Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Same-sex marriage

Here are the two versions:

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

and

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

Looking at our sources, it appears that the first version is inaccurate and violates WP:BLP.

I'll explain by example. Let's say I tell you that I personally oppose abortion. It would be entirely consistent for me to say that, despite this, I support a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion.

That's what it sounds like when we say Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage. But it's not accurate; he supports laws against same-sex marriage. He wants these laws to be at the state level, not the federal level, due to his general opposition to the power of federal government. But his opposition manifests itself in endorsing laws, so it's not just personal. He doesn't neutrally want the states to decide, he wants the states to decide to make same-sex marriage illegal.

The first version is therefore inaccurate and we can't keep it. This applies for identical material in Political positions of Rand Paul. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please do not make new sections for topics already being discussed. You're familiar with TPs (over half of your edits are on TPs), and should no this. Second, Paul states later in the source that he supports states doing whatever they want. Some states (like Kentucky) support one thing, some support another. And that is all fine and dandy. PrairieKid (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We both wrote in parallel, not seeing the other's post.

In any case, Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. This means he is legally opposed, not personally opposed. You are violating WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from the NYT.

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

I think this is pretty clear, the edit by PrairieKid most closely follows the source, the edit proposed by MM is a violation of Original Research. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that he doesn't want federal laws about same-sex marriage, whether pro or con. It's just as clear that he wants state laws against same-sex marriage, which means that his opposition is legal, not personal. Please make an argument whose conclusion is relevant to the content of this article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From Fox, the other source in that section.

PAUL: You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sounds pretty personal to me since he said "I do believe in traditional marriage". I don't know why you feel the need to try and change what people actually say. Please make an argument that is relevant to the sources. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained above what personal opposition it. Your own quote shows that he is legally opposed to it in Kentucky. This means that it is not personal opposition, so you are supporting the violation of BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example, this article correctly states that he is personally but not legally opposed to MJ. This is how the distinction is made in our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That article is a summary of the Fox source and does not support your POV. Why do you feel the need to change the words of a living person? Your reasoning here only strengthens my argument regarding Bernstein. I find it most ironic that you say using the actual words of Paul is a violation of BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a personal opposition leads to endorsing laws. When you can do that, you will have my attention. Until then... MilesMoney (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are past the point of WP:HEAR. We have two sources which clearly state Paul's position, your attempt to change or modify that statement is disruptive and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember when I asked you to explain how personal opposition leads to endorsing laws? Remember when you didn't? Exactly. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to try and explain or modify the opinions or statements of a BLP. Remember when I said just say what he said? Remember when you ignored that and gave your interpretation of what he said? Arzel (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on all counts. We are here to accurately summarize the statements of Rand Paul. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy in my summary. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, time to give up. I'm sorry. Consensus (and the facts) are not on your side. PrairieKid (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to give up, you're free to. However, neither of you has pointed out any inaccuracy in my summary, so I see no reason to stop. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are familiar with WP:TE. That is one reason to stop, perhaps. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit has us reporting that "Paul does not support same-sex marriage". In fact, if you follow the related WP:BLPN thread, you'll see that it quotes the New York Times as saying:

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, which is a lot stronger than not supporting it. Amazingly, we went from sugar-coating all the way to whitewashing. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it a break; whitewashing? Support is an antonym of Oppose. To "not support" something is the same as to "oppose" that thing. That said, since the source says oppose, we should use the wording of the source. I'll let someone else make the change so that it does not appear to be edit-warring. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the wording, it's the concept.

You can oppose, support or remain neutral. If you don't support, you could either be opposing or remaining neutral. But we know that he actively opposes, so suggesting neutrality is inaccurate.

It is not edit-warring to make a change in agreement with consensus. Contrast this with the edit we're talking about, which was made by someone who hasn't discussed it before or after. MilesMoney (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just merged this section, which was headed "Massive understatement" and began with MilesMoney's message of 06:31, 27 October 2013. There was no need to start a new section about the same subject matter within 24 hours of a prior section being opened. The only possible purpose was to enable a point-y/drama-laden entry in the table of contents. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PrairieKid and Arzel. The sources clearly say he opposes same sex marriage, but feels the decision on legality should be left up to the states. He is a member of the federal government. He is not advocating for legal action at the level he works at, and also said he is okay with other states legalizing same-sex marriage. In my view, any other interpretation is original research and a BLP violation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you visit WP:BLPN, you'll see that we have a reliable source that contradicts your view by stating that Paul endorsed the federal amendment against same-sex marriage. MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul opposes gay marriage as a matter of policy

Why exactly are people accusing Miles of tendentious editing? Paul is a federalist who does not believe in imposing national solutions to these issues. However, he opposes gay marriage both personally and as a matter of policy. Wanting to outlaw gay marriage is not incompatible with wanting to let the states decide. This is clear as day from numerous RS. His grounds for supporting federalism on the issue, incidentally, are pragmatic. According to On the Issues, he used to support the Federal Marriage Amendment as recently as 2010 (1), and said in 2013 putting the issue at the state level gives opponents of SSM a chance to uphold traditional marriage (i.e. ban gay marriage) in "25 to 30" states, and keep the debate alive (2). Steeletrap (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's important to remember that there is a main article on the Political positions of Rand Paul. The article on Rand Paul should just have a brief summary of his political positions. Instead, right now it has more on gay marriage than the main article does. It seems like the main points are:

1. He has generally opposed a federal definition of marriage, believing it is better to let individual states decide.

2. Paul personally believes in a traditional definition of marriage

3. He has supported efforts on the state level to define it as such.

If there is agreement on those points, it seems like that could be conveyed in a sentence or two and anything else could go in the other article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of RS-sourced material

Here (1) User:Arzel deletes a lot of material, added by multiple users, sourced by multiple high quality RS. His justification is a vague (and therefore, unhelpful) statement of "NPOV." He made no elaboration upon what this was supposed to mean.

Because Arzel was not specific, it's impossible to know what the basis of his "NPOV" criticism is. The material deleted describes Paul's strong personal views on gay marriage, using his own words (that he "doesn't understand" gay marriage, quoted and covered in multiple RS). Also deleted was the bestiality joke he made to Glenn Beck, which received national attention and controversy, covered in dozens of RS, and therefore deserves to be covered (Rick Santorum's similar gaffe receives extensive treatment in his article). Since it's a sensitive topic, I'm happy to directly quote Paul's joke without elaboration, or adopt alternative paraphrases of his remarks. But I simply can't see the justification for deleting it wholesale.

I'm by no means anti-Rand Paul. I dislike him on a lot of issues and admire him on others (his views on mandatory minimums, drones and the drug war very much enhance our national discourse). I am genuinely puzzled by the claim that my contributions to the article, entirely accurately representing his statements on marriage (an issue that receives loads of media coverage, yet in this article gets far less attention than Paul's anti-choice views) are being criticized as biased. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this was not a Mass Deletion. Try not to make hyperbolic statements. The first section (not added by you) makes a preposterous notion that we have to WP:ATTRIB Paul's opinion. In attempt to try and point out that the NYT is unreliable (good luck with that, even if I agree it is biased). Unfortunately we have Paul's own clear words from a secondary source which make the attribution unneeded. However, then the other editor goes further in trying to say that Paul is a hypocrite with the use of "Despite his commitment to state's rights on the issue,", which is really just a "However," and ties it to another source. This is a clear violation of NPOV. The section that you added is a common POV attack that you see on WP. This is a section on his political positions. This is not a section for editors to attack his positions, that is what Blogs are for. You clearly have a lot of disdain for Paul regarding this issue, which makes it hard to not see this as anything more than trying to make a political point about Paul. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to chime in here and note that Paul never uses the word bestiality. That is a faulty interpretation of his original statement, which the Post article corrected in its headline, despite the fact that the link is still to the original headline. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is his speech writer

I don't have the rights to edit the main page, but could someone who does, add in the fact that Politico has found TWO more instances of Rand Paul speeches having plagiarized passages. This time the passages are not from Wikipedia, but from other news sources. See here. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-pledges-caution-wikipedia-entry-gattaca-99208.html

My guess is that as soon as someone skilled at text search algorithms does thorough comparison of his speeches with Google searches they are going to find a WEALTH of examples. So keeping this story up-to-date will be important.

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffwinchell (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/watch-rand-paul-uses-gattaca-and-my-left-foot-to-argue-against-scientific-advancement/

Note the direct quotes from the Gattaca article. Hcobb (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that several people created a new section, "Allegations of plagiarism", which was then deleted in its entirety, and then restored. Time for discussion per WP:BRD. I wonder if there might be some kind of middle ground here. Maybe a sentence could be added to Political positions, under the abortion section, saying something like

• option 1: "In October 2013 Paul invoked the dystopian film Gattaca to imply that a pro-life position could lead to eugenics." (no mention of Wikipedia)
• option 2: "In October 2013 Paul invoked the dystopian film Gattaca to imply that a pro-life position could lead to eugenics; in his speech he used excerpts from the Wikipedia article about the film near-verbatim without attribution." (mention of Wikipedia and implication but not actual accusation of plagiarism)

Andrew Kaczynski has shown that Paul also used text almost verbatim from a different Wikipedia article in a different speech on a completely different subject, apparently without attribution. That's apart from the fact that borrowing material without attribution is not a political position. So putting this information in the political positions section would be inappropriate. Dezastru (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost verbatim apparently without attribution? I think you need a stronger platform than this to get into a tizzy. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that we're the source of his Random sayings notable? Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. I find it ironic that WP is basically a repository of non-attributed statements. The issue about gattaca is simply stupid. The whole premise of the film is well known, to say that this is plagiarized from WP is laughable at best since if the information was to be attributed anywhere it would go to the original source. You do realize that no content on WP is owned by WP. There is no reason to cite WP for anything, although I know that some people do. If you want to attribute something on WP to someone else, than it should go to the source of the content, not WP. On top of this, you have nothing more than liberal talking heads criticizing someone that they already don't like. Bio's are not a place for political attacks. If people have a problem with his position, that is something worth discussing, but to load up an article on partisan controversy like this...well you could have an article tens of pages long with all kinds of political opinion and complaints. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia does not need attribution. It was a speech, not a graded essay (for which attribution is required only by the teacher/school, not Wikipedia). Now, unless we're going to start finding and then listing every instance of "plagiarism" from Wiki that has ever occurred in any political speech, I think this event is basically meaningless. It is highly unlikely that Rand Paul sat down and wrote the speech himself, but even if he did, outside of continual or substantial media coverage, I don't really see the point in adding it to his biography (unless, as mentioned before, we start doing it for every speech, presentation etc.). This is a biography for an encyclopedia, not a page for commenting, listing, or critiquing every single thing the subject matter does. Coinmanj (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to us to judge what we think should be notable, but only to determine what is notable based on the coverage from reliable sources. At first, I thought this was being blown out of proportion and only talked about on liberal sources, but it looks like it's getting bigger coverage now. His local paper is reporting on it and saying "how Paul handles the issue could determine whether the allegations impact his potential plans for a 2016 presidential bid." - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The information will be included or omitted here, not based on whether WE think it is important or trivial, but based on what kind of coverage it gets. If it had gone no further than the original disclosure by an admittedly partisan source, we would not include it here. But it has gone national and mainstream. See USA Today, Washington Post, etc. This kind of significant coverage requires some kind of coverage here specifically about the plagiarism issue. In my comment launching this section I thought we could get by with a mention under "political positions," but it has gone way beyond that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Those "National sources" are simply reporting on Maddow allegation against Paul. When a national TV figure accuses a Senator of Plagarism, chances are it will get some covereage. FTR, WP is an open content, it is not possible to plagarise in the same manner. Also, Paul has not presented the basic premise as his own, he did give the movies credit for the ideas. This is little more than partisan bitching. Maddow apparently does not have an argument against the basic logic of Paul so she tries to cloud the message by claiming Plagarism. Additionally, this really needs to go into the political positions. It is vastly undue weight to have its own section. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The degree of weight is determined by the degree of coverage; by the time USAToday gets into the act (and interviews a plagiarism expert and two professors to expand on the issue), it has obviously become a significant story. As for the "plagiarism" issue, it's not a matter of copyright; as you point out Wikipedia is open content. The issue is that (as one writer pointed out) any junior high student knows that you're not supposed to directly copy from the encyclopedia or any other source and pass it off as your own work. One would expect a U.S. Senator (or his speechwriters) to know better. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Another case of plagiarism: Paul Has Given Speeches Plagiarized From Wikipedia Before Great50 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is coverage from the Courier-Journal, so a reliable source that we can't dismiss as partisan.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to be very careful about describing this in a NPOV. Are a lot of mainstream sources writing about this issue? If so, I agree it should be included in the article. If not, it shouldn't. The term plagiarism, incidentally, is very loaded and usually appears in the context of academic dishonesty (or fraud in journalism/literature). Steeletrap (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Google news gives a 48 count so far, including HuffPo, MSNBC, Slate, IBTimes, etc. Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case it certainly should be covered. He should have done his homework and made the attribution, so it's a fair criticism. But I think some context should be added; I mean really, this isn't the same as a student plagiarizing a paper, since the norm of politics is for other people (usually speechwriters) to write the words politicians speak, and for politicians to speak those words without attribution. Whether or not a sub-section is merited should also be a subject of ongoing debate, depending on how far the coverage extends. (A lot of politicians have been involved in similar controversies; Joe Biden was subject to 'plagiarism' charges in his 1988 presidential run, as was Obama in the 2008 election, yet neither man has a sub-section of his wiki devoted to it.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we might want to evaluate the section as time goes on and see if the incident has legs after a week or a month. But you are wrong about Joe Biden. The Joe Biden plagiarism allegations have extensive Wikipedia coverage - five paragraphs at Joe Biden#1988 presidential campaign, and a very long section at Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988#Kinnock controversy. That's appropriate, because it was one of the things that derailed his campaign. I could not find anything about the Obama plagiarism claims at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. That's probably appropriate, because the incident blew over quickly and did not have any lasting impact; his primary rival Hillary Clinton did attempt briefly to make an issue of it, but it didn't gain much traction in the media. It wouldn't hurt to have a sentence about it in the primary campaign article, but its omission is not serious. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Melanie is right. (Although the Biden bio, in the section on the '88 campaign, devotes approximately seven, not five, paragraphs to issues surrounding allegations of plagiarism. And the Obama 2008 primary campaign article does mention the Obama-Patrick-Clinton kerfuffle. That was a different situation because Obama and Patrick both said Patrick had given Obama permission to use the material and Patrick was an Obama campaign co-chair. Obama also did respond to the criticism, whereas Paul has, so far, said nothing about the allegations in his case.) Obama has been president for nearly 5 years and had been a US senator and a state senator for years before that; Biden had been a US senator for 35 years, as well as a past presidential candidate, and is currently vice-president. So there are naturally going to be some differences in how their bio articles cover information compared to how Paul's article does. Dezastru (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there it is! Several sentences/half a paragraph at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#March primaries. All the more evidence that this incident does deserve a place in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"The norm of politics is for other people (usually speechwriters) to write the words politicians speak, and for politicians to speak those words without attribution" - and for public officials to take responsibility for the words that come out of their mouths, irrespective of whether they wrote the words themselves, just as respectable authors take responsibility for books or articles published under their names even when they have written the works with the assistance of ghostwriters. Dezastru (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

...and that's only fair, because the politicians also take credit for what comes out of their mouths. John F. Kennedy gets credit for "Ask not...", Ronald Reagan gets credit for "Tear down this wall," even though those words were written for them by speechwriters. You say it, you own it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris Matthews followed up on the story on October 30, 2013. Great50 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, this certainly does not require a subsection. Lets try to avoid recentism and not add undue weight. Simply having reliable sourcing and being "notable" does not mean a subsection is needed. Having it in the Tenure section is fine. Truthsort (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I find that claims of undue weight or recentism or something else in political BLPs always seem to be the province of POV pushers. It's an immediate and transparent red flag for me. It's also a hard sell for a section this small in an article this large. So, while I realize this BLP is sensitive to political partisans, I just hope folks don't think thinly veiled and specious objections fool anyone. Eds should remember to focus on the project, not their personal agendas. The events in the section are notable, widely reported and reliably sourced and the section itself is balanced and impartial. By definition, those elements merit a subsection for easy access and easy reference, not simply burying them in some much larger section. If nothing else, the very fact that the story involves Wikipedia itself should make it a notable one to all editors. X4n6 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you assume good faith and quit acting as if there is a politically motivated reason for this. Your comments on the talk page and edit summary show a blatant lack of civility on your part. Paul's comments on the civil rights act were far more notable than this and there is no section for it. Truthsort (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight: because I call out your WP:TE and now your clear 3RR vio here, here, here, I'm guilty of failing to show good faith? And where is your good faith? More to the point, why don't you demonstrate good faith and civility? I just call balls and strikes. Your complaint about some other remarks that Paul has made, just proves the point and exposes your clear bias. Do not try to use WP to be an apologist for your partisan viewpoints. If you are offended by me calling you an agenda pusher, then stop pushing your agenda - it's that simple. And stop edit warring or you will find yourself blocked. The same applies for WP:POV vios. X4n6 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating a separate section for this is not in fitting with the rest of the article or Wikipedia guidelines. It'll probably need to be cut down eventually as there are too many extraneous details in there, but that can wait. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact the current material in this article is shorter and provides far less detail than the comparable material at Joe Biden#1988 presidential campaign, Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988#Kinnock controversy, and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#March primaries. So presumably including this kind of material, in at least this much depth, is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. If the objection is to having it as a named section, where should it go instead? Maybe a "controversies" section? --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The incident has now made the New York Times.[2] That should help settle the question of whether it is noteworthy. I think we should insert the NYT reference into the article in place of some of the weaker references (we don't need a dozen). --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I already included the New York Times piece in the section. I also included the LA Times and USA Today. It also already had the Washington Post. But yes, certainly the Louisville, Ky Courier could go. But the significant major national media coverage makes it impossible to ignore. X4n6 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

POV trimming of article content

Lately there has been a rash of editors 'rescuing' the article, as they see it, from additions of superfluous content. This has involved a substantial amount of trimming of material or arguing against additions of material. Curiously, the only material being trimmed or blocked is that which the editors view as being negative about Paul. One participant on this Talk page, for example, objected to inclusion of information on the allegations of plagiarism because "This is a biography for an encyclopedia, not a page for commenting, listing, or critiquing every single thing the subject matter does." It has been argued that covering the allegations of plagiarism amounts to placing "undue weight" on the topic.

Why aren't editors trimming the mention of the fact that Paul was on the swim team in high school? Or that he scored at he 90th percentile on the Medical College Admissions Test? Or that he traveled "as far as Montanta" to campaign for his father in 1988? Or that the Senate committees he has served on are mentioned in the article twice, within a single overall section of the article? Or that he wears hearing aids in both ears? Why was it so important that the article mention that Paul's wife was living and working in Atlanta when they met? Or that Paul worked at Gilbert Graves Clinic before opening his own practice?

Now we have an invocation of "one source for each sentence is fine. It is informative enough for the sentence that is being sourced" to justify removing citations for information about the allegations of plagiarism, while it's just fine for the article to have 3 citations to support "his wife shortened it [his name] to 'Rand'" and 3 citations to support a statement that his Senate campaign announcement was reported in the media. As far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that limits sourcing to one citation per sentence.

If editors are removing content out of genuine concern about improving the quality of the article, let's see that spirit applied in a more even-handed, NPOV way. Dezastru (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Give the hyperbole a break Dezastru. As for NPOV, you seem incapable. Arzel (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. All it needs is a Funnel plot. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nail on the head, Dezastru. It appears the clear remedy for all the policy shopping of late, is to apply those policies - however wrongly applied - to the entire article, consistently and uniformly throughout. Once the result becomes clear, editors may well rethink that approach. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru and X4n6, please don't advocate disrupting the article to make a point. And all of you, please stop talking about other editors and focus on the article. We appear to have a pretty well accepted and neutral treatment right now so I'm not sure there is much more to say. Dezastru, what specifically are you recommending? That the recently deleted multiple citations be added back? They were probably not adding much and their removal is not important, unless someone is claiming that the information is not adequately supported, and I haven't heard anyone say that. The content, and the existence of reliable sources supporting the content, are what matters. And the multiple references are all listed at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, I am not advocating disrupting the article to make a point. I am asking editors to apply the same standards to all the material in the article when they make revisions. You cannot claim to be editing neutrally when the only time you insist on excluding information from the article is when the content in question might be perceived as being negative about the article's subject. I agree with you that we appear to have a neutral treatment right now – you wrote that after I had restored some citations that had been deleted by another editor who had left an accomanying edit comment saying that only one citation per sentence was appropriate.
I don't know what list of articles you are talking about at the top of the page; perhaps you are confusing this page with a different one. Dezastru (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right; the media listings are at the page Talk:Gattaca because that is the Wikipedia article they are about. My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN, Dezastru makes a perfectly reasonable point about balance. My point simply, is that if certain policies are going to be applied to this article - whether they are accurately applied or not - then those policies must be uniformly applied. There is nothing disruptive about that. To the contrary, that is merely objective consistency. Additionally, removing multiple sources for an edit only makes it easier later to challenge the source and remove the edit. Leaving the multiple sources intact bolsters the substance of the edit and supports the argument that multiple RS found it important enough to report.X4n6 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to giving multiple Reliable Sources for information - especially information with BLP implications. So if you want to put back the multiple sources it should be OK IMO. It doesn't lengthen the article any to have multiple sources. Is that all we are fighting about here? The deletion of the extra sources? --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Source

• Three Pages Of Rand Paul’s Book Were Plagiarized From Think Tanks.84.152.52.211 (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Where to put the "plagiarism" story?

In the section above we seem to have established that the "plagiarism" allegations are noteworthy enough to include here, but we have not established where to put them. At first they were in a separate section "allegations of plagiarism", but some objected that having a whole section devoted to this incident was overkill. I see that the material was recently moved to the "Tenure" section. I don't think that is the right place for it; that should be about his tenure and actions as a senator. Many articles about politicians have a "controversies" section; what would you all think about starting one and putting this material into it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, I've restored the story. Another editor 3RR'd to remove it. I refuse to get sucked into an edit war, but will assist in either trimming or placing the section wherever it should best go. I think a controversy section is absolutely the way to go on this BLP. There's possibly even enough for an entire article on controversies involving this subject, but I'll leave that to later discussion.X4n6 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A seperate section is not needed and is undue weight for this article. There are far more aspects about Paul that have had a much greater impact on his life and his policies that do not have their own section. Additionally, "Controversy" sections are frowned upon within BLP's. It is perfectly fine for this to be within the appropriate section. Furthermore there is no evidence that it will have an long-standing impact outside of the hyper-partisan crown like Maddow and Mathews. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need its own section. At least, at this time. Should this somehow become as big as the Civil Rights Act story, we can reassess, but for now, the "Tenure" section is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, as the article has been developing, controversial subjects have been incorporated into the rest of the text, such as in the Medical Career section, so we don't necessarily need a self-contained Controversies section. (However, there's no formal policy or guideline that excludes a separate Controversies section. The possibility of adding one can be considered in the future, should a strong case for one arise.)

The material describing allegations of plagiarism is not appropriate for the Political Positions or the Speculation on Political Future sections, and probably doesn't warrant a completely separate, top-level section of its own, so inclusion in the larger section on his Political Career (ie, his Senate time) is appropriate. However, the allegations of plagiarism material deals with a matter that is distinctly different from the coverage of Paul's federal policy-related actions that the rest of the Senate tenure section covers. The allegations of plagiarism involves questions about his personal intellectual integrity and his management skills (overseeing the work of aides, including speechwriters), not with the actions he has taken on federal policy issues (such as votes he has cast or bills he has proposed), which is what the rest of the Senate tenure section involves. So a separate subsection within the Senate tenure section is most appropriate. Dezastru (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's appropriate and reasonable, Dezastru. But I would also note, that if this is relegated to the Senate tenure section, then the Filibuster subsection should also probably be merged there as well. That certainly relates more to Senate tenure anyway and we should be consistent. Ted Cruz' article doesn't have a separate section for his filibuster, and his was certainly more consequential. But that also highlights the point that needs to be repeated that, like the Filibuster subsection, which currently stands without objection, any claim that 1 sub-subsection of 2 paragraphs, is somehow undue weight - in a BLP that already has 7 content sections, 5 subsections and 3 more additional sub-subsections - is obviously just nonsense. There is simply no objective standard by which this material can be excised. It's all over the news and comes with an abundance, frankly, an over-abundance of reliable sources. So to claim that it's simply being covered by Maddow & Matthews, as some have, is just transparent and provably false, No one is fooled by what's happened here. It was written impartially, betraying no bias or point of view. Every major news outlet is reporting it. That fact alone almost justifies a separate article, especially since it's inclusion here is being whittled to next to nothing. As for "Controversy" sections, they are obviously in abundance here, where merited. So the precedent is justified and well-established. Whether this topic has legs for a day, a month, a year or are permanent, it's notable, primarily because it has potential historical implications, as most media reports have already noted. So trying to quash it here really does accomplish nothing. X4n6 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In no sense is this section worthy of a separate sub-subsection. You may also want to read up on WP:CRYSTAL for your view of "potential historical implications". Arzel (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In no sense do I agree with your argument. But if your argument is to be credible - it must be consistent. So: in no sense is the Filibuster section worthy of a separate sub-section. Consistent with your argument, I'll merge and trim it. Also, before suggesting that someone may want to read up on WP:CRYSTAL, you may first want to read up on it yourself. The very first line says WP is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation." My "view of 'potential historical implications'", is confirmed by the historical fact that when potential presidential candidates get caught plagiarizing, that damage tends to last. Also, speculating about Paul as a potential presidential candidate is not "unverifiable." He is verified by no less a source than himself. Turns out another sub-section is already devoted just to that. But taking both your arguments, maybe that entire sub-section should also go: not just as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL; but because: "In no sense is this section worthy of a separate sub-section." X4n6 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two aspects to crystal ball. One is the unverifiable speculation, as you state, but additional is the idea that something will be historical before it actually is. We don't operate as if something will be relevant in the future. We operate if something has been relevant in the past. WP:RECENT applies. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I just read WP:RECENT, and while it's an interesting essay, it's not actually a policy, so it can't apply, only opine. In any case, it doesn't even say that we shouldn't report such events; it takes a more balanced approach and explores the issue. Perhaps this plagiarism issue will blow over someday and we can remove any mention of it. Until then, I don't see the harm in keeping what we have.

The approach I'm suggesting is akin to what happens to a resume (but not a CV), which is that it starts with lots of detail about a job, but as new jobs are added, we cut down the now less-relevant detail of the old ones. MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, X4n6, that when plagiarism allegations followed past candidates such as Obama and Biden, they were already running their presidential campaigns. Paul has not even announced he is running. Any claims about hurting his political future are nothing more than just speculation at this point. Truthsort (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your further explanation regarding crystal, only exposed the two critical flaws in your argument. You not only profoundly misstated the policy; but you also inadvertently betrayed why it is entirely irrelevant to this issue. The notion that “something will be historical before it actually is” in no way reflects the actual policy of crystal ball and it is a fantasy to claim otherwise. That policy simply states: “All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable.” Paul’s plagiarism is currently not its own article, nor is it an “anticipated event.” It has already occurred. Multiple times, per reliable sources. The only anticipated event here is Paul’s presidential run - yet that is featured in its own sub-section. So while WP:CRYSTAL is being misapplied to a currently non-existent plagiarism sub-section, where it shouldn’t be – it is not being applied in the “possible presidential run” sub-section, where it should. That needs to be remedied.

Attempts at invoking WP:RECENT here, also fail as misapplied policy. Two lines illustrate: 1) from the Nutshell, “Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events.” And 2) discusses, “Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.” But here is the misapplication: The current word count for the article is approximately 3, 832 words - of which only 225 - currently relate to the plagiarism. That represents just 5.87% of the article. So in no bizarro mathematical universe could anyone credibly claim that – solely by including the plagiarism info - the article would “focus on recent events.” Or become “overburdened.”

Finally, while Paul may or may not run for higher office, he currently holds public office and is a national figure. So while it isn’t necessary to speculate about his political future, it is necessary to accurately report his political present. Tomorrow will be something else, but the major aspects of today’s news should be covered today. X4n6 (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

These are all very sound arguments. No crystal ball is required to recognize that this widely-reported series of events is notable. 14:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP is NOT a newspaper. I know a lot of editors seem to think it should be, but it is not. His is a historical overview of a topic. Weight to any section should be relative to the topic's overall notability. X4n6 clearly does not understand this. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't claim to have read this whole discussion, but I'd like to point out that NOTNEWS emphasizes "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This is not "routine news reporting" about announcements and celebrities. And given the depth of coverage of this issue in sources, it doesn't really seem to be "emphasized or treated differently from other information." You can't just bust out NOTNEWS as some kind of magic incantation. AgnosticAphid talk 16:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT also says this. Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. It is quite common to see editors jump out of the woodwork to make a big deal about the news of the day. This appears to be one of those instances. I am not saying it won't have a historical impact or that it is not historically notable. However neither of these can be determined at the time it happened. This is nothing more than using WP for political posturing. Arzel (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The quote you chose makes it very clear that the objection is to using Wikipedia as a primary source. Given that we're documenting the reports of various news sources, how does this even apply? I have to agree with agnosticaphid on this matter; you seem to be using WP:NOTNEWS as "some kind of magic incantation", in that you're focusing on the acronym and not the contents. Please read the contents with an eye towards comprehension. MilesMoney (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NOTNEWS argument could be applied to almost everything in the article. Sorry, Arzel, but if you are trying to say that this widely-reported incident should be excluded from the article while almost everything else he says or does is included in the article - well, let me just say that you do not have consensus your side. Consensus has already established that the information should be in the article in some form; in its current format it is neutral and not undue in length or emphasis; we are simply discussing where to put it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Arzel is guilty of a bit of policy shopping. Rather transparently, s/he is trying to reach a desired conclusion, rather than simply applying policies relevant in this instance. If misapplying WP:CRYSTAL fails, then let's go with WP:RECENT. If that fails, then let's try all of WP:NOT, then WP:NOTNEWS specifically. If s/he truly believes these policies applied, per WP:PS, they should have been presented all at once: not as a never-ending flow of "if not that, then this," or an attempt at death by a thousand cuts. But as several editors have already quite correctly explained, none of these policies apply uniquely to this section, if they apply at all. Using them to cherry-pick now, if consistently applied, would only result in a dramatically different - and substantially smaller - article. Something I can't imagine even Arzel would like. So be careful what you ask for. Finally, MelanieN, your view of consensus is dead on. X4n6 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles Money, You just went through an almost topic ban for your TE and uncivil discourse and you start making comments like this? "Please read the contents with an eye towards comprehension." This appears to be a pattern which you are unable to break.

MelenieN, I am saying that you and a couple of your fellow editors seem to be more interested in current news than building an encyclopedia. You will notice that I have not removed the section, I have been simply trying to illustrate how WP is supposed to be used. To placement appears to have been settled (with the exception of some edit warring that it is deserving of its own section). Why don't you and your companions discuss this?

X4n6, What policy shopping? Those are all related. Arzel (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, pesonal attacks like your comments about Miles Money, will not be tolerated here. For now, you have lost the argument, but if you persist, you will lose the war. I take violations of WP:CIVIL seriously. MelanieN has clearly explained to you that consensus has been reached that "the information should be in the article in some form... we are simply discussing where to put it". Consensus does not require unanimity. Your arguments have failed to garnered sufficient support to prevail, while opposing arguments have. You should also read the section below. So I do not recommend that you escalate the situation by edit-warring to revert to your minority viewpoint. That is tendentious editing and also never ends well for the editor. Let this caution suffice. X4n6 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You clearly did not read what I wrote. Miles personally attacked me. Get your facts straight, there seems to be some disconnect between your comments. And I am not sure what minority viewpoint you are referring. I clearly stated to MelanieN that this discussion was placement. MelanieN, Truthsort, Maximusveritas, Muboshgu, Steeletrap, and myself have all weighed in against a separate sub-section (in the above discussion). Only you and Dezastru seem to be fighting for a separate sub-section. I suggest you read all of what I have wrote before jumping to conclusions. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody could reasonably construe my politely-worded suggestion as a personal attack, so I think I need to remind you that WP:NPA mentions false accusations as an example of personal attacks. In addition, X4n6 was correct in identifying your low blow about topic bans as a person attack in itself. The overall effect is as if you're saying, "I know you are but what I am?", which is definitely not civil on your part.

Anyhow, you do indeed show a pattern of shifting reasons, which is what WP:PS warns against, and you seem not to understand how WP:CONSENSUS works, which is inexplicable given how long you've edited. I'd politely suggest that you re-read these policies and focus on understanding them, but you'd most likely pretend that's some sort of insult. Instead, I'll simply point out that your interpretations of these policies appear not match the contents of these policies. MilesMoney (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a long history in your short time here of personal attacks. Often calling the competence of another editor into question. I am not sure why you and X6n4 continue to bring up an WP:ESSAY, especially when it does not apply to the discussion. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I learned from you. When you bit me, I didn't know any better than to respond in kind, so I violated WP:CIVIL. Now I know better. I even know that vague accusations of incivility are themselves a form of it, so you're going to need to stop accusing me of personal attacks unless you can post diffs. MilesMoney (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the time of your general attack on all of WP you have gotten into a tiff with Sitush here and here where you have made several insults. Even after you complained to Bbb23 you were directly insulting to Sitush and then doubled down on that insult.

You made some false accusations against me regarding RS's and have yet to respond. However you did have time to personally attack me again in that same section. You show a general lack of good faith to your fellow editors much like your talk page complaint linked above. And you have once twice insulted my comprehension. This is just in the past two days. Your ANI regarding similar behavior has not even been officially closed and you cannot refrain from attacking your fellow editors. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Isolationist vs non-interventionist

There seems to be a lot of confusion between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism is generally defined as declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements; as well as not becoming involved in military conflicts which do not directly threaten the country. Definition from here and here Non-interventionism on the other hand allows one to enter into trade agreements, trade in cultural, athletic, and scientific endeavors (among other things), while not forcing yourself on other countries, not engaging in preemptive wars and so forth. North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist.

Would it not be more accurate to say Rand Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist? Yes, there are plenty of news articles which use the word "isolationist" but I feel that's simply because they either are confused about the two terms or are detractors of non-interventionism (see here). Here are two sources which specifically label Rand Paul as non-interventionist HuffPost, Reason.com. It comes down to real-world definitions which would mean that Paul is not an isolationist. Coinmanj (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that even the WP link for non-interventionism, when referencing the United States, leads to United States non-interventionism? Did you also notice that the article on isolationism, almost immediately also discusses protectionism? You probably know that all three words have variously been used to define Paul's foreign policy positions. The problem is, while they are not identical, in his case I think to some extent each is applicable. So I think we have to accept that, at least for the opening paragraph, we have to pick the one word that is generally most explanatory to the reader. Then we can explain in the article the other words and their applicability. The only other option would be a pretty unworkable hybrid, like saying he has an "isolationist/non-interventionist/protectionist" foreign policy. That's obviously a pretty heavy lift for the first paragraph. So it's probably better just to leave the one word "isolationist" in the heading, since that's the word the source uses, and then discuss the other words, with sources, within the article. X4n6 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are drawing a technical distinction between two words that are largely synonomous in common parlance. See for example Mises Institute senior fellow David Gordon's review of Prof. Eric Nordlinger's Isolationism Reconfigured: American Foreign Policy For a New Century:

Ever since World War II, the traditional American foreign policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs has had a bad press. Isolationism, it is alleged, helped cause the Second World War, with all its appalling destruction and massacres.[3]

The definition you provide for isolationist is much more restrictive than that used by a number of authorities.

• isolationism - "a policy of withdrawing from active participation with other actors in world affairs and instead concentrating state efforts on managing internal affairs"
  

Kegley & Raymond, The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics

• isolationism - "foreign policy doctrine that opposes intervention in distant wars and involvement in permanent military alliances"
  

Dautrich & Yalof, American Government: Historical, Popular and Global Perspectives

• "Many political science texts refer to the early years as a period of isolationism, meaning that the United States remained removed from the political affairs of the rest of the world, limiting its international engagement to economics and trade."
  

Joyce P. Kaufman, A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy

• isolationism - "A grand strategy of isolationism does not call for economic autarchy, political noninvolvement with the rest of the world, or abstention from the use of force to protect American interests. Indeed, isolationism is compatible with extensive economic interaction with other nations, vigorous political interactions, and the occasional use of force, often in conjunction with other states, to defend American interests."
  

Robert J. Art, "Selective Engagement" in America's Strategic Choice Brown et al, eds

William Safire put it this way: "Isolationism - The theory that America's national interest is best served by a minimum of involvement in foreign affairs and alliances.... Objectively, the antonym of isolationism is internationalism; isolationalists prefer to denounce interventionism and adventurism."

William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary

A number of scholars have called the Pauls' foreign policy stance "isolationist" or "neo-isolationist".[4][5][6][7][8][9] And several senior Republican members of Congress at the center of shaping American foreign policy, such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Peter King (NY), have not hesitated to call the Pauls isolationist.

Is the real reason that many who insist on saying the policy position of the Pauls is "non-interventionist"—as opposed to "isolationist"—do so largely because they feel "isolationist" is tinged with a negative connotation[10][11][12] that "non-interventionist" lacks?

Quite frankly, it seems the main advocates for making the distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism in reference to the Pauls are the Pauls themselves, their libertarian boosters, and journalists describing the Pauls' policies using language borrowed from the Pauls (such as here). Dezastru (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NPOV requires us to use the preferred terminology of the subject when it conflicts with our reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Duel?

His comment “If dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge." should be included, no? Google News search for "Rand-Paul duel" comes up with quite a lot of hits. Zell Miller's "duel" comment is covered on his page. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Not unless it becomes as controversial and widely reported as the plagiarism allegations themselves. Right now it's a passing comment, while the plagiarism issue itself continued to snowball. NYT again for example. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is his response, though. Arzel reverted an addition because it didn't have Paul's "response". That NYT source includes the "hacks and haters" part of the duel comment, so perhaps that belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. Given the breadth of the plagiarism, we have no choice but to include his dueling comment if we're to maintain NPOV. Rand has barely responded on this issue, so every response counts extra. I'm just glad dueling isn't legal is Ontario... MilesMoney (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the plagiarism paragraph

Because the "plagiarism allegations" paragraph has been added to piecemeal as the story developed, it has gotten bloated and disorganized, not to mention unencyclopedic, and IMO it now contains TMI about the details. How about trimming it to something like this? (I don't want to change the article until we have at least rough consensus on a trim.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning in October 2013, Paul was accused of lifting verbatim passages from other sources and using them without attribution in his speeches and writings on multiple occasions. The first to call attention to such an instance was television broadcaster Rachel Maddow, who said that in a Virginia speech by Paul, several passages about the science fiction film Gattaca had been lifted directly from the Wikipedia article about the film. BuzzFeed reporter Andrew Kaczynski and Maddow subsequently reported that two of Paul's previous speeches had used verbatim passages from the Wikipedia article about the film Stand and Deliver. Additional allegations of plagiarism emerged in November involving Paul's February 2013 response to the president's State of the Union address, Paul's 2013 book Government Bullies, an opinion piece by Paul in the Washington Times, and testimony before Congress in September 2013. In response, Paul said that his speeches were written by several people with no one person responsible, and that he had credited his descriptions of the movies to the writers of the films. He suggested the controversy was being overplayed by his political opponents, whom he described as "hacks and haters".

Seems fine to me. As you say, with breaking stories and new developments, updates can become fragmented. A good trim is beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so. The current passage in the article is quite accurate. There is no need to trim for now, as this is still developing. Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "still developing", there's this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It should include more of Paul's response. the lone sentence you have on this is him responding to the wikipedia plagiarism. You should include these responses as well[13][14] The last sentence is not necessary. Truthsort (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I get the feeling it's too soon for this. The story is still developing and more information is going to continue to be added on a daily basis, and the section will inevitably continue to be disorganized and overly focused on detail. I'm dropping the idea for now. But after things settle down and we can put this incident into some kind of historical perspective (something none of us can predict right now), it will THEN be time to remove the TMI and organize the story, possibly in the way I have suggested. Let's not forget this, but let's put it on the back burner for now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone with more wikipedia experience than me should update that Sen Paul is no longer a columnist at Washington Times amid these plagiarism accusations: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/5/washington-times-ends-sen-rand-paul-column-amid-pl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.150.145 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I added it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The trim removes too much detail about the later discoveries; the details of plagiarism in a book are probably highly relevant; speeches are, perhaps, held to lower scrutiny. My opinion, of course, but, nonetheless it does seem that a rapid listing-off without any details whatsoever minimises the scope of the allegations too much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The goal is not to add everything and then trim it once the story dies down. That's not how Wikipedia is meant to work. This is a biography and it needs to be NPOV at all times, even in the middle of a story. NPOV means we present this summary-style just like the rest of the article. If we want to include all the details for clarity it should remain on the talk page, then the summary can be adjusted based on consensus. —Designate (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The idea isn't to trim it once it dies down, but to adjust it to reflect the historical consensus once there is one. If that's shorter, great. If not, also great. Length, in itself, isn't the issue. The issue is following what the sources say. We're supposed to be editors, not writers. MilesMoney (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Content for the Medical Career section

Rand Paul is NOT board certified, and all statements making that claim should be removed. This is an fact in medicine, not something that can be based on non-professionals or opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.24.52 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Truthsort wants this section to read:

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.[18] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Gilbert Graves Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office.[19] After his election to the U.S. Senate, he merged his practice with Downing's medical practice.[20] Paul has faced two malpractice lawsuits between 1993 and 2010; he was cleared in one case while the other was settled for $50,000.[19] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.[18][19] Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.[10] As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.[21]

In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards on his first attempt and earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years. In 1997, to protest the ABO's 1992 decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to be recertified every 10 years in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO) to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system.[22][23] The NBO was incorporated in 1999, but he allowed it to be dissolved in 2000 after not filing the required paperwork with the Kentucky Secretary of State's office. Paul later recreated the board in September 2005, three months before his original 10-year certification from the ABO lapsed. His ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005. Paul has since been certified by the NBO,[18] with himself as the organization's president, his wife as vice-president, and his father-in-law as secretary.[24] The ophthalmology board is not officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).

• If Paul is legally practicing medicine, he obviously has a state-issued medical license. Most readers will know this. There is no need to state the obvious on this point.
• A doctor does not "receive" a first job. It's not a gift. Further, Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers is not independently noteworthy, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Downing's only notability, if any, is that he was a partner with Paul in the early years of Paul's practice. There is no reason to mention Downing in this article, or to mention Gilbert Graves Clinic.
• "Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing". His mentor and former business partner is praising him? You seriously think this is encyclopedic content? ("My mom is the best mom in the whole world!")
• "and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals". We already know he is a doctor, so why is it necessary to say he has medical privileges at two local hospitals? He probably wears a white coat in the office too ...
• "In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards on his first attempt". Why do we need to know that it was on his first attempt? Is it unusual for ophthalmology board-certification candidates to pass the exam on their first attempt? Is this something readers would typically know? Has someone alleged that Paul failed on his first attempt?
• Truthsort has deleted the statement that Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology is not recognized by the AMA, with the edit comment "A‪BMS works with AMA‬". Very few readers will have any familiarity with ABMS, but many readers, certainly the vast majority of American readers, will be familiar with the AMA, which is why this information was noted by the sources reporting on Paul's certification issues and why its inclusion would improve this section of the article.
• The fact that the American Board of Ophthalmology recognizes more than 15,000 ophthalmologists as being certified while Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology only counts a few (200 mentioned at the time of the founding) is noteworthy. It provides the perspective for readers to judge whether in founding the new board Paul was leading a movement that was widely embraced by his profession.
• "Board-certified" is in quotes because it is a term of art. See WP:WORDSASWORDS. Dezastru (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of changing the first sentence of the second paragraph. If you want to remove first attempt then fine, but why change earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years to entitling him to describe himself for 10 years as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist. Paul established the NBO from his own principled stance, but what evidence suggest Paul was planning a greater movement to surpass the ABO? Why is it surprise that a group that has existed since 1916 and a founding member of the ABMS has more ophthalmologist than a board that was created in 1997 and does not have ABMS recognition? (Your provided source does not even mention a number of ophthalmologist from the ABO) If the reader is not familiar with the ABMS then the reader can click the wikilink for it. Mentioning the AMA in the way that you did suggest that it also did not recognize the board even though that is not what they do. Regarding a former employer's praise, well are you suggesting every employer has nothing to say but good things about ex-employees? Certainly if Paul was a poor doctor, he would not have become a business partner right? Given that Paul has his own office, I thought mentioning medical privileges is noteworthy. Not every doctor that works independent has them. I do not see how a medical practices lack of noteworthiness means we should omit it. It is not like we are creating a separate article for them. Truthsort (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Too busy to write up anything long, but Dezastru is basically right. MilesMoney (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)