couples divorce, but marraige or blood relations are at least a concrete and visable, if unfair and arbitrary, indicator of a couple's increased chances to provide a stable long-term family for a child that can be seen by those who must make these decisions.

It seems unfair to unrelated couples who are legally prevented from marrying to be denied equal access to these funds. But to call a vote for the Largent Amendment "Voting to Ban Gay Adoptions" is a gross misrepresentation the range of reasons to support it, and the actual results it would have.

Posted By:DC7 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.212.14 (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit this into the article.Granola Bars 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower taxes and smaller government inaccuracy

The "Lower taxes and smaller government" section contains the following sentence:

As Congressman, (Ron Paul) has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment which authorized the income tax.

...there are several issues with this sentence. First, there is no prohibition on direct taxes in the United States. Congress has plenary powers of taxation, per Article 1, Section 8. The only clause with respect to direct taxes is that they must be apportioned among the States according to population, per Article 1, Section 9.

Second, repealing the 16th Amendment would not prohibit direct taxes, because the 16th Amendment did not grant anyone the power to impose a direct tax; to the contrary, the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to define income tax as an indirect tax, which did not need to be apportioned. The author of this sentence has the issue backwards: the problem with income taxes was that they were deemed to be direct taxes when they needed to be defined as indirect taxes to continue working in their present form (i.e. not apportioned according to population). If Ron Paul (or the author of this sentence) wanted to prohibit direct taxes, repealing the the 16th Amendment would have absolutely no bearing on Congress's ability to impose a direct tax, which is granted per Article 1, Section 8.

Third, the 16th Amendment did not authorize income taxes; it authorized income taxes in their present form. Congress already had the power (per Article One, Section 8) to levy an income tax. The issue was that a court case in 1895 designated taxes on income derived from property (i.e. interest from a bank account, capital gains on a house sold, etc.) to be direct taxes that must be apportioned among the population. Taxes on income from labor (i.e. money you earn for services rendered) have always been indirect taxes, both before 1895 and after, so repealing the 16th Amendment would have no bearing with respect to taxes on income from labor. In any event, no new powers of taxation were granted by the 16th Amendment.

I'm unsure of what Ron Paul's position is on the 16th Amendment, and indirect/direct taxes (this would be good to know, and have cited sources for as well), but the above sentence barely makes any sense at all. It needs to be properly cited, for starters, and then the various claims can be addressed. Jnoring 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this topic, to which I have some passing interest. The current version is accurate and addresses these concerns: "He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment." Congress indeed has no power to classify the income tax as direct (although circuit courts have confusingly said that it is "direct" in economic application, rather than Constitutional class). However, I am also compelled to add that there is a long-standing legal dispute over whether taxes on money you earn for labor, in itself, are indirect taxes, or whether the income tax (being indirect) is on other categories like "income" or "services" rather than pay for work in itself. But the statements prior are ambiguous enough not to worry about. John J. Bulten 07:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version is accurate because I changed it. I don't follow your additional comments; Congress would never want to classify income tax as being direct because then it has to be apportioned among the states, which is the exact reason the 16th amendment was adopted. Jnoring (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that the current wording of Paul's position: "He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment" is merely a statement of fact. Paul has asserted that congress has no power to impose a direct income tax, and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. This does not mean A) his assertions make any sense at all (they don't, actually), or B) Paul understands taxation issues in the United States (he doesn't, but then again, I doubt most candidates do). I realize this is an article on Paul's political positions, so I felt it was inappropriate to point out the inaccuracy of the statement in this article. There are other more appropriate places for that. Jnoring (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Elimination of departments

I think there should be a section discussing the federal departments he want to eliminate. It came up in the debate that he wanted to eliminate the CIA. Is there any reference for this? Operation Spooner 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be easier to list the departments he wants to keep.--89.128.216.95 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell research

This article only quotes how Paul characterizes the two sides in the debate over Federally-funded stem cell research - it does not state his own opposition. I think that's disingenuous and should be corrected. Tvoz |talk 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's hard to keep up. ←Ben^B4 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Please see Talk:Ron_Paul#Dubious, it's the same issue. Photouploaded 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problems

The reference listings following #69 are scrambled, making a scribbly mess on the page. I've made two unsucessful attempts to fix it. Does anyone know how to correct this?--JayJasper 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now, but it was very difficult and I don't understand why it did that and why some other things happen. It might have to do with this week's changes to cite.php. ←Ben^B4 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's much better. Thanks!--JayJasper 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition

In the "Prohibition" section, what's up with that reference to the 10th amendment? It makes no sense. Should it say the 18th? 168.28.128.78 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it should say 10th amendement which clearly states that any power not given up by the states that formed the union and are enumaretd in the constitution still belongs to the state or in case the states forming the union also not having authorization to legislate about the issue the people themself. And because prohibition is not one of the enumerated duties of the federal government it is up the states and/or people. The 18th amendement added alcohole to one of the items the federal government could legislate. Those were the times when the constitution was still followed at least scantly. Lord Metroid 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Social issues and "race neutrality"

Okay, so you have a list of social issues on which Paul has positions. Which of the following headings doesn't fit with the others?

   * 4.1 Abortion
   * 4.2 Capital punishment
   * 4.3 Stem cell research
   * 4.4 Church and State relationship
   * 4.5 Education
   * 4.6 LGBT issues
   * 4.7 Health care
   * 4.8 Environment
   * 4.9 Social Security
   * 4.10 Race neutrality
   * 4.11 Veterans and the military

This stands out because it describes a position taken, not an issue like "abortion" or "LGBT issues." Not to mention that one could argue that "race neutrality" is a POV term for what sociologists and others have described as a form of passive racism and not at all "neutral"--though we don't need to debate that here.

As a heading, "Race" is a more accurate and more neutral way of describing the contents than "Race neutrality". --Proper tea is theft 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-place addition

Someone added the following to the very bottom of the lede. Perhaps you can source it and add it somewhere:

==Foreign policy== to the above article add that aul wants to eliminate the EPAhttp://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

—Photouploaded 13:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge request by Theanphibian

Discussion is already underway at Talk:Ron Paul#Template, please comment there. John J. Bulten 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, default to that discussion. But I would like to keep up the merge template for a little while possibly, just so passerbys know that there is a discussion going on (and the content does belong here more than in [[Ron Paul]). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Split this page

I don't care what the names of the articles it's split into are, this page is way too long. It takes too long to load and I'm on a fast connection. 141.151.165.32 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion - this page is long, but I think it is desirable to keep all of the political positions on the same page, like the other candidates. But I would completely remove the unnecessary "overview" section which is just a repeat of what is on the main page and what follows on this page. Tvoz |talk 07:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT, subtopic: Criminal Laws

I removed the subsection Criminal Laws because the one sentence it contained was unsourced, had already been tagged, and had yet to be fixed. To be honest, I thought it was a pretty big assertion to make with no backing. Here was the full text of the section:

"Paul introduced legislation to allow states to criminalize homosexuality, thus overturning Lawrence v. Texas. This bill would also prevent the court from deal with same-sex marriage, birth control and abortion."

If it's an accurate statement, I think it's very important to list among his views, and would merrily add it back. JamisonK 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article with obviously non-neutral treatment of a subject should be failed without a full review or hold period. This article is comprised of what boils down to a laundry list of Paul's positions on subjects, without hardly any commentary or rebuttal from secondary, independent source material. This leaves the article lacking a balanced point of view on the subject. I am not making this evaluation alone, and per this discussion, several other experienced editors have agreed with that assessment. Please feel free to renominate when you have corrected this, and if you feel the decision was in error you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Van, while I agree that the GAN was premature, I don't understand what NPOV standards you are using. I will post an RFC to explain. Also, I happen to disagree on referring to two as "several". John J. Bulten 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes NPOV in a "Political positions of" article?

What constitutes NPOV in a "Political positions of" article? I notice that "In order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions .... It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however." This question applies to a decent number of "political positions" articles; search turned up 500, of which dozens qualify. I am a Paul supporter, but I have exactly the same question about the Clinton articles, which I've touched, and many others.

My question is explained simply by example. Say that Section 1's topic is "X's position is pro-war", and that this statement is true. Seems that NPOV means things like "Time says X's position is pro-war" and "Fox says X is anti-peace" and "X's campaign platform includes 'opposition to peace'". We are describing X's position accurately, and there is no dispute here about what his or her position is.

But if I say "ABC says X's anti-peace position is Messianic, CBS says it's fruitcake", that's no longer a statement about what X believes or doesn't believe (the article's subject), it's a statement about whether such beliefs are valid or invalid, as well as a statement about what ABC and CBS believe. They apply not only to X but to everyone who believes or disbelieves the same position. Such statements are not as appropriate to "positions of X" as they are to Militarism. It's silly to say "X believes yes, but the Death-to-X Universal World Coalition, membership 2, believes no" on a "positions of X" page; in fact I saw that here. Of course it's appropriate to say whether X's belief is a majority, plurality, minority, or fringe view; and an occasional well-placed praise or criticism is appropriate. (For that reason Ron Paul's views are summarized as "contrarian", and their relationship to the majority is referenced a few times elsewhere.)

By parallel, look at the classic disputed article, Evolution. As we expect, one topic is "Evolution teaches complex biochemistry comes from simpler chemistry". There is no question evolution teaches that, and it's an appropriate topic for the article whose subject is what the latest theory of evolution teaches. It also appropriately mentions this as a "consensus" view (from which I dissent BTW). But there is no discussion in that article of what the non"consensus" scientists believe (it alludes to their existence, regardless of their number). Rather, there's a 3-paragraph section on social objections, and I saw a single clause of a footnote that referred to intelligent design. From this I gather that an article on what the theory of evolution teaches can be FA and NPOV even if it doesn't describe any contradictory teachings arising from the nonconsensus it alludes to.

However, if I take a nonconsensus scientist like Michael Behe, I see one paragraph in the lead about his positions and two about his opponents' majority view. I see a one-sentence description of what Behe's peer-reviewed paper teaches, followed by two longer sentences of how "numerous scientists have debunked the work". (Note that I am not arguing whether or not Behe is a fringe pseudoscientist: I am trying to understand the WP community's view of what NPOV is.) From this article I could gather an opposite conclusion, that an article on Behe and what he teaches must give greater space to his opponents' views simply because they are the majority, even though the article is not about them.

However (with no disrespect to Behe), if I go next to Flat Earth Society, I find an excellent explanation of the Society's best approach at explaining many physical phenomena (with very little criticism other than "discredited")-- a description which in fact is what most people would want to know about when they investigate the Society. They don't want a textbook introduction to (mainstream) physics, which can be had at uncountable other articles. From this article I could return to my first conclusion.

Now VanTucky's NPOV-based objections to the Paul article were: it fails "representing all significant points of view on a subject"; "no substantial commentary from secondary, independent sources"; no "contradiction from opposition"; "hardly any commentary or rebuttal from secondary, independent source material". (Agreement from two editors was nonspecific other than citing the word "contrarian", which is really a separate issue.) The article's editors have only been looking to the question of: what are all significant POVs about what Paul's positions are, as supported by reliable sources? We've had a lively discussion on the many POVs about what Paul's pro-life/abortion position is, exactly. We've been long working out how to reconcile apparently (or blatantly) contradictory sources about what his hard-money position is, exactly.

But we haven't concentrated on what are all the other POVs in relation to war, money, life, and every other issue mentioned herein, for a very simple reason: we already have separate articles on all the POVs of every one of those! This article is not about "political positions" in general!

In short, it is my belief that the proper remedy for any positions article that reads like campaign literature is much simpler than seeking contradiction from opposition on every position. First, we should link the articles on the subjects ("See also: the pro-life movement."-- but not pro-choice, for the simple reasons that one is Paul's position and one is not, and that pro-life in NPOV fashion provides a template that links it to pro-choice). Second, we should add a section of a couple paragraphs that depicts Paul's location within Republicanism in broad strokes, indicating where his views are minority (often) or majority. Third, we should review the footnotes carefully to ensure they mostly use reliable sources, and use Paul's own PR only when the point is not findable in the media-- this has been an ongoing process already. How can anything more be asked?

More particularly, take any article about an admitted minority view: shouldn't the majority of the article be about that minority view, since it will obviously be balanced by a greater number of articles about the majority view?

I appreciate the community's comments on determining how to handle this rather central issue. John J. Bulten 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments above depend a lot on comparison to other articles, which isn't necessarily a barometer of this article's neutrality. It is not NPOV to only take the candidate's word on their political stances and history. Hillary Clinton certainly posits herself an opponent of the Iraq war, but considering she voted for it her opposition tends to disagree. Simply listing the candidate's positions and actions per their campaign stumping isn't a neutral article. Answering every incidence of Paul's statements with opposition certainly wouldn't be NPOV, but an article which, practically speaking, contains nil in the way of decent recognition of minority views is clearly not NPOV. What's more, this isn't about what the meaning of NPOV in political position articles is, it's about whether this article meets the GA criteria. If you disagree with the outcome, take it to be reassessed. VanTucky ^Talk 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from EyeSerene

If this is a disgreement with VanTucky's GA assessment, it should properly be taken to WP:GAR. It's worth pointing out though that, setting aside the POV debate entirely, the article still requires additional work to meet GA criteria (eg there are significant WP:MOS issues with the lead and a minor one with section layout, some statements and quotations that absolutely must be cited, and possibly coverage issues too).

Regarding the subject of NPOV, although the article's author(s) have avoided making their own synthesis (confining themselves to bare statements of fact and direct quotations), the general lack of third-party commentary on Ron Paul's positions does rather give this article the appearance of a campaign piece. As VanTucky points out, this is not about political NPOV, but Wikipedia NPOV - which requires that every subject be approaced in a balanced way, and that opposing views be given appropriate weight. For an article entitled "Political positions of Ron Paul", I don't believe it's necessary to provide counterclaims to every claim and statement made; it is about his positions after all, not his opponents'... and neither is the title "Analysis of...". However I do believe that a brief "Criticism and analysis" section would add depth to the article and would be enough to meet NPOV needs (providing it could be reliably sourced). In coming to the article I believe a reader would not only expect to find a clear outline of Paul's political positions (which it does admirably), but also something - even if only a linked overview - about how these views have been recieved and what the objections to them are. EyeSerene^TALK 10:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought I made clear that it's not about the GA assessment, because I agreed the nomination was premature and recognize that stylistic needs are still pending. Was looking for a general guideline as to what would meet GA criteria, and whether my suggestions for improvement were the right direction. Sounds like the comments above are along the same lines as my approach, but I'd appreciate a bit more reflection if anyone has some. (I'm an approval suck.) John J. Bulten 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speeches, statements and issues section

In this section, "Ron Paul Videos" links to Ron Paul's myspace page. This makes no sense because they are linking to his Myspace page right above that and also the Myspace page is not just "Ron Paul videos". It would make more sense if "Ron Paul Videos" linked to a site devoted to Ron Paul videos like www.ronpaulvideos.net - thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by K69 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just another "Durks"/Horner link-spam, that is, your own site? AndroidCat (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul supports freedom of the Internet?

[Anonymous text deleted under WP:BLP by John J. Bulten (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]

• What are your sources? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-24 21:00Z

Brian, I know there is a temptation to ask the scattershot poster for sources, but it is official policy and for Wikimedia's protection that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The esteemed Mr. Wales adds, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." It is so serious that WP:3RR does not apply. It also applies to talk pages. Even when a comment might be taken as on the fringe of being a positive contribution to the article, if it makes contentious unsourced charges about living persons, it does not stand, period. See also the IP's contribution history.

I understand that my interpretation is open to discussion, so I have requested comment some time ago at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ron Paul. I also discussed it on my talk page, which I'd request you skim before you reinsert. If I'm right, there is harm to Wikimedia upon reinsertion, but if I'm wrong, there is no harm in letting my edit stand. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain that this specific instance, especially on a talk page and of a non-libelous nature, was not what was intended to be deleted by WP:BLP. Just to make sure, I will restate the user's question in a new section below. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-26 19:11Z

Climate Change

I have not been able to find his position on climate change. Help appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.191.247 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Whoever reorganized the table of contents meant well, but now there is this:

Hi, the diff is [4]. As you can see, this had previously grown randomly without much organizational thought. We now have much more of that available. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Civil Liberties" are divided into "Constitutional Rights" and "States Rights". What is the justification for doing that?

Because the previous poor categorization into "Civil liberties" and "Social policies" was too fuzzy and open to interpretation. However, for Paul, all liberties fall neatly into one of two categories, Constitution-derived or union-state-derived. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Abortion" is now absent from the T.o.C. -- instead the POV term "Pro-life" is used

We've had a long pretty-well consensus at Ron Paul that "pro-life" is not POV with respect to Paul's legislation, it's a plain and simple self-description of it. "Pro-life" also comprehends his birth control legislation described therein, "abortion" doesn't. But the following two sections could also be subsumed: I would favor the three sections being joined into "Pro-life legislation" and then subdivided into "Abortion", "Birth control", "Stem-cell research", "Cloning", and "Capital punishment", which are all pro-life views of Paul. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Same-sex" marriage is now titled "Voluntary associations" -- WHAT? 91.152.196.210 (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul's view is pretty clearly quoted there that he lumps all unions, gay, straight, etc., into a "voluntary association" category ("whatever you call it"), and all discussion of legislation in that section is from that view. None of it relates to "same-sex marriage" independently without relation to traditional marriage. The case is the same for "same-sex adoption" which might more neutrally be "Joint adoption".

Please log in and suggest any improvements here. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Supports freedom of the Internet?

A user has brought into question the article statement, "Paul strongly supports ... freedom of the Internet", apparently citing Paul's vote against legally protecting net neutrality. Should we go into more detail about Paul's actual position on net neutrality (a separate issue from his position on legally protecting it)? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-26 19:15Z

Just rescently an -IP number-user misunderstood what internet freedom means and thought Ron Paul did not want to protect the freedom of internet because he is against Net Neutrality and added his ill thoughtrough OR which I had to revert. Maybe it is worth adding more information surrounding internet freedom. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should avoid catch-words like "freedom" and just say what he is against: regulation. Whether or not that regulation would hinder or help freedom is for the future to reveal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-17 15:40Z

That is a good solution and ought to solve any confusion on his position. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance is required

I came upon this article because I was generally interested in Ron Paul's political position. This is a very detailed article, I'm happy.

However, at the same time, I think the contributors to this article need to be reminded that Wikipedia articles are meant to be balanced. This piece does read too much like Ron Paul election campaign material, and not enough like a proper Wikipedia article. I don't see enough criticism or countering viewpoints.

Wikipedia exists to inform readers, not to be an unbalanced promotion of political viewpoints. This article should probably be taken upstairs for review... I'll see what I can do. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy. Would you mind replying to my RFC above on exactly this point? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul's view on Lawrence v. Texas should be integrated

into the "Sexual Orientation Legislation" issue.

This essay shows his vocal criticism of the Supreme Court's decision- http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.207.249 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's Supposed Environmental Concern

Another editor has deleted an entire section which I provided stating that it isn't NPOV. The section is well sourced and known to be Paul's position thus I must assume that this editor simply doesn't like the information the material presents. I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to which the editor pointed me:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ... When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page".

From Wikipedia:Describing points of view:

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy ... Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."

The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial has a good subsection (Information Supression) which illustrates the issue here:

"A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV ... Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)".

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ similarly states:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V".

Note that the core NPOV policy states that balance of opposing sides is key so long as it is cited material from reputable sources. I provided that as the section just preceding mine presented only one point of view - that Paul is supportive of environmentalism . Please remember, this article is not an advertisement for Ron Paul. 63.196.193.116 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy cuts both ways. As you indicated, the article is not an advertisement; at the same time, critical or unflattering material needs to be handled properly (see WP:BLP). In this case, what I object to is not so much the criticism, as its presentation. In particular, my objection relates to the injection of rhetorical and subjective statements:

• "How Environmental is Paul Really?"
• "What would stop a logging corporation ... if government regulations currently protecting and watching over them were simply abolished?"
• "Realistically, how easy and affordable would it be ... to take on a large corporation ... without the aid of governmental agencies and environmental laws?"
• "Interestingly although Ron Paul's official Presidential website states ..."

I understand that the use of the term "balance" can be somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, articles should simply present factual information, not make readers into spectators of a debate — sensational or otherwise. --Aarktica (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Three of the items you object to are simple questions (not definitive POV statements) and perfectly understandable ones given Paul's position. The last point about use of the word "interestingly" is a bit picky, however feel free to remove it if it is objectionable. 63.196.193.116 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Those "simple questions" source much of the content for the section in question. Articles should state the facts, and leave it at that; using articles as venues for conducting apologetics is well outside that scope. --Aarktica (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I included those questions because lots of people are asking them [5][6][7][8][9]. Here is a list of some of his more questionable decisions with regard to the environment (under Environmental Protection). I think it's clear that there is another side to Paul's supposed concern about the environment. But since most of this questioning is in blogs so far, which I cannot cite, I've just paraphrased them. But I do think that they are appropriate here. Is there a better way to ask them that you had in mind? 63.196.193.116 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The section was clearly NPOV. I added the relevant information about his low ratings and the "climate change" question into the Environment section and removed the links to blogs. Paisan30 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was NPOV then why did you just delete 95% of it? Removing the opposing side and leaving only one is non-NPOV. Please see the wiki quotes above on this. As I sence a long battle with those who want to keep others in the dark I will provide a link here to the section for future reference here Under: How Environmental is Paul Really? 63.196.193.116 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please tread lightly. The repeated reversions could soon be considered a violation of the three-revert rule, no matter how well-intentioned your actions might be. --Aarktica (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call- I requested semi-protection Paisan30 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you just edit my comments [10] on the talk page? 63.196.193.99 (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since others are able to edit this article I can only conclude that I have been selectively denied it thus ensuring that only one side is throughly presented. It reflects badly on the Ron Paul campaign. 63.196.193.97 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First, if you want to engage in a discussion about the matter, this is an appropriate venue. That said, such discourse must remain within the bounds of civility and no personal attacks — which are established policies. The aspersion-casting and name-calling is likely to keep others from even trying to see your side of the issue. Your call.

By the way, what you perceive as being "...selectively denied..." was actually semi-protection — essentially the implementation of another policy. See the protection policy for more information on the subject. --Aarktica (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"First, if you want to engage in a discussion about the matter, this is an appropriate venue". There is no further discussion necessary on my part since I've already pointed out what Wikipedia policy is on edit conflicts like this and it's clear (balance of points of view). It is therefore also clear that that blatantly slanted editing is going on here since an apparent cabal of RP supporters are not allowing balanced points of view to be presented and have reduced the opposing view on Ron Paul and the environment to a mere fraction of the pro Ron Paul view. You will note, BTW, that at no time did I touch any information on the pro-Paul side. I don't play games of censorship. I'm sorry if my tone has upset you (however I do not apologize for my editing which was perfectly appropriate). I really only get upset when a deliberate injustice or snow job is occurring. You have the info. I hope at some point somebody will be allowed to add it back. Adios. 63.196.193.9 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not delete any of your comments. I may have been editing an old page inadvertantly, and if so I am sorry about that. I am glad that you "aren't willing to fight", and would have no reason to delete that purposely. Paisan30 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why edit an old copy of the talk page? Generally "edit conflict" pops up in that case and you start over. The motive would be to have me selectively denied editing because of my comments about "a long battle" which in fact is what occurred. If though this is not the case then my apologies. 63.196.193.9 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't explain it, because I did not do it intentionally. Apology accepted. Paisan30 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the uncertainty factor I have decided to remove my harsher comments about Paisan30's removal of some of my words on this Talk page. 63.196.193.213 (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. 63.196, it would be very useful to you if you got a Wikipedia account and let us know what your new name is. Not only would your numbers stop bouncing around, you'd also get to edit this article again after 4 days (standard semiprotection policy). In the interim, though, I'm unable to comment directly on the NPOV argument, or the talk page deletion argument, without further research. Out of context, of course, the statements quoted certainly seem immoderate to me for an encyclopedia article: three rhetorical questions, and a conflict which might be legitimately stated if not spun with "interestingly". Wikipedians are supposed to have no animus toward information that, say, Paul might not be enviro-friendly, if presented side-by-side with any info that Paul might be enviro-friendly. If lots of people are asking, then WP says "lots of people are asking", it doesn't ask for them and imply a particular rhetorically driven answer. Also we need to show that reliable sources have already done the analysis or put the pieces together; we don't do it for them. As you get an account and learn the basics you'll understand this a bit better. When I have a chance I might be able to suggest a more neutral edit or otherwise comment more directly. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, obtaining a user name is not required to edit on Wikipedia. Some people use IP addresses for a reason. Wikipedia:Tutorial (Registration) says "Registering a username is optional, but encouraged! Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they choose to register." Wikipedia:Overview FAQ says, "However, if you would like to stay in the dark, it is fine to edit without a login. Many valuable contributors have made this choice". Wikipedia:Why create an account? says, "You do not have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia — just about anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in, and many long-time contributors do not log in." I am such and do understand "the basics", thanks. Hopefully you are not suggesting that it is appropriate to refuse editing priviledge's based on someone's choice to use an IP address or not. As to the semiprotecting the article against editing by IP addresses, the point was specificlly to deny me the ability to edit. 63.196.193.51 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page deletion looks to me like a harmless WP artifact, though I understand why it didn't look like it at the time. Stranger things have happened and when we're in the midst of feeling heated an apparent motive suggests itself which has no actual basis. Best to make up quickly-- as y'all did-- and not comment until one has enough facts. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of IP user's environmental adds

Here's what I'd recommend as to the various adds I haven't incorporated. Note that there are many ways to incorporate such concerns into Wikipedia, such as using other more appropriate articles, seeking contrary sources and alternate POVs, and refactoring based on consensus.

• Use of Gadfly.igc.org to describe Paul's libertarianism: This piece is not about Paul, but about libertarians, and might be better suited for a general libertarian article. However, as it stands, it's also self-published, i.e., potentially revised after its book publication. Use of the book rather than the website would increase credibility. But it's an unpublished stretch to take an essay on libertarians and infer that it reflects "Paul's apparent Libertarian ambivalence". Note also that Paul is a small-l libertarian, and there is a difference.
• Daily Green: Sounds like a fair review on first glance, and more might be drawn from it than I did; but it mostly paraphrases Grist and does not support the claim "concern rising".
• Grist: Also does not support "concern rising". It gives four sentences making Paul pro-enviro and two sentences (plus a lead sentence) making him anti-enviro. If you find a reliable source that says Paul's record on the whole is concerning rather than mixed, that can be used.
• Dissolving agencies: If true, it should be easy to source outside of enviro sites, as we have for many other agencies. I see on Daily Green the more balanced view "Opposes the Environmental Protection Agency, but wouldn't make a priority of dismantling it", which does not directly support the blanket assertion "is for the dissolution of the EPA". I didn't see FDA or Interior Department, although ten minutes at ronpoogle.com might yield a well-written sentence (I'm declining right now).
• The mission of the federal agencies: Sorry, not the topic of this article, and it is POV to simply say "to protect citizens and the environment". Edit the agency articles instead. Thank you.
• Privatizing National Park: should be easy to source directly. Dramatic repercussions? Again, a POV and too vague. Find someone reliable who says what the repercussions are.
• Drilling in ANWR, increasing coal and nuclear: Those are generic statements of Grist, and again the four pro-enviro Grist sentences about Paul seem to have been ignored. Both the pro and con statements should be easy to source better.
• Campaign receipts from various sectors: only marginally related. If you like, take the whole Open Secrets 3Q list and post it in his campaign article. The sources indicate that receipts from these sectors are only middling anyway, so there's really no conclusion to draw.
• The quote on "environmental initiatives .... abuse this power": Not directed at enviros. This is directed at many segments of special interests from both sides which use power which Paul finds illegitimate: i.e., it's directed at federal collectivists in general. The enviro trope is only one of several handy ones. Supplying this quote in its full context (the sentences before and after) might be appropriate in the "limited government" section.
• Heat Is On: Not appropriate for "see also", it is merely an education site of the LCV. If LCV has its own article, wikilink that from here and add Heat Is On to the LCV article.
• Finally, the long paragraph "complex issue": This is appropriate to an environmentalism article, not this one, as it makes one passing mention of Paul. But before you take it there, you'd have to trim out most of it for the following types of reasons. Rhetorical questions: never in mainspace. "Weasel" words (vagueness): find specifics for "complex issue", "conservationists say", etc. POV: don't dismiss positions as "simplistic", "naive", "recipe for division and chaos", etc. Particularly, don't take sides with the POV that federal acts are obviously "notable successes" when Paul's POV to the contrary is also notable: this is exactly what the NPOV policy is about.
• In answer to your rhetoricals (and not to derail the conversation, merely to illustrate that other POVs exist), the issue of large abusing small is not enviro-specific. The solution to large abusing small is prompt justice. If the small feels abused, he doesn't need extra enviro-specific agencies and laws and lawyers, he only needs one just judge. If the large decides to abuse its own property, the small have several nonfederal recourses: (1) demonstration of real injury, i.e., factual court evidence that the property damage extends to the environment of others; (2) moral example and grassroots action, i.e., boycotts and picketing, publicizing the large corporation's self-destruction as, well, self-destructive; (3) proactively preventing the situation from arising, i.e., advocating against large purchases of environmentally valued property via similar grassroots action; (4) proactively creating private, not public, movements to protect natural resources. Except for (1), these each have the benefit of not using force, which should only be used when a party has been truly injured.

Anyway, please feel free to continue contributing and to make edits more along these lines, or to ask any questions. Please don't take the community's actions as blocking any POV: it is our policy that all notable POVs should be incorporated, with proper weight and in proper places. Hope this helps. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for at least showing some interest in providing a little more balance. Unfortunately It's obvious that the pro side is still weighted much more heavily than the con side on this issue. I understand your comments above but believe several to be faulty, especially the pro-libertrian last bit. However as I said before, I just don't feel like, nor have the time, to carry on a big debate (especially when the deck is stacked against me). Lots of other things going on right now. I've fought these battles before. Again, I hope that someone else will be able to add more of it in. I also think that it should have it's own section as enough people are concerned to warrant a deeper look, and not be sort of shoved in as it is now and even then subtly slanted. For the record I think it quite obvious that RP would be terrible for the environment. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I do appreciate it. 63.196.193.51 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Length of intro

The intro is way too long. All of that information is in the subsections. I'm going to try to make the intro what it should be -- a summary Paisan30 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not having watched this article so closely, Paisan30, I trust that if you happened to delete anything not in the subsections, you moved it there, or are about to, or explained somewhere you didn't. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I kept everything and moved to the appropriate sections. Paisan30 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At about 2:36 in: "Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for you know, the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution... and I don't accept it. You know, as a theory. But I think it probably doesn't bother me... it's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think the creator that I know... created us, each and every one of else, and created the universe... and the precise time and manner and you know... I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has absolute proof on either side, so I just don't... if that were the only issue quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine and we can have our own- if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."

Can we mention this somewhere in the article? A presidential candidate not accepting a universally supported scientific theory because it conflicts with his religious beliefs has obvious policy ramifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.238.109 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2007

Obvious how? Ron Paul is running for President of the United States, not editor of Nature. Perhaps more to the point, Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. In a "perfect" Ron Paul presidency, there would be no department of education -- issues such as evolution vs. pastafarianism would be decided at the state level. Including Paul's evolution position isn't completely unreasonable, but if you're unwilling to temper it with the constitutionalism issue then it's only reasonable to conclude IMO that you're attempting to push an agenda...likely in an attempt to portray Ron Paul as a religious nut. 66.75.52.157 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "just a theory" statement is particularly disconcerting, as it shows he hasn't really read anything about it beyond the name. But, then, neither have any of the other frontrunners. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-29 22:20Z

He is obviously ill informed of what a theory means in the scientific community. Evolution can not be anything but a theory because it is not a law(a mathematical function) nor is it merely a fact but a whole explanation for many facts(the defintion of theory in the scientific sense is explanation for observed facts). I don't know what he means by just a theory but to me it sounded like he belittleing that it is just a theory. But it seems very strange as he is a doctor and ought to have an understanding of what a theory is. One explanation may be pandering to the fundamentalist audience or that he really isn't knowledged in this topic at all. However it is a non-issue as it is as mentioned above for the constitution does not authorize the federal government any power in these matters. Lord Metroid (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it , but I won't be suprised if some Ron Paul fanboy removies it the next minute. We have it stated on every other candidate, why not on Ron Paul?--The monkeyhate (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable secondary sources? I am also uncomfortable sourcing this to videos with ambiguous statements. It ends up appearing like original research. Terjen (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need secondary sources when the video provides a source directly from the person of which this article is about? Magamiako (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gun Rights

To quote the article: On the other hand, according to [121] Paul does not support the concealed carry of firearms for self defense.

I went to the referenced URL and there was an X next to "allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons" or something like that (paraphrasing off the top of my head here), so doesn't this mean he does indeed support CCW? 193.151.98.10 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the reference sited, I removed the bit where it implied Paul supported gun registration [117]. I believe this was inserted as the question in the reference was written with the misunderstanding that all guns bought are registered and there was no other practical way to answer the question of "Should people be allowed to carry concealed weapons" without choosing that option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.93.212 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By Way of Explanation

I noticed that many sections of the Talk page were almost completely duplicated. I removed the earlier version since I assumed the later had changed and had additions (which it did). 63.196.193.110 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Racism

Article on RP and racist newsletters in the past [11] should be included. Again as many, including myself have stated, the article should have a controversy section and be written much less biasedly. The info presented is almost entirely one-sided and, in fact, reads like a political advertisment. There is good reason to believe that Paul is not all he's cracked up to be.

Whether or not Paul is personally a racist is far less important than the fact that his policies would enable racism to reassert itself in many areas of the country where racist people have significant political and economic power. By 'decentralizing' the power of government in the US, as Paul wishes, localized majorities in Southern States could re-segregate schools, repeal laws that prevent discrimination in business, hiring, college acceptance and other areas where. in the past, it has taken legislation at a federal level to get compliance. By specifically limiting the power of the Federal Government to areas adressed directly by the constitution, Paul would be allowing racist state governments to turn back the clock on many of the achievments of teh Civil Rights movement.

63.196.193.110 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should avoid "Controversy" sections whenever possible - they tend to become troll magnets. As is the case with any standard encyclopedia or reference source, opposing views should be incorporated directly into relevant sections. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 15:23Z

Is there a policy or guideline that says this clearly? --- tqbf 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need official policies to state the obvious, the "Description" section under {{Criticism-section}} quotes all the relevant policies and statements, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 16:17Z

You're citing a cleanup tag as policy. It isn't. --- tqbf 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I cited the policy quotes in the cleanup tag, and the official policy as well. See the text I typed after the name of the cleanup tag? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-15 19:18Z

I think I understand what you're getting at. I'm just saying, criticism sections are frowned upon because they encourage bad writing (including POV problems); they are not forbidden, and sometimes they work to the benefit of the article. It may be my fault for dragging this on; I think criticism should be integrated throughout this article, not segregated to the bottom. --- tqbf 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

ANY article about Political positions that:

1. Makes positive conclusions about a Politician's positions (that the positions are somehow the "right" positions), and
2. Doesn't neutrally present mainstream opposition to those positions

is by definition not neutral. This article should remain tagged POV, until we can clean it up, which we will in time.

--- tqbf 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Political positions that ... Doesn't neutrally present mainstream opposition to those positions ... is by definition not neutral.

Where did you find that definition? Lakinekaki (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless and until a specific example of what tqbf means by his fuzzy assertion that the article states that Paul's positions are "somehow the 'right' positions", the POV tag needs to be removed. Further, "mainstream opposition" to political positions does not somehow make the article more neutral. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A few potential issues I see:

• Lots and lots of mentions of endorsements and high ratings from different groups, but few if any references to groups that give Paul bad ratings.
  • For instance, under environment, we see nothing about the fact that the League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a 5% rating.
  • There is no civil rights section for some reason, but under civil liberties, no mention of the ACLU's rating (67%) or the NAACP's rating (39%) is made.
• There must be some real criticism out there of Paul's position on Darfur and Sudanese divestment. It is not present in this article.
• Under Terrorism: Rejection of conspiracy theory, the subject of Paul's position on "9/11 Truth" is abruptly introduced with little explanation of why the issue arises at all. Aren't there a number of Truthers among Paul's supporters?
• I don't think this is a POV issue, but it seems like an odd omission: Under "Right to bear arms" (wouldn't "Gun control" be preferable?), there is no mention of the NRA's rating of Ron Paul (he gets an A).
• This article tends toward POV section headings, most of which I've attempted to correct (e.g., Environmental protection-->Environment; Freedom of the Internet-->Internet regulation).

--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(<--)My mistake on the LCV and the environment section, where it says, "Groups which favor federal regulation rather than enforcing private property rights have given Paul lifetime voting-record scores of 30% (League of Conservation Voters)[164] and 17% (Republicans for Environmental Protection).[165]" This description of these environmental groups is of course painfully POV though. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell cites

Paul's own chief of staff from '85, along with The Economist, have claimed that Rockwell is the author of much of the worst of Paul's newsletters. Moreover, Rockwell's site is a blog. I object to all references that use him as a source for contested information.

I am going to remove many of these cites (specifically, for anything that I contest), and replace them with {{fact}} tags. If no alternative cites are found, I'm going to strike the text.

I'd love to talk about this here, on the talk page, instead of via reverts.

--- tqbf 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Need for a Criticism Section

In addition to [12] which I provided above, here's another site which is asking serious questions about who Ron Paul really is and what he really stands for [13]. Again, as many have be saying there should be a criticism section for Ron Paul in this article, but to no avail. I tried but my edits were repeatedly deleted. I thought censorship was supposed to be anathema to Libertarians. 63.196.193.138 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A vast swarm of Ron Paul zombies are not Libertarians.

That is one of the masquerades pope Paul hides behind. He and his zealots are mostly Right Wing, theocon fascists.

Censorship is their prime instrument.

Example; spamming Internet "polls" and flooding various social-networking sites and forums with "I love Ron Paul" propaganda screeds drowning out alternative perspectives and opinions.

This biased Wiki self-love piece is yet another example of Ron Paul censorship, where criticism of their pope is heresy and not tolerated.

You will need to contact and inform someone in authority about this matter. Perhaps request this one-sided bigoted love-piece be permanently deleted, or "locked" from Ron Paul vandals deleting criticism?!

Ron Paul loves the bigots and they him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/ron-paul-and-the-bigots-_b_80985.html

Pope Paul's history of racism, bigotry and gay-bashing:

http://www.ohdave.net/2008/01/ron-paul-bigot.html

Connections to crazy Right Wing agendas and whacky fascist conspiracism:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-nut-bigot-or-both.html

Ron Paul is an embittered ideologue, full of hatred and venom for fellow Americans:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Ron Pauls "moral equivalence" --failure to condemn terrorists and their sadistic acts:

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/08/mckinneys_out.html

How Ron Paul raked in the loot from "racist, homophobic, paranoid bile":

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/16/ron-paul-round-up.aspx

Even rational Libertarians reject the bigot, Ron Paul:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.93.136 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism can be (and curreently is) integrated throughout the article, in the appropriate sections. There should never be a separate "criticism" section - such a section is a sign of bad writing. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-04 16:32Z

Libertarian on environment

I am restoring Paul's libertarian view of pollution as aggression. It got deleted twice without explanation in talk. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The text in question: As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability.

Since this is fairly POV, we are going to have to work out some sort of alternative here. Paul may indeed assert these ideas, but you've stated this as if it were fact (both that he believes it and that libertarianism holds polluters accountable). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental protection

Why is Environmental protection included under "State's rights"? It doesn't seem to mention states anywhere.

I have to say, it's nice to have all the crazy and bullshit collected in one section. On the other hand, it makes the article seem biased, even if it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.75.184 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Environment - nuclear power in China

Paul's vote against U.S. funding for Chinese nuclear power plants is listed under the Environment section. This seems unnecessarily misleading. Does anyone believe this isn't a foreign policy position, rather than an environmental one? At the least, it should be combined with his pro-nuclear power position a few lines below. 24.184.97.102 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MBTE

I have modified the bit on MBTE to remove any reference to 'Saudi's benefiting'. Why? Firstly and most importantly, no source is provided that links Ron Paul's position to the Saudi involvment in particular. There is one source which discusses the Saudi factor, but it doesn't link it to Ron Paul's vote. From what I can tell, Ron Paul isn't affliated with Tax Payers for Common Sense who are quoted there. The opinion of the TPCS is irrelevant unless either Ron Paul has supported this opinion, or TPCS are at least commenting on Ron Paul's position. Secondly, from what I can tell from MBTE and a brief look through of the sources, this bill would have benefit quite a number of companies, both US and foreign owned. Not just the Saudi Arabian owned company but at the very least all oil companies operating in the US including foreign ones like BP and probably other companies that made MBTE. Singling out the Saudi Arabian linked company, especially when this was not done by Ron Paul is both misleading, violates NPOV and violates undue weight. It seems to be a case of 'everyone hates Saudi's so let's make this bill look bad by linking them to it even though a lot of other companies and people are going to benefit from it'. Note also I don't even any evidence the Saudi linked lobby was the only lobbyist involved nor that they paid the most money. So in conclusion, unless at the very least references can be provided which directly link Ron Paul's vote to the Saudi involvment, this should stay out. A section on the Saudi bit may of course have merit inclusion in an article on the bill, or perhaps even the MBTE article but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

have been labeled conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.

This article says that "The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), U.S. presidential candidate, have been labeled conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian." It doesn't mention that his positions have also been widely described as racist. So, I'm adding that fact. Mountainsarehigh (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-described "Paulite" User:John_J._Bulten has removed this sourced fact, but hasn't given any reason. Unless he has a good reason, I'll add it back. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. I might add you're also not following lead-writing rules, and you don't want to run afoul of what is called Wikilawyering either. Your source does not state the alleged "fact" that "his positions have also been widely described as racist". You are arguing like someone familiar with some WP rules but ignorant of some other much more applicable rules, so we have informed you of the other rules. If you wish to stick around, please observe them. JJB 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." Including facts with sources about notable controversies (like some of Paul's political views being decribed as racist) is therefore absolutely appropriate for the lead of this article. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to copy my comments from your talk page to this talk page, but that's not necessary. You will also want to learn about generally not refactoring others' comments and avoiding cross-posting of redundant text (it's not canvassing, but that guideline has some useful tips). In response to your observation, you have not responded to my explanation of why the edit runs afoul of several policies (except for quoting WP:LEAD); and you have not established that that the controversy is notable in relation to Paul's positions, nor that the positions themselves have been described as racist. Also please learn about sockpuppets, because I wouldn't want to be wasting my time again with James Salsman, not in this forum. JJB 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we're talking about this article, I thought it would make more sense to address any concerns you have here, but if you'd rather delete them from this page, I guess that's fine. I'm also getting rather tired of all your accusations which seem to be getting increasingly bizarre (I don't know, and I doubt I really care, who James Salsman is). Anyway, it seems pretty simple: Ron Paul's positions have been controversial and often described as racist. Such facts belong in any article that summarizes his career and/or his positions. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that statements attributed to Paul have been labeled racist? I don't really think those are the same as "political positions" (i.e., support for legislation and expressions of belief in associated ideologies). I have to agree that it would be undue weight to make this change to the lead (and I say that as someone who simply doesn't believe Paul's explanations for the newsletters). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, his statements have also been described as racist. But of course those statements are stating political positions. It looks like that ought to be summarized at the top of that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article you've linked to as well. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is pretty simple. Find a source that actually quotes Paul himself (not a group-written newsletter) on position X and defines position X as racist, and then add it to the appropriate subsection of this article. Your source doesn't do that. And don't run afoul of the policies. JJB 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is simple. The Dallas Morning News quotes Paul himself taking the position that "95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," and The Dallas Morning News also says the NAACP described that position as "racist and offensive." So, I'll add that into a subsection and summarize it in the lead. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously are well familiar both with Paul's controversy and its sources, and with WP policies (formatting cites, reliable sources, etc.). Accordingly I will escalate more rapidly than I would with a less experienced user. Please see the section below. JJB 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am very familar with Paul's controversy. I'm not sure I have the hang yet of all the rules you're sending me to, but most of them seem pretty easy and common sense. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Any new account who starts by repeatedly introducing the word 'racist' into a BLP five times, while demonstrating intimate knowledge of cite formats, is likely to undergo a trial by fire. Would you mind also listing the half dozen crazy things I allegedly accused you of being? JJB 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather talk about making this article better, but if you're keeping a list, you could include vandal, wikilawyer, sockpuppet, single-purpose account, James Salsman, an untrustworthy contributor, disruptive editor, etc. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be happy to withdraw the charges of vandalism and disruption (as WP defines them) since you are heeding "be bold but not reckless". If you review my statements, you'll see I did not give any other accusations you list, only warnings (except in the clear-cut case of single-purpose account). However, among accusations you did not list, Dekisugi concurred that you did not observe WP:BLP, and Newsroom hierarchies concurred that you did not observe WP:UNDUE (excuse me for providing the wrong link on that one earlier), and three IPs concurred that reverting your edits was so common-sense as not to need explanation. So going forward toward improvements:

1. First, it's much much easier to improve WP by skimming random articles looking for misspellings or easily corrected noncontroversial errors, than it is to insist on the Wikimedia Foundation permitting someone to speak ill of a living person who has millions of dollars and a keen grasp on U.S. law. Why not try some other articles a bit instead, to build up your demonstration of good faith?
2. Then come back in the morning and read the newsletter-related parts of Ron Paul as to what happened in 1976, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2007, and 2008, as well as the full campaign section which Newsroom links above.
3. Then provide a good reason why the DMN's attribution to Paul should outweigh all the nonattribution to Paul made by other reliable sources both contemporaneously and ever since.
4. Then, why the newsletter merely quoting a study about convictions and adding in its estimate of unconvicted crimes constitutes a position. Do you mean to imply that the newsletter's political position is that D.C. cops are inefficient? That's what it says. Or is quotation and statistical extrapolation a political position? Or does the NAACP have better numbers on D.C. crime rates perhaps? Or was the journal study flawed?
5. Then, why allegations that this statement is racist should outweigh allegations by the same body (NAACP) that Paul's position is foursquare against racism, as well as outweigh the anti-racism material already present in this article in relation to affirmative action, the Civil Rights Act, and the War on Drugs.
6. Then, why your allegations of racism are significant enough to appear in the lead without any balancing statements relating either to the newsletters or to the other three sections mentioning racism.

This is just to summarize what I've perceived the consensus of Ron Paul talk pages to be about how to handle this issue. Your edit has a whole lot of consensus to unravel, and if you want to stand by it, you have the task of performing that unravelling carefully and winsomely. Best wishes. JJB 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made your own political position quite clear that you don't want these fact in this article. I don't think I need to edit random articles for misspellings before I add missing information to this article. I'm also not sure how you've turned "The Dallas Morning News and CBS News report that Paul's positions have been described as racist" into "my allegations of racism." They're not my allegations; they are widely reported descriptions that belong in any list of how Paul's positions have been described. And your distinction between "warnings" and "accusations" is just so silly; you can't give a "warning" without implying someone is doing what you're warning against. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are ghostwritten newsletter statements "political positions of Ron Paul"?

Mountainsarehigh (talk · contribs) argues above that the 95% newsletter quote is a political position of Ron Paul, should be described as labeled as racist, and should be summarized in this lead. The material cited (e.g., Dallas Morning News) already appears in Ron Paul and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, properly weighted with such balancing info as current NAACP response, actual likely author, Paul's stated position on racism, a journal study suggesting the number is at least 85%, etc. Are such statements proper for this article? JJB 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, they are not demonstrably Paul's, nor are they political positions, nor is their alleged racism clear or noncontentious, nor are they significant enough to appear in the lead of this article. The topic "Political quotations from Ron Paul newsletters" has not been deemed worthy of its own article by the community. Paul's possible judgment error in being connected with their publication is already well-addressed in the other two articles. User has been reverted by five different editors on this point in a very short tenure. JJB 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, Paul has identified them as his own positions to the Dallas Morning News. Of course he and his supporters wouldn't label his positions as racist; this does not change the fact that they have been widely described as racist and so we ought to "briefly describe notable controversies." And while I was "reverted by five different editors," the first few gave no reason, then one asked for a reference and I provided one, and then came John J. Bulten who is a self-described "Paulite" who has accused me of being at least a half dozen crazy things. I do agree that other articles should also contain this information. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes and No, it seems worthy of a brief mention in an appropriate section of the article, with plenty of opportunity for rebuttal. However, it looks like the real controversy here is Mountainsarehigh's addition of "racist" to the lede of the article, which is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• No, he has repudiated those statements and has said they are inconsistent with his beliefs; they represent positions he does not hold. They also were not a part of any platform he was running on in his Congressional and Presidential races — the story is better suited for his biography. Thrilltalk 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, he recently "repudiated" those positions after he peviously supported those positions. Is this page intended to be "Current political positions of Ron Paul," with no reference to previously supported positions? --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which positions are you talking about? Thrilltalk 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the political positions taken in Ron Paul's newsletters. His pro-racial profiling stance, for example, is one that got quite a bit of coverage, if I recall. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, it would be best to make mention of them in the main Ron Paul article or the article about his presidential campaign. I don't think a newsletter article with suspect validity is a "political position" per se. Spartacusprime (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes and No they need to be reliably sourced and verified by Ron Paul as being his positions to merit inclusion. If they are not, then they do not merit inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In the mid-nineties Ron Paul verified these positions with several reliable sources. I'll add them to the article. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2