Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bruno?

Seriously.. How can there not me one mention of his Bruno appearance? That would have to be a pretty significant moment in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.24.131 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a pretty important thing to have missing. Many peoples opinion of Ron Paul changed when he was seen in theaters saying "queer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.18.3 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read previous discussion about this. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope there's some cite to back up that assertion... Prove that it changed "many people's opinion". -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that a link for Paul's imdb listing is included under External Links which makes mention of his appearance in Bruno as well as in other films.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Paul's appearance in Brüno fails the WP:Recentism "ten-year test". Ten years from now, Paul's appearance in that film will probably be pretty much forgotten. As such, it ought not to be included. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it will probably be the only thing he's remembered for24.4.132.165 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruno or Paul? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's false. Most people still have no idea who Bruno is, or that Paul was in his film. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is constantly on the news discussing policy ideas.206.180.38.20 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Constantly on the news in the US perhaps. Throughout the rest of the world the Bruno film is probably the only reason people would have heard of him. The previous discussion referred to isn't on this page.--86.8.252.7 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Got a definitive source you can cite which says that? Otherwise, it's just your opinion, which Wikipedia doesn't really care about. Life's rough, huh? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

split article

This article is a bit lengthy, maybe we can do a congressional career of Ron Paul, any other ideas?--Levineps (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there's already a whole slew of spinoff articles from this page, but the "congressional career" article idea is worth considering.--JayJasper (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article suffers from recentism: much of it was written when events were fresh. I suggest that the "Support for Third Party Candidates" and "American Sovereignty Restoration Act" sections could be reduced to single sentences. The presidential campaign could have some of the various primaries discussed in less detail. The congressional career might be cut down but is essential to the article, he is a congressman. His congressional campaigns are also important aspects of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Four Deuces about trimming the "3rd party" and "ASR Act" sections. More info there than is needed for the bio page.--JayJasper (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography

There is a new biography about Paul called Ron Paul: A Life of Ideas.[1] However it appears to have been written by Ron Paul supporters. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Parallel rally

In mentioning that Ron Paul was excluded from the GOP rally in Des Moines, it could be worthwhile to add that he rented the hall next to the GOP room and held his own parallel rally. 68.225.192.99 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter Controversy editing/context

The section on the newsletter controversy looks to be a copy of part of a section from the Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy article. The problem is that when removed from the original article, all the context necessary to understand the claims are lost. For example, the article begins:

"In 1996, the media inquired into the newsletters passages, having been brought to light by Paul's congressional opponent Charles "Lefty" Morris; Paul's congressional campaign countered the statements were taken out of context"

What newsletter passages? It uses the definite article "the" to reference some particular content. To make sense, the referent of the definite article needs to be present somewhere, or it should be made into an indefinite referent. "Some newletter passages" or the "newsletter passages printed by X in year Y" but not "the newsletters passages".

In general, I think the section would be much clearer if it explained more of what is going on. "What passages?" "Why were they controversial?" "Who cares?" 75.84.184.44 (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul, conservative?

I don't like this sentence: "Paul has the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." It's wayyy too vague. It needs to be clarified. "Fiscally conservative" is probably what was meant... unless supporting gay marriage, legalization of drugs and prostitution is now considered "conservative." 97.123.138.33 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it says voting record, not political positions. Paul would not have voted in favor of legalization of drugs or prostitution unless such a measure had come before the House, and as far as I know it did not. I would be interested to know how he voted on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Following the reference, it appears to mean something quite specific, but I haven't been able to figure out very specifically what. There is something called DW-NOMINATE and something called "Common Space", and I am not sure whether these are exactly the same thing or how they are measured. I do think that this needs to be figured out and explained. The reference and the data from it may very well be a reliable source, but it's using certain definitions that are going to affect the conclusions reached, and not everyone may agree on those definitions. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It should begin, "according to x...." Can anyone find the reliable source where this study was orginally studied? TFD (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul's desk

This isn't a general discussion forum, it is only to discuss article issues.--JayJasper (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/6328/ronpaul9fl.jpg This is a picture of Ron Paul's desk I took back in August, 2005. Of note is the sign on it that reads "DON'T STEAL - THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION". I release this photo to the public domain. If someone wants to incorporate it into the article, they can. -Ich (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC) this comment in no way relates to the discussion at hand and should be deleted from the record. this is not a ron paul discussion page. please read the above disclaimers before posting comments so i dont have to scroll through this garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.244.205 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

2012 news fix please

"...if we're at a crisis period and they need someone...with the knowledge he has...then he would do it.". Jesse Benton..."

the link to the video has some extras http://www.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPbkwgYQcqg and it should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPbkwgYQcqg in order for it to work

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

nope... still the same please look at footnote 144 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-143 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.171.62 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(fixed) thank you JayJasper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.171.62 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV? No.

This is in no way NPOV; it's a Ron Paul lovefest. Needs a definite cleanup of all bias. + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.96.62 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of what you consider biased statements and passages. You might also want to search the archives for previous NPOV discussions of this page.-- JayJasper (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the IP editor who started this section, but I'll chime in with what I think are case of pro-Paul bias in this article. (1) The worst example is the newsletter controversy section. In a discussion of controversy/criticism, job number one should be to make it perfectly clear what the controversy is about. That section doesn't even mention what the supposedly objectionable content is until the third and then just provides a general statements that two newspapers criticized the newsletters for "content deemed racist." The section ought to have a general description of allegations (e.g., allegeding that black are overwhelming criminal) with perhaps a specific quote or two. By not describing the area of controversy, the section seems designed to blunt the impact of the writings by reducing them to a mere vague and meaningless abstraction. And it's extremely backwards to present two different Paul defenses (out of context; ghostwritten) before even the minimal description of the objectional content appears. The straightforward way of doing it would be to start by describing the writings, then have Paul's defenses and the reactions of others. It's not even a close case - the newsletter section has a Paul-apologist slant. (2) Sometimes the text couches Paul's positions in amorphous "pro-freedom" terms rather than concretely describing his position. For instance, the article states, "As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention." That's bizarrely abstract. It seems like an effort to obscure a position lest it be unappetizing to popular views on pollution. If Paul believes that the government should not be able to regulate individuals/corporation from letting pollutants loose on their land, the text should clearly state it. The current language isn't very helpful to readers as is. (3) The sentence, "His staff helps senior citizens obtain free or low-cost prescription drugs through a little-known drug company program; procures lost or unreceived medals for war veterans, holding dozens of medal ceremonies annually; is known for its effectiveness in tracking down Social Security checks; and sends out birthday and condolence cards," describes regular mundane constituent services that don't get mentioned in the articles of other members of Congress. (4) Although I think there's room for a bit of "color" to round out a Representative article, Paul's article seems to go overboard in including a lot. It repeatedly mentions stuff about being thanked by constituents he delivered babies and playing Congressional baseball in an apparent to portray him as such a lovable warm and fuzzy guy. There's more, but that's a bit for starters. --JamesAM (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree this article is not neutral, there is no controversy other than the newsletter one. The article reads more like a personal website stating only positive things. Even the newsletter section is NPOV, as it is very vague, actually blaming it on others (ghostwriters, etc).

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

Source: |CNN

There is more just on the newsletter controversy: "The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Defending his son [2]. I agree with JamesAM and the other IP editor. 74.83.23.189 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) I agree that the controversy has been whittled down so that it is no longer clear what it was about. Suggest including a better description with two concerns: there were two separate controversies in 1996 and 2008 and these should be reported in those sections. Disclosure of the offending material should be taken from mainstream news sources, and in the first case from the academic article about Paul. (2) Covering Paul's views is difficult, because there are few independent sources. Paul's argument is that regulation is ineffective because when government regulates industries the regulations are inadequate or not properly enforced and companies are more likely to pollute because government generally caps their liability. (3) + (4) Irrelevant material should be removed.

Also, if Gergen's commentary is used then it should reflect all of what he said about the issue.

TFD (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's assessment. The article would benefit from greater clarity concerning the controversy, and a bit less fancruft.--JayJasper (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarian theorist"

One of the many categories at the bottom of this page is "Libertarian theorists". Can someone explain to me what Ron Paul's contribution to political theory is? AFAIK he hasn't made one. Bkalafut (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, that the term 'Libertarian' is extremely suspect when applied to Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.106.194 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure what his contributions to "Libertarian theory" is. He has popularized many libertarian ideas, but I don't really think any of them could be called original. As far as calling Paul "Libertarian" suspect? No hes not completely libertarian on everything(notable immigration and womens rights), but very few people are. He agrees with Libertarianism far more than either than either modern liberalism or conservatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark567 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that Ron Paul supports so-called "women's rights", and therefore he is not libertarian? Please explain your comment.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming.

I find it odd that there is no mention of Ron Paul's global warming denialist positions. From his website: "Just like many of his supporters, Ron Paul took a long, hard look at the issue, and after careful consideration, and even before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, he identified the artificial panic around “Global Warming” as an elaborate hoax:" I think his anti-science positions, fueling of global warming conspiracy theories, and denial of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g) are worth at least some mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.159.26 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

His environmental views, including those on climate change, are mentioned in a a separate article on his political views.--JayJasper (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

His views should be mentioned, but again they should be properly sourced to articles about Paul. Good sources will connect his views with his political positions. For example although he does not accept global warming, he does not advocate continuing massive direct and indirect subsidies to the oil industry. TFD (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think editors should tread carefully here. Look carefully at what is said, and how our anonymous editor has attempted to skew it. Anon called RP a global warming denialist and claims RP holds anti-science positions, then cites RP's website, which only describes Paul as skeptical of the alleged consequences of global warming. No where in that sentence does Paul deny GW or climate change. Instead, it seems to indicate that RP thinks that the gloom and doom predictions of those attempting to get government to act on the issue are overblown. The evidence here doesn't support the allegations Anon has made against Paul. So, proceed with caution... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RP claims that Global Warming is exaggerated. Not that it doesn't exist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg Dark567 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction needed in Ron Paul article in statement of his policies regarding illegal immigrants

The article states: "He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits[welfare benefits have never been granted to them so how can they be ended?KMJill (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)] for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty;[152]"

Correction is needed here. Illegal immigrants are NOT eligible to receive government welfare benefits, nor are newly green carded people for 10 years after they receive their green card. So either Ron Paul is ignorant of this fact or the writer of the article is ignorant of this fact, or both. More that 2/3 of illegal immigrants here pay taxes and social security and medicare taxes, and local property taxes through rent or if they own homes, but will never receive anything other than k-12 public schooling and the right to be treated in an emergency room (but not for free). Many are pursuing legal means to become legal residents and are meanwhile paying into a system they will never benefit from. If they do manage to become citizens they will never be credited with the social security quarters they have accumulated before legal residency. (KMJill (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I updated the dead link and changed the text to: "He supports tighter border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty;[152]" You can read his position paper here. Obviously this article should be re-written based on more recent third-party sources. TFD (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think KM might be making a mistaken assumption of scope here. Federal benefits are not the only benefits out there, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held in cases such as Plyler v. Doe that state governments cannot deny illegal aliens (or their children) welfare benefits as it would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Hope that helps contextualize... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Regardless of whether you support or oppose Ron Paul, it is quite clear that many people have criticisms of him and his policies. There are those who consider him to be unrealistic, naïve, or even a "crazy old kook."

There is much to say about his involvement with CPAC and the GOP, despite his claims of being an independent libertarian. There are also some who criticize what they would call his paranoia regarding the Fed and inflation.

There are indeed many newspaper articles and political analyses available which talk about these issues. Hopefully someone can take the time to cite these sources and include such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.184.210 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unspecified detractors notwithstanding, criticism sections are not appropriate for Wikipedia biography articles. It's no different than inserting a section with nothing but praise. Love him or hate him, it's not Wikipedia's job to compile your talking points for you. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections in any article should be avoided. TFD (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism articles are ridiculous. The point is to give an unbiased assessment of the subject at hand, not list a bunch of things people don't like about the subject in one section.Jackson Doty 06:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 (talk • contribs)

From the biography articles link, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."74.61.36.90 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They are included but no as a separate section. TFD (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

American Physician

I know some people like to point out that he's a doctor but it makes no sense to put this next to his being an American. There's no such thing as an "American physician" and it should be signaled by the letters "MD" beside his name and not a seperate link.

174.114.87.236 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is standard Wikpedia policy in biographical articles to state the individual's nationality before the occupation, or what the person is noted for (e.g. "American novelist", "British scientist"). It is not standard policy to place letters like "MD" or "Phd" by the name in the lead sentence. (See, for example, Mehmet Oz or Dean Edell.--JayJasper (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with JayJasper. TFD (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite normal to place MD after his name in the sidebar however (or doctor in the cases of most commonwealth physicians) for example Steven T. DeKosky. Wizard Drongo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"while also strongly supporting our precious civil liberties and remaining economic freedoms"

"while also strongly supporting our precious civil liberties and remaining economic freedoms."

uncyklopedian propaganda + US perspective ("our") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.28.172 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested update

{{Edit semi-protected}}Request that the order of precedence box near the bottom be updated as follows: |- style="text-align:center;"

|style="width:30%;" rowspan="1"|Preceded by

Rob Andrews
D-New Jersey

and also; | style="width: 30%; text-align: center;" rowspan="1"| Succeeded by

David Price
D-North Carolina

|-

David Price is incorrectly listed as preceding him instead of following, and Neil Abercrombie resigned prior to his run for governor of Hawaii. Thanks in advance. 75.204.206.136 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation number 174 is missing

"Paul also believes that the federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."[174]"

Clicking the citation results in a 404 "not found". The citation needs to be replaced or the section remove.d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottogog (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a replacement; I also changed the commentary as the speech wasn't quite as strong as the previous statement claimed.

Personal

Two of the four brothers are mentioned. Why not mention the other two? The other minister is Jerry. And brother William is a university mathematics professor (retired).

184.8.162.92 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Cousin's husband

Rand Paul is no longer Senator-elect Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.150.1.76 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul & Associates Corporate documents are offline

Could someone reupload them, or link to a different source.? 69.113.132.21 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer and the newsletters

Regarding this change, Blitzer said in person to Paul that the statements don't sound like the RP he's come to know. This was represented in the article as Blitzer "expressed his disbelief during the interview that Paul would have made such statements."

A couple points:

1. Newsanchors say things all the time they don't mean literally, just to get conversation going and be polite.
2. The statement that something "doesn't sound like the [name of person] I used to know" can also be used to express the idea that that thing is out of character, or a radical change from previous character, as opposed to the literal meaning that it was literally not written by that person.
3. I'm not sure Wolf Blitzer is notable enough to be included her unless he's some sort of longtime friend of the guy. He's just a CNN newsanchor, not a poli-sci professor. He's not particularly qualified to give an opinion. However, I left it in for now, not wanting to change too much at once without discussion.

--Louiedog (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate characterization of the Liberty Caucus in the lede

While it appears that somebody had decided to emphasize Dr. Paul's membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus (setting it as the second sentence in the lede paragraph), the characterization of that organization as having only one aim — "to limit the size and scope of the federal government" — while citing as support an op-ed piece in the Winnipeg Sun when the Web site of the Liberty Caucus itself provides an online statement of principles (see http://www.rlc.org/about/statement-of-principles/) is improper, leading the reader to a false impression of the organization which is supposed to be so very important in considering Dr. Paul's political stance. Limiting "the size and scope of the federal government" speaks to one of the ways in which the Liberty Caucus seeks to achieve its stated ends, but it says nothing at all about the organization's objectives themselves, which the official utterance of the Caucus defines as the support of:

"...individual rights, limited government and free enterprise."

The number-one stated priority of the Liberty Caucus is individual rights, with their "limited government" concept further delineated as:

"...a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment."

This accords with Dr. Paul's extensively expressed views of his political philosophy and with his personal actions as an officer of civil government. I strongly suggest that the second sentence in the lead paragraph be modified to read:

Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which supports individual rights, limited government and free enterprise, seeking to secure these ends through a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny.

The statement of principles of the Liberty Caucus can then be directly cited as the support for this sentence.

It's not just a matter of what Dr. Paul is against, but what he stands for that differentiates him from the rest of that crew in Mordor-on-the-Potomac. — Tucci78 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It was undue emphasis anyway, and shouldn't have been in the lede. I removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Help update 112th Congress

{{Edit semi-protected}} With the departure of many more senior members, House seniority, his order of precedence box should be updated to years = 53rd; his preceeded by and succeeded by remain unchanged. Thanks in advance. 75.204.42.109 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Done Edit complete. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential 2012 Senate run

With Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson retiring there's been a lot of speculation of Ron Paul running for her Senate seat in 2012. He has also said he is considering it and a poll showed him in second place among potential candidates, and only 1 or 2 percentagepoints away from the leader. That being said, should there be a section on a potential Senate run like there is on his potential presidential run? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.27.208 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul for deletion

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul - which which may be of interest to readers and/or editors of the Ron Paul article - is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Draft Ron Paul movement for deletion

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article Draft Ron Paul movement - which which may be of interest to readers and/or editors of the Ron Paul article - is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft Ron Paul movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Per

"In an article title "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[127]

Researching thoroughly thru both the link provided under reference 127, and all sites linking from this clearly questionable website, I cannot find the quote made by this newsletter. Perhaps it should be removed?--206.180.38.20 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't look like the cited source contains this quote. Does anyone have a source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter Controversy

This section while well documented is entirely inappropriate. The comments verge on personal attacks. At one point, The New Republic, a very liberal publication, is quoted. Comments from this publication about Dr. Paul cannot be expected to be anything but personally critical. Biographical information about any political figure should enlighten the reader about the person's career, philosophy, etc. It should not engage in personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttocs4591 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced, as you point out. There is no policy reason for deleting it. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before deleting sourced content.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You also need to check your facts. The New Republic hasn't been "very liberal" for decades, although it certainly once was. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

TNR is ridiculously to the left, but it seems some on the left say outlets like NYT and TNR and MSNBC are middle of the road. The truth is, we see things relative to where we stand, and TNR sees things farther to the left than 80% of Americans.74.192.163.136 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How old are the issues of TNR you're reading? They abandoned any pretense to a leftist viewpoint years ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Organizing Political Positions into Specific Categories

The political positions section could be separated into specific categories to make it much easier to read.Libertybrewcity (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we would end up arguing about which categories the positions fall into. Are they libertarian issues? Social issues? Economic issues? etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a whole lot of arguing because the positions would be pretty specific. A lot of other politicians and candidates have them. (abortion, monetary policy, drugs, foreign policy) It would be pretty easy to split them up into categories. There might be minor disagreements over titles, but generally the cards would fall into place. It would also clarify the section and make it easier to add information where it appears to be missing.Libertybrewcity (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. There is already a page for his political positions.Libertybrewcity (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you knew that! It's part of the psychotically excessive coverage this minor figure gets in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (a brew city editor, too)

To call Ron Paul a "minor figure" is disingenuous at best. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside of libertarians and other science fiction fans, I usually have to explain who he is before I can discuss him with my non-political acquaintances. Compared to Romney, Huckabee or McCain he is a minor figure, albeit one with a mindbogglingly fervent fanbase. He is roughly analogous to Kucinich among the leftists, or maybe Bernie Sanders; and should be getting approximately equivalent coverage here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily notability is not established by the layman. In no way can the work of politicians like Romney, Huckabee, Kucinich or Sanders be even compared to the intellectual output of Ron Paul. None of those politicians can claim to have initiated such a large-scale movement. Perhaps if I still saw Paul as nothing more than another quirky congressman running for president, I'd agree with you, but through time, things change.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You and I have to agree to disagree on this one, William. I've known David Friedman personally since 1971; there is nothing in Ron Paul's work that is not a re-hash of von Hayek via the Friedmans (father and son) and third-hand Ayn Rand, with some small-town social conservatism thrown into the mix; and that's a formula for which there has always been a ready market in the United States, from the Bricker Amendment back to the orthodoxy of the Coolidge era. He has initiated nothing large-scale, nothing of note, unless you're claiming the Tea Party folks are somehow his heirs. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike, Ron Paul is not the originator of these ideas, to be sure, but he is one of the few (if not only) Congressmen to consistently vote in terms of them, and the first to bring them to the presidential election arena. That's what makes him notable. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As other editors (such as my fellow Milwaukeean) have mentioned, such ideas used to be standard-issue for a significant fraction of the Republican Party (and of the Democratic, although the social issues they got hung up on were usually different). Paul's "consistency" is overblown; when push comes to shove, he sometimes talks and votes like a right-wing minimalist, not like a libertarian. None of this is notable outside the internet, where he is a fad. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if you interpret Paul's "consistency" as "consistency with pure libertarianism (whatever you think that is)" you might say it's overblown. But that's not what is usually meant by it. He's consistent with his own philosophy, which is much closer to libertarianism than what any other national level politician espouses, but is arguably better described as following the constitution. But consistency with his own philosophy is not overblown.

The "fad" is now officially four years old. I suggest that a whole generation of future leaders have been strongly affected. How big his impact will be this time around probably depends a lot on how much the dollar continues to inflate over the coming months. The Fed has its back against the wall - they're out of tricks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See, as an historian, I consider four years to be a perfectly reasonable length to qualify as a fad in its middle age. I don't think that you can point to anybody but (maybe) his own son as being influenced particularly by Paul himself, as opposed to the hundreds of others who espouse similar views. His exaggerated presence here in Wikipedia just says something about the demographics (gender and otherwise) of Wikipedia itself. And "a whole generation of future leaders have been strongly affected", in addition to being IMHO absurd, is certainly a WP:CRYSTAL violation. In the long run, I suspect he will be seen as one of those things like the John Anderson and Barry Commoner candidacies of 1980 that seemed important at the time, but didn't matter in the long run (whether we want them to or not is a wholely separate issue). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Of course no whole generation has been affected. I meant a substantial number within a generation, kind of like what happens with sports heroes. In bicycling, for example, a whole generation was influenced by Greg Lemond in the 80s (back when virtually no Americans were racing in Europe), including some kid named Lance Armstrong, who himself influenced another generation, and here we are with three American teams in the Giro d'Italia. That's the kind of effect I'm talking about, and I really see Ron Paul as having that kind of effect on a generation of politicos, also similar to apparently how JFK influenced Clinton. Let's remember that only a small percentage ever get seriously interested in politics, so not all that many have to be influenced to make a big difference. Ron Paul, for example, was an obstetrician whose hobby was learning about economics who got inspired by Nixon's "temporary" abandonment of the gold standard. That was all it took for him to decide to get into politics and to win about a dozen Congressional elections.

There are thousands of young people similarly influenced by Ron Paul - they will tell you themselves. I mean, he does have over 300,000 "likes" on Facebook. That's not nearly enough to win the presidency, but it's plenty to be a serious contender in the GOP primaries, and, more pertinent to this topic, considering only a small number of those can ever be in politics, it's plenty of fodder for influencing the future.

The Ron Paul "rEVOLution" is very different from the the Anderson and Commoner campaigns in several important ways. First, Paul is much more interested in educating than in winning. Second, he stands for a clear and cohesive philosophy that supports very specific positions varying the entire political landscape, from foreign policy to drug decriminalization, from monetary policy to civil rights. It's the "liberty package", as he likes to say, and has explicated about in a handful of books. Who can even remember what Anderson or Commoner even stood for? As far as I can tell, Anderson did not even write any books, and Commoner's writings are focused on a very narrow range of political topics in the area of ecology and conservation. In contrast, twenty years from now, I, among thousands of others, will remember what Ron Paul stood for. He's more like Goldwater in that respect, only perhaps even better defined (you know, all the stuff he's been so consistent about it since the 1970s).

Finally, another distinguishing factor is Ron Paul's unparalleled candor. Even those who disagree with him regularly remark about how open and honest he is about his positions, which again stems from education being more important to him than winning... he'd rather lose than win fraudulently by concealing his true positions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

I disagree with him about a number of issues, most notably abortion and evolution, but at least I know where he stands. No doubt about that!

For all these reasons, and more, he's more notable than what the "minor figure" characterization suggests. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, disagreements are still legal, even in Scott Walker's Wisconsin; and you and I have one here! I must say, though, that I'd be more impressed with his "candor" if I could believe a single word he's said or written about the nastier crap in the newsletters his name was on. I remain convinced that he was willing (even if reluctantly so) to pander to a bigoted element in his fanbase of that era, even if he didn't believe the vileness himself (and I reserve judgment on the latter). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He's protecting Rockwell. I can't fault him for not being candid about something that will embarrass a friend/associate. The association is a bit troubling, but considering the racism expressed in the writing was of the ignorant/insensitive type, akin to the type of thing that Juan Williams said about Muslims, rather than being blatant separatist/segregationist blather, I don't think that any of that indicates anything substantial against him being president. We also know that a hallmark of prejudice is blindness to that prejudice. For example, I never realized I was homophobic until a colleague I respected came out of the closet and I saw the world anew from his, gay, perspective. It seems to me there was some of that kind of blindness at play in this white-dominated endeavor as well. But as best as I can tell we're really past all that now, though of course his detractors like to dredge it up. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true Orange! Ron Paul actually polls nationally around 10% in some reputable polls. Some states also have him polling in second place. He is favored on intrade to win the Iowa Straw Poll. In the latest CNN poll, Ron Paul is actually the candidate closest to beating Obama. He also wins the largest amount of independent votes. The Republican Party used to have a platform close to Ron Paul's; however, in recent decades the party has taken a more hawkish and warmongering approach.Libertybrewcity (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going by comments like those of Jim McTague of Barron's, who wrote in today's issue, "could this perhaps be Ron Paul's year? Not likely. His campaigns have become comic relief." (And nobody can accuse McTague of being a liberal of any stripe whatsoever.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Many establishment Republicans like McTague haven't taken the time to really know what Ron Paul is saying, so don't really understand his philosophy, much less how his views are all "one package" of integrated liberty, but take some elements out of context and write it off as wackiness. This is just primal tribalism (his views are "different" - not in "the tribe"). But this is changing for many of them, and this is beginning to show in various polls, as mentioned above. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Juan Williams on Ron Paul: "We're living in the age of Ron Paul".

OrangeMike, and anyone else skeptical about the significance of Ron Paul's influence in politics today, and speaking of Juan Williams, check out Williams' comments about Ron Paul starting at about 3:20 of this phone interview with him on the Don Imus show: link (don't worry, it's almost all Williams - not Imus). "I find more and more that I think that he's one of the more dynamic people in politics these days... We're living in the age of Ron Paul. ... It's unbelievable to go to a Republican debate and see Ron Paul make the argument for legalizing heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, and get an ovation in South Carolina from South Carolina Republicans." And in case anyone thinks that's just a pundit trying to stir up interest in an otherwise boring race, or something like that, consider the earlier part of this interview in which he downplayed the significance of Gingrich. Why do that if he's driven by an ulterior motive like trying to make this GOP race seem more interesting than it really is? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets stop the WP:FORUM discussion here. There are many venues for discussing politics Wikipedia talk pages are not one of them The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

FORUM? Juan Williams establishes notability and significance of this article's topic, which has been questioned above. Although it's not about any specific article content, it is about this article's content in general (and the content of related articles). --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

he called him a minor figure not a non-notable one. If Thats his opinion of Ron Paul. you are probably not going to change his opinion.~ So dont bother trying Focus on fixing and improving the article the both of you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's not clear how the opinion of one random albeit highly notable person on Ron Paul is supposed to change anything anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism revert question

I came to this page a few minutes ago, and the lead included the line that Ron Paul had "...raped more than 4,000 babies...". Being obvious vandalism I immediately went to revert it. But when I went to edit it, it wasn't there, only the correct description "delivered". Thinking maybe someone had just beaten me to the punch I went back to the main page, shift-reloaded, and it was still there. Went back again to edit it, and it was gone again. Huh?

It seems fixed now, but so that I know how to handle it correctly in the future (assuming I even did so here: I actually didn't change anything, but the page now seems fixed regardless just from clicking edit and then saving without any changes), can someone tell me exactly the reasons for the discrepancy? Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And as a follow-up, the (now two) edits I just made have not shown up in the page's history. Is there something weird going on here, or have I been gone from here that long? Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I reverted that vandalism here. I have noticed lately that when reverting vandalism it would take a couple refreshes before it showed up in the page history, perhaps that is what you were referring to? –CWenger (^ • @) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronpaul.com

This website declares This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul.com/ In their about page they say, Ron Paul was not informed of our launch and he has nothing to do with it in any way.[3] I presume that Ron Paul's speeches, writings, and the other materials on this website are all copyrighted, and based on the disclaimers I also assume that he has not given them permission to reprint them. Hence they are copyvios and we should not link to the website. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll cross post this at WP:ELN to see if anyone there has an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Aside from the copyright issue, we should be erring on the side of reliable professional sites. —Designate (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. There is adequate coverage from professional news organizations and other reliable sources that we don't need to rely on a self-described fan site for references.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

7/19/11 moneybomb

We currently have "On July 19, 2011, campaigners conducted a major online fundraiser to increase the campaign's influence in the the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll which is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011.[180] A moneybomb is a 24-hour fundraising event aimed at dramatically increasing funds for a specific candidate.[181]"

"Moneybomb" (new to me) is already defined in the article, and is shown here and elsewhere in the article as in internal link. But the text I quoted doesn't say that the 7/19 event was a moneybomb, so the first sentence doesn't lead well to the second.

I propose "On July 19, 2011, campaigners conducted a moneybomb to increase the campaign's influence in the the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, which is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011.[180] (A moneybomb is a 24-hour fundraising event aimed at dramatically increasing funds for a specific candidate.)[181]"

Objections? Better ideas? Jo3sampl (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Made the change. Jo3sampl (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just do it. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of desk.

What does this add to the article? If no one objects I would like to delete it. Thank you. --Politicsislife (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. WTF? –CWenger (^ • @) 23:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Added here BTW [4] Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

2012 presidential campaign section

This section seems to be turning into a list of the various events (major or not) of his campaign. My problem is that we've got a Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 article where this level of detail should exist, not here. This should be more of a summary saying he's doing it, quick blurb of the really, really major events and the current status. Things that I don't think belong here are the multiple moneybombs (a candidate raising funds? Amazing!), most of the stray polls, and well really, most of the stuff in the section. I think it can be replaced with a summary saying he's a current candidate for the Republican nominee for President in the 2012 election, keep the first paragraph, say that he won several straw polls before making his decision to run. He formed an exploratory committee on April 26, 2011 then formally announced his candidacy on May 5th, 2011 during an interview on Good Morning America. I think everything else should be in the details article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If every campaign event & developent keeps getting listed, imagine how long that section will be by the time the primaries roll around! Let's stick to just the basics on this page, as Ravensfire suggests, and put the more elaborate details on the campaign page.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Section has been revised as above. Ravensfire (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to include entire 1987 letter

It hardly seems necessary. Paul has made many speeches shall we include all of them entirely in the article? Summarize the speech and put it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.80.111 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A brief citation of the letter can be made as the letter signaled a shift between Paul's traditional conservatism and the neoconservative era of the Republican party. A detailed summary can be added to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 as it has gain some notoriety during the 2012 presidential cycle. However, it does not seem appropriate to include the letter verbatim in an encyclopedia. I would remind future editors who continue to insist to put the letter in this article of wikipedia's policy WP:IINFO, in particular to treat Paul's letter in an "encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of (the work)." Again, a concise summary of the letter would be more appropriate in the 2012 campaign article and only a brief notation this main article. Kjmonkey (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Today on the Michael Medved show (I listen all the time), a caller from I believe MN stated that he would be voting for Obama over Romney b/c Romney was not consistent - it came out that caller likes the one candidate Medved would never vote for Paul. Medved launched an attack that no candidate was purely consistent and got caller to agree that Paul attacked Ronald Reagan and everything he stood for and worked to get Michael Dukakis elected - any person who was able to read his resignation letter would realize that this was not the case - it took 6yrs (I learned this on Wiki)for the Libertarians to recruit Paul - he switched on principle, he knew he was not going to get elected but wanted to educate the youth on Libertarian ideals - I was one of those who voted for him in '88 as I did not like the Federal Gov't forcing La to change their drinking age to 21 - Federal overreach (too much info I know, but if we got to know each other, we can work to make Wiki a better source for a more educated electorate free from pure distortions)

The decision to resign was not taken lightly, I never knew it existed, I was glad I found it in the internet but it took some time, and I had to transpose it as most article took clips from it and tried to spin it. I would have preferred that it was already in Wiki, a great source, but was glad I could do my part to make wiki better with the addition. It is not WP:IINFO WP:UNDUE[[and if you look at WP:SS you will see that splits should not occur to hide positive or negative information, if placed in order it belongs before his '88 run, lastly many have an opinion that the Libertarian Party does not have a conservative wing b/c the press is slanted completely towards the liberal wing - this letter goes a long way to demonstrate that RP was not flipping to a Liberal slant as I have been asked, and was earlier on Wiki w/ slanted information that he support drug legalization, prostitution and sex worker and soon to be corrected on a separate your revert Iran that makes the allusion one of his political positions is the support of genocide - Cheers Snettie 21:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

WP:IINFO is the overarching policy for reverting the edit regarding the letter; but specifically, copying the entire letter verbatim and pasting into the article is a violation of WP:COPYPASTE. Think of those hard-bound encyclopedia volumes pre-Wiki era like World Book or Compton's; the articles written for these traditional encyclopedia are examples of summary style writting. Generally you would not find a primary source document written verbatim and instead only citation of the primary sources. Likewise, it suffices to mention the letter and if proper add an external link for users to access the primary source. If the letter continues to be notable during the campaign as evidenced by its citation or continued use by different news media or other candidates, it may be proper to write under the subsection of the 2012 campaign a similar episode summary like Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy. Please note, it would not be proper to write extensively in the main article Ron Paul without similarly editing the detailed article Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Again, if future editors see a need to address the 1987 letter in the main article, please refer to Ron Paul#Newsletter_controversy and its counterpart in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Ron Paul newsletter controversy as the style to follow. Presently, the letter has been mentioned in the main article according to chronological order and it seems sufficient. Kjmonkey (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not in pre-Wiki era hard-bound encyclopedia volumes, this is being mentions in many places on the radio, I just mentioned one - I did not copy paste, there are only small pdf type versions of this letter. I am happy to be part of this new ERA when we can react quickly with information. This belong in order of his career development. Please help with editing useless information like... the son of Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Germany, and his mother was of German and Irish ancestry.[8][9]...Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to the Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr. and so much more, I do not know where to start. If are going to improve WIKI for the election, as I know is your goal this whole section needs cleaning. Again this is absolutely the beauty of Wiki as the go to spot for accurate information when talk radio and print either mislead or worse, here you can read and better understand the candidate - I like you am glad that we are not in the old pre-Wiki days and even there this would be needed in a more expensive encyclopedia. Did you hear Medved today? CheersSnettie 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

My interest in editing this article is in presenting neutral information consistent with the goals of Wikipedia on biographies. Information you say is "useless" like ancestry is a hallmark of a well written biography and encyclopedic article. Please review wikipedia policy WP:ADVOCACY. Your recent edit adding the 1987 letter is counter to wiki policy. This wiki article received consensus as a good article because of the comprehensive scope of the writing including items that some users may not find of interest but others would. His current political status does not relegate certain factual information from being included; editors are advised to allow relevant facts to be included as long as they are written in the neutral voice.Kjmonkey (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Snettie, the full text of the letter is absolutely not needed in this article. Aside from fair use concerns, this is an encyclopedia article - summarize the events and provide links to good sources for more details. This isn't a blog post where you might see something like that added. Ravensfire (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Intro, Personal, Early, & First Sections [[WP:IINFO]

For those concerned about too much material on this Bio, I would suggest help w/ work on drastic reduction of unnecessary material in this section as well as excessive BLUE link to redirect reader. For an example of good editing please see Rick Perry site, that is clean, well done and to the point.Snettie 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Ron Paul had received consensus as a Good Article; therefore, it is not a valid to compare this article to Rick Perry. Wikipedia is a neutral WP:POV resource and although news outlets may give inadequate or even distorted versions of the letter, a wiki editor cannot allow a perceived imbalance or bias from external sources to become an impetus to engage in editing that is counter to encyclopedic writing. Please refer to WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOFULLTEXT as to why the letter cannot remain in the article as written and the remedy that can be pursued to use the letter as a resource Kjmonkey (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to consider, WP:LENGTH though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply - I think you would agree this is one of those occasions. It is not WP:COPYPASTE as you alleged b/c there are not cut and paste on the internet. The Wiki resource was the only spot after I transposed the document as a WP:PRIMARY and while caution is stressed w/ WP:PRIMARY to protect privacy and avoid libel, in this regard this WP:PRIMARY is being distorted in public is a manner that is libelous. By adding this pivotal point of the life of Paul you are shedding light and clarifying the issue. To do otherwise is to be complicit or neglectful and not using caution as is Wiki policy. Clearly you have given up on WP:IINFO, an indiscriminate collection of information, Good we can mark that off. I understand WP:ADVOCACY and we have to maintain NPOV and that goes for both pro and con Advocacy. The reason I mentioned Perry is b/c you can see, perhaps b/c he has only been running for a very short period of time, that there is not a collection of information that takes away from the whole. I do not want to gut completely but I gave good examples, seriously "His paternal great-grandparents ===emigrated from Germany===, and his mother was of ===German===" what purpose is that, earlier I had to edit someone who wanted to compare Paul Position to Israel to the of Mersheimer, Walton 9/12 once again today after I wrote below on talk page COPYRIGHT revision is the excuse to revert this is after I pointed out the error so Kansan is an active participant in distortion see talk page of political positions...

quote of current revert done by Kansan: "In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter"

1st in that voting against a resolution is not a position - positions are positives that other may adopt or advance in the form of a resolution that may be voted on - there is a difference, I think you vote on laws or resolutions, not positions

2nd two people voting is not a position, negative association w/ Dennis Kucinich are placed intentionally to influence the reader with your POV, not NPOV

3rd The UN is a governmental body that deals with relations between Nation States, it does not charge leader of Nations at all but the Nations themselves.

4th In this case there is clouding of the issue with the name of the president of Iran and alluding that Paul supports the president of Iran as a POSITION and

5th The inclusion of the Vote against the Resolution does not contain the word GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE was place there INTENTIONALLY to poison a persons thoughts on a candidate for the Office of President, for our United States - again not accurate and not NPOV, actually worse, Similar to distortion I noted in the Medved show today, which we cleared up w/ the posting of the GOP Resignation letter w/ that was deleted by Kansan, then reposted here is the Resolution, notice no Genocide, and no Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

H. Res. 175: Condemning the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and

6th The reference is a bad link to a youtube acct that no longer exists - not sure why - but funny Cheers

WP:TW deal with acts of vandalism, using excuse of Copyright, or the use of material in which the defects have been pointed out and insisting on using that is close to vandalism.

I hope we can work to make Wiki, more readable, more informative w/ relevant information, and more honest in the material presented and in the correct order and sequence of importance. ===Tikkun Olam===Snettie 04:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Although your arguments have merit regarding possible WP:NPOV concerns, several of your recent edits on the main article is not in keeping with wiki policies. A few edits have issue with spelling and punctuation. Although WP:BOLD allows users to add material to articles, significant changes to an existing good article with poor editing may be cause for an edit reversion. I would caution that you review your edits so that they maintain the quality of the article. The issue with the 1987 letter is that the whole text was inserted which is not proper: 1)possible copyright concerns 2)the letter constitutes an entire work which should be separate from the main article. The term "copypaste" is used to mean items that are transcribed nearly identical from one source onto wikipedia. It does not just mean the literal act of "copy and pasting" but anything that approximates plagiarism or copyright infringement. Since you were not able to establish that the letter had the proper copyright license to be allowed on wikipedia, fair use policy would allow only quoting a limited excerpt and not the entire work. I went ahead and researched the copyright issues and added the letter to wikisource so that it may be freely referenced; however, an editor cannot make an assumption that it is OK to add entire letters or long excerpts without taking care not to violate wiki policies that defend against copyright infringement. Keep in mind that though the text of the letter is available to quote from, refrain from inserting the entire letter into any article. Again, please refer to WP:NOFULLTEXT to understand the best way to use primary sources.Kjmonkey (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Resignation to small paragraph, bringing in that it was brought up in debate & GOP resignation letter in new section

Help with spinning off different page. It is pivotal and deserves more that a sentence. It needs to be expanded to a mini-section - with a smaller link to a different page that has the whole article. Like was done with the Political Positions and the 1988 Presidential run. As I have noted above it is being used incorrectly and misleading voters to the character of Paul and the reasons for his resignation.Snettie 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 76.185.164.187, 16 August 2011

There are many claims that Ron Paul is not getting his fair time on the debates or in the press. Google Trends is a good way to objectively see what people are searching for. Most people now use Google to do their research and Google Trends clearly shows that there is strong interest in Ron Paul. Use this URL to see him compared to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Ron+Paul%22%2C+%22Mitt+Romney%22%2C+%22Newt+Gingrich%22+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 98.165.209.78 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Ken Ouimet

Pillars of Prosperity is by noted liberal economist Paul Krugman, not Ron Paul. Amusing joke, but doesn't belong on Wiki.

76.185.164.187 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, was thinking of Peddling Prosperity. My bad. 76.185.164.187 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite or Remove

In accordance with Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, the following is humbly suggested for removal due to lack of citation:

"As a medical doctor, Ron Paul routinely lowered fees or worked for free in order to refuse to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments." - rather potent statement for no cites. Molten tofu (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be data behind this? "He worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s, delivering more than 4,000 babies, before entering politics during 1976"

I can cite Ron Paul saying he did these things, but that's hardly up to proof, yes? I'm a bit dismayed that very little has citation here. He's a public official; this shouldn't be too hard to do. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of the extra emphasis on verifiability in biographies of living persons is to make sure we don't libel someone. That's not really a concern in the passage at issue, because it's very unlikely to be considered defamatory.

That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't need citation, just that it's not really a BLP concern per se. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances ...our... presence...in Saudi Arabia -- Paul Wolfowitz

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina." - Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, May 2003

Where can we work this in?Snettie 16:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Errr, you're wanting to put something by Paul Wolfowitz into the Ron Paul article? I'm not seeing the connection here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing Wolfowitz validates Ron Paul, quote from Wolfowitz is in title, they agree, http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594Snettie 21:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Not unless Wolfowitz says Ron Paul was right; otherwise, it's just more original research and synthesis to claim that Paul is vindicated. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[[User:Orangemike|Orange Mike] Welcome back, did not think it would take you long to object, use ctl find to locate the quote in the link, sorry about my bad format of the link, better next time - and please hold the copyright this time. cpy? lolSnettie 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

No mention of Ron Paul. Concur with WP:SYNTH. Ravensfire (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire the connection is that Paul stated to the public what the Bush team knew and only said, I guess by accident in this case ASSUMING that you are not ADVOCACY against shedding information that you did not know in Wiki it could be done quite simply in a line like this...

While Paul was routinely condemned for his view stated in public that one of the primary recruiting tools for al Qaeda was our presence in Saudi Arabia since 1992 most are suprised to learn that Paul Wolfowitz said if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was our presence in Saudi Arabia..... now the question is where to put in (perhaps you suggest with the GOP letter, lol)Snettie 04:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Paul was one of dozens of people stating what everybody knew: that bin Laden had his knickers in a twist about the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz has admitted that, but has not cited Ron Paul in any way. Thus, making a big deal out of what Wolfowitz said as being specifically a vindication of Ron Paul, is original research not supported by the citations given; likewise for the unsupported and inaccurate "most are surprised to learn" part (most people who can read knew this by September 25, 2001 or so). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Orangemike and Ravensfire, it should be pointed out that this is a biography. We're not here to prove whether a position taken by Paul was right (or wrong). If the reader wants to know more about bin Laden and his motives, then they can click the WikiLink where hopefully our article covers this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs some updating especially the 2012 presidential section.

Rep. Paul has fallen considerably in the polls. 75.28.136.6 (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have the latest nationwide polls for Paul? I feel like he has maintained a fourth place over the last few months. He came in third at another Iowa straw poll three days ago. Manofmyth (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012#GOP debates and straw polls. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Blimp

The word blimp appears exactly 0 times in the article. This should be rectified immediately. Preferably not with blanking the page and adding the word blimp 1,500 times. 70.78.5.3 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the blimp would fit under the list of unconventional ideas that were employed by the grassroots among other activities like the limo or project100cars, the most prominent activity that came out of 2008 from the grassroots was the concept of a v for vendetta themed "money bomb." Since the blimp is among other grassroots backed projects and not every grassroots project is listed in the main Ron Paul article and that it has been mentioned in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 already, it is not necessary to add to the main article the blimp project. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 08:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Request moving opinion of Paul's "conservative voting record" to Poltitical Positions section.

In the lead we read the opinion of Keith Poole stating that Ron Paul "...had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." This seems both POV and unqualified (fiscally conservative? right wing conservative? small 'c' conservative?) and would belong better in the Political Positions section. I am going to be bold and make the change but welcome input.--Canadiandy talk 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Please change PAC's to PACs because the first way is wrong and the second way is right. Thanks.

Photochico (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Probablematic redirect

I just realized that Mises and Austrian Economics redirects to the Ron Paul article. While Ron Paul has written a pamphlet called that, the article doesn't state this (though it links to a pdf). This is obviously problematic since the reason for redirects should be clear. Either we should delete the redirect or include a note of the pamphlet (probably not really an option, given the length of the article already). --Kristjan Wager (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 campaign section out of date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#2012_presidential_campaign is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.99.111 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ron Paul Family Cookbook

In Iowa Dr. Ron Paul mentioned something about a cookbook when he introduced his wife Carol. I found some references to it such as: Ron Paul's family cookbook: 'An unorthodox campaign tactic'?[5] I searched the Ronpaul.com website for mention of this cookbook and don't see it listed for sale. But there are a few mentions. [6] I find this topic pretty unique..however..don't have the time to write a well constructed line in the main article. Any takers to do so are welcome in my view..and any detractors thinking it isn't a good idea can edit this paragraph.Pbmaise (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The cookbook is for sale on his campaign website.[7] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change outdated link "Ron Paul at the Open Directory Project" in the External links section. It currently points to his 2008 campaign. The current, much more complete page is at http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/President/Candidates/Paul%2C_Ron/ I would make the edit myself but the page is protected. Thank you. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Request fixed to use template (I hope correctly.) 68.110.104.80 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

split article - Congressional career of Ron Paul

This article is awfully long and he is primarilly known for running for President not his congressional record. So I suggest condenses the congresssional stuff and moving the bulk of it to a new page.--Levineps (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article incorrectly interprets Gallup poll

The article states that a Gallup poll revealed that Paul was the most admired man in Congress. The poll actually asked respondents what living person they admired most, and one of the respondents mentioned Paul. This hardly supports the conclusion that the poll suggests Paul is the most admired Congressman. I recommend deleting this section. --75.181.68.67 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed it.TMCk (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

the polls finds 1% of Americans (not 1 respondent LOL) names Paul the man they most admire in the entire world. One percent of America is 3 million Americans admiring Paul above all other men on the planet. No other man currently in congress was named by as many sampled Americans which makes Paul the most admired man in congress.Twonumbers (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this is original research, so it should be removed. Truthsort (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it's not original research to draw obvious conclusions from sources. For example,if you have a list of the 10 tallest people in the world, and one of them is a women, it's not OR to call that woman the tallest woman in the world. Twonumbers (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The poll DOES NOT suggest that Paul is the most admired man in Congress. You are confusing the statement from the poll that 1% of respondents indicated they admired him more than any other man in the world with the statement, that he is the most admired man in Congress. Who you admire most in the world (which the poll is asking) is an entirely different question from which member of Congress you admire most. This is one data point from a small sample for one month. Even if the poll were correctly interpreted (which it is not) such a transient data point would hardly merit inclusion in the article, unless one thinks that this poll should be mentioned in the article on anyone whose name has ever appeared in it.--75.181.68.67 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the poll tells who the most admired men in the world are (by Americans). Ron Paul is the only congressmen to make the cut. That makes him the most admired congressman in the world according to that poll. Analogously if you have a list of the richest people in the world, and New York city mayor Michael bloomberg is the only mayor to make the list, you can conclude that bloomberg is the world's richest mayor according to that list. You don't need a list specifically about the richest mayors to make that obvious inference. Now you can argue that had a poll specifically asked Americans directly what congressmen they most admire, Ron Paul would not have won, but you're always going to get different results when you change the methodology. But according to the poll as it was conducted, Ron Paul is the most admired congressman in the entire world. Since that's an extremely prestigious achievement and the Gallup poll is a highly reliable source, we should not be withholding this information from wikipedia readers.Twonumbers (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are drawing a conclusion not supported by the poll. It asks a specific question (most admired in the world) which is different from what you are answered (most admired congressman in the world). You do NOT know from this poll who the most admired congressman is because it didn't ask that question. There are obviously people who admire others before any given congressman. Had the question been different, the result could be Ron Paul or could be something else. This poll does NOT allow the results you are wanting to add. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If the poll lists all people in order of admiration, then the highest ranked congressman on that list is indeed the most admired congress person. We could be a bit more obtuse in the wording "In a list of admired people, Paul was the highest ranked congress person", which avoids some SYNTH, but I do not think that is particularly significant. On the other hand, I do agree, that a survey which only asked about congress might give a different answer, but likely because you would have to ask a competely different audience to be able to get statistically significant answers (I think the average person probably doesn't know any names of people in congress, let alone which one they admire) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The poll says nothing about him being the most admired man in Congress, it just says he is admired. That's why it violates WP:SYNTH. If you found a poll that asked people which Congressman they admire the most and Paul was first, that would support you point. See the difference? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How about my proposed reword above? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sooo... The most-admired Republican presidential candidate is Michele Bachmann. Oh, right, she's no longer a presidential candidate. Did the pollsters skip over Iowa? That leaves Newt Gingrich as the most admired Republican presidential candidate still in the race. Given that he is out-admired by Obama at least 11:1, should the Republicans just pack it in now and save a lot of money for other uses? Or is the poll sort of, you know, meaningless? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachman is the most admired FEMALE candidate. The poll ranks men and women separately. And Obama is the most admired man in the world and he's president. Seems like the poll means quite a bitVexperiential (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The revised wording is less SYNTH-y, but Fat&Happy's point is a good one. The best use of the poll would be to say what it polled and where Paul placed in it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to say something like "In a list of admired people, Paul was the highest ranked congress person," you would actually have to further specify that the poll surveyed Americans and it asked them what MAN they admired most. You would probably also need to specify that this finding was not statistically significant (the percentage of respondents who indicated Paul was considerably smaller than the margin of error) and that it is a monthly poll and Paul appeared only once. Surly if one wanted to mention Paul's level of support in the article, there are better and more clear ways of doing this. --152.23.200.58 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's understood that polls have error in them so it's not necessary to say the result wasn't statistically significant. And it's not a monthly poll, it's a yearly poll which Gallup has been conducting every year for SIX DECADES which makes it an extremely big deal. Vexperiential (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is, why does this need to be in Ron Paul's article at all? What encyclopedic point are you trying to make? It seems clear that one or more editors want to use this poll as raw data to make a point favorable to Ron Paul, which the article describing the poll does not make itself. That is the very definition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I support the removal of this quote as it stands. If you want to add a comment that Ron Paul is the the most popular Congressman to his Wikipedia article -- and I would question the neutrality of that effort -- then you need to find a reliable source that says so. You are not allowed to construct an argument to that effect. Msalt (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the poll you cite lists both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (who made his name as a Congressman) higher than Ron Paul, and shows that he has never risen as high as his current 1% before. So if we wanted to analyze these results, they would not be significant in terms of his overall career -- he appears once, at a time when the national spotlight happens to be on him, at only 1% -- and in terms of the current Republican presidential race he is only the 3rd most admired. From a Wikipedian point of view, though, the biggest problem is that you are linking to the raw Gallup poll itself and using it as evidence. This was released to the press on December 18th or so -- it shouldn't be hard to find reliable news organizations who interpreted this data. It's their job to do so, not ours. Msalt (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Twonumbers -- your behavior is close to edit-warring at this point. You are wrong to simply reinsert disputed text, against the bulk of talk page opinion, without saying anything on Talk; and calling a good-faith, talk-page-discussed edit "Vandalism" is pretty close to slander. The only reason I did not revert you is to avoid edit warring myself, but if you don't self-revert within a day or so I'll take it all out. If you don't like the results of this talk page discussion, you need to take it to dispute resolution, not call those who disagree with you "vandals" and edit war. You aren't even defending your position against a number of well-reasoned, WP-based objections. Msalt (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Twonumbers' argument that 1% of people saying they admire Paul the most of all people in the world, and that no other congresscritter showed up on that poll meaning that he is the most admired congressman is only true if "Admiration" is unique and discrete - IE, that each individual in the world can only "admire" one person, and that person receives the totality of their admiration. Since the poll itself disavows the uniqueness of admiration ("Admired most,") it is not appropriate to generalize. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Certainly, it points to the dangers of us analyzing the data instead of leaving it to professionals to do so. Which is exactly why Wikipedia frowns on this sort of thing. Msalt (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter Controversy Section

The section on the controversy over the shocking statements in various "Ron Paul XXXXX" newsletters has a clear POV as written. It is carefully crafted to favor one position (that of the Ron Paul campaign) in this controversy (namely, the position that Lew Rockwell rather than Ron Paul wrote the controversial statements.) I think that if you read the similar section in the Wikipedia article on the 2008 Paul presidential campaign, the difference is clear. That section is much more neutral.

For example: Here is the supposedly NPOV description of the facts of this controversy. See if you can find the not-subtle groundwork being laid for the argument that Rockwell, not Paul, is responsible for these words.

"After his failed run for president in 1988, Ron Paul moved back to Texas, but the newsletter continued to be published in Washington, DC, with Rockwell sometimes named as 'associate editor and contributor'.

"Starting in 1990, Rockwell began advocating Paleo-libertarianism, an outreach to social conservatives, by pandering to social issues instead of the more secular focus of the libertarian movement of that time[214]. That year, the Ron Paul-monikered newsletters, that Rockwell was known to edit, began printing controversial, apparently racist articles."

Amazingly the section gets even more POV. I have literally never seen anywhere on Wikipedia the phrase that begins this sentence:

"There is universal agreement that, up to Paul's departure from Washington in 1988, no such articles were printed, and that the articles were printed in Washington, while he was practicing medicine in Texas."

Universal agreement? Are you kidding me? What is the source for that statement? But wait -- there's more! "The bigoted articles stopped being inserted in Paul-masthead newsletters, in 1993." "Inserted," implying against Ron Paul's will. Etc. Etc. Only at the very end of the section do you even find -- obliquely - a mention that Rockwell has denied writing the pieces, which seems pretty important given the argument being pushed so forcefully here.

I realize this is a sensitive topic and a protected article, but this is really an extreme example of bias in a political article and should not be allowed to continue.Msalt (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To start the cleanup, I removed the paragraph added just yesterday (without any talk page comment I can find) by Kazvorpal, for 2 reasons. 1) Not a reliable source-- it's an editorial on some local Fox news TV station by an unqualified author, which says things such as "Here's what you need to know. The talk of racism has become the lowest form of political discourse." 2) The paragraph is directly arguing a point of the controversy, on one side (that of the Ron Paul campaign) and makes statements not supported even by this editorial. There's a lot of OR going on here.

Here is the paragraph, after several edits by the editor who inserted it, in case anyone wants to work on better sourcing it and making it NPOV: "At least one of these articles, the 1993 "How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence", was revealed in 2012 to have been written by James P. Powell, an image of a newsletter with this by-line being made available by the writer of the original attack article."Msalt (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a BLP. There is no reliable source that argues the statements were written by Paul, much less a consensus of reliable sources that says so. To put these inflammatory statements in this article is representing the POV that he did write them, one not represented in reliable sources. They need to be removed immediately. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see this article say that the statements were written by Paul? The controversy is well documented. It is not inflammatory to report a well known controversy. Msalt (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I reverted your deletion of NPOV, reliably sourced material. Nothing in the wiki article claims that Paul wrote these statements; it simply says that they are controversial, which is very reliably sourced. This article lays out the controversy very neutrally, with no assumption that he did or did not write them. (Actually, arguments that he did not write them are still presented, but the overall cast is generally quite fair.) All this article says is that the statements were in newsletters with Ron Paul's name on them, and a controversy resulted. How is that unacceptable or POV? Msalt (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

One editorial blog entry from Matt "Even if you disagree strongly with some of what Paul says (as I do)" [8] Welch at Reason.com is hardly a reliable source for something so inflammatory. Something like this really needs to come from an unbiased source at the NY Times, the LA Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, a big Dallas paper, or something like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Something so inflammatory as what exactly? The Dallas Morning News article is the primary source on the 95% statement. it's also closest in time to the events, and a direct quote of Ron Paul, so highly reliable. I'll add a few more.Msalt (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I added WP and NYT for the carjacking/animals are coming quote, and removed the existing one, which was an obscure publication not known to be as reliable as those (no slur on it, just not well known.) Also a couple more on the 95%. Let me know if any other sections need more sources.Msalt (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

PS the Matt Welch article in Reason for the 95% quote is just a literal reprint of the 1996 Dallas Morning News interview. I get that you don't like Welch's work, but Reason seems at least reliable enough to not FALSIFY an entire article like that. I have seen other reprints of that article that are exactly the same. I couldn't find it on the actual Dallas Morning News website; if you can, it would be obviously better to go straight to the source.Msalt (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I reworked the Newsletter section, removing the most blatantly argumentative and POV statements and recasting the controversy more neutrally, sticking to the existing sources. It's questionable how reliable Reason Magazine is, since they are openly partisan Libertarians, but the two articles cited seem pretty reasonable and take different angles from each other, which is a good sign. It's important to note that Congressman Paul himself defended two of the racist statements in the 1996 Dallas Morning News interview already used as a source in this article, so I mentioned that. As far as I can see, that is the only direct evidence offered by anyone in this controversy linking Ron Paul directly to any of the controversial statements (aside from, arguably, his signature appearing at the end of some newsletters.)Msalt (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply by including them the implication is there. This is why big newspapers like the NY Times have not included them, and even his opponents have not. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, just no. Quoting the statements does not in any way imply that Ron Paul actually said them. One could argue just as easily that it implies he didn't, because they are so extreme. Also, you're simply wrong about the major newspapers. Here are direct quotes from the newsletters, which took me 90 seconds of googling to find:

1) NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/bias-in-ron-pauls-newsletters-draws-new-attention.html

2) LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/23/news/la-pn-in-90s-newsletter-appeal-ron-paul-warns-of-coming-race-war-20111223

I could go on but you get the point. Msalt (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Through Proquest I can access some fo the early newspaper articles on the newsletters, including the Dallas Morning News. From what I can see, his response at the time was that his comments had been taken out of context.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Will. The first citation for the "95%" quote right now is a Reason Magazine article that purports to reprint exactly the 1996 Dallas Morning News article. I have seen a web page that purported to copy and paste that article, and the USA Today article source I added quotes the author of the DMN article, and they all seem to agree. But since I have not actually seen the original DMN article, I did not feel comfortable adding it as a source. If you can, and assuming it does contain that quote, then yes please replace the Reason Magazine reprint source with the original DMN article source. Thanks!! Msalt (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Against Long Odds (Praeger, 1999) is probably the best source for information about Paul's early congressional races and the newsletter issue. TFD (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Will, that's well known. Campaign advisers suggested at the time that he not reveal the newsletters were ghostwritten as that might create confusion, so he defended them as best as he could without revealing that he had not written them. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's be careful here, B2C. Attribution to ghostwriters is what Ron Paul said in 2001, but we should take not that as gospel. This is a controversy, other people say differently, and Ron Paul's own statements from 2001 conflict with some things he said in 1996 (for example, defending attacks on her in 96, saying the attacks made him sad in 2001.) We don't have any reliably sourced information with which to decide whether his 2001 statements were more accurate for disregarding advisors, or slippery, less accurate excuses, and so I think it's wise that we present the simple facts without making any judgments one way or the other. EG "In 2001, Ron Paul said ..." others wrote them, etc. Msalt (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if anyone needs citations from the newspapers I can try to find them

While it's not mentioned in the article at present, in 1996 a related controversy concerned his comments on the recently deceased congresswoman Barbara Jordan. His defense of the comments make it clear that they were his personal views. I don't know if he later claimed those were written by a ghost writer too.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think neutrality means that we should provide the same coverage to stories as the mainstream media or mainstream academic writing. It may be that these sources ignore important studies or give undue prominence to unimportant ones, but it is not up to us to correct that. TFD (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, no, as far as I can tell, he never said anything that actually indicated he wrote the words about Barbara Jordan, though Clay Robison, the Houston Chronicle reporter that wrote the 1996 story, got that impression and wrote his 1996 article accordingly. But if you look at the actual quotes of Paul's words in the 1996 article on this, they don't indicate he wrote them. The entire 1996 article is quoted at the bottom of a 2011 chron.com blog article, which also notes that Paul later (in 2001 to the Texas Monthly[9]) explicitly acknowledged that the comments about Jordan were ghostwritten[10]:

“I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me,” Paul told Texas Monthly (via the Christian Science Monitor). “It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.”

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he changed his mind in the intervening period.

• Paul, a former Republican member of Congress, onetime Libertarian presidential nominee and a prolific writer, did not return phone calls. But he issued a statement saying he has long disagreed with Jordan, who supported more government, regulations and taxes. "My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong. I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes," Paul said in the statement.
  • Ron Paul's criticism of Jordan criticized Series: CAMPAIGN '96 Kay, Michele. Austin American Statesman [Austin, Tex] 25 July 1996: B.4.
• Paul, a Surfside physician and former congressman, said he was contrasting Jordan's political views with his own. "The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes," Paul said. "My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong," the Republican said. "I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes." Paul said Morris was trying to "reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting" so as to avoid more relevant issues, such as economic growth, taxes and spending, crime and welfare reform.
  • Campaign '96, U.S. House/Foe cites '92 Paul newsletter calling Barbara Jordan `a fraud': [3 STAR Edition] Robison, Clay. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Houston, Tex] 25 July 1996: 29.
• Paul, in a statement, countered by saying: "Repeated attempts by my liberal opponent to reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting is just more of the same old garbage we expect from his camp and will not deter me from continuing to address the real issues."
  • Candidate draws fire for remarks on civil rights leader Jordan Stefanie Scott Express-News Austin Bureau. San Antonio Express-News [San Antonio, Tex] 25 July 1996: 1.
• Paul said he opposes racism and was merely expressing his obvious philosophical differences with Jordan. He also accused Morris of "race-baiting" in order to avoid more-relevant issues, such as taxes, spending and welfare reform.
  • Paul's paper trails ammunition for Lefty: [2 STAR Edition] Robison, Clay. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Houston, Tex] 28 July 1996: 2.
• The newsletter, which Mr. Paul began about 1985, has claimed more than 7,000 subscribers; Mr. Paul said releasing it and other writings over his 20 years of political activity was "impractical." As for his remarks about Ms. Jordan, who was black, Mr. Paul said he was laying out a philosophical difference.
  • The States and the Issues Wines, Michael. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 30 July 1996: 7.
• In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this. When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything." His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
  • Dr. No. Gwynne, S. Texas Monthly (Oct 2001).

It appears that, in 1996, he defended the writings which insulted Jordan, attacked his opponent for pointing to them, and explained that he had philosophical differences with Jordan and that her positions were fundamentally wrong. Then, four years later, he said that he was only partly responsible for the original writings, though he's never said who actually wrote them or who oversaw the newsletter, and that he really liked Jordan after all. Does that sound right?   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This mirrors the controversy over the other 2 statements that he addressed in the Dallas Morning News article. I don't think he explicitly confirmed that he wrote the exact words (the "95%" quote and the "fleet of foot" quote), but he defended them, and was clearly aware of them as he gave details of their writing. In a sense it doesn't really matter whether he wrote the precise words or just was the boss of the whole enterprise that produced them and agreed with the statements; the article doesn't claim that he wrote them, and I don't think I've seen any of his critics say that either. Here is what he said in the DMN interview (as quoted by Reason):

"In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. 'If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,' Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia. Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: 'Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.'

'These aren't my figures,' Dr. Paul said Tuesday. 'That is the assumption you can gather from' the report."

Msalt (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind the political context. In 1996, during his first campaign to run as a Congressman again after returning to medicine since his previous Congressional '79-'85 stint, he was unwilling to disclose that some articles in the newsletter were ghostwritten. So, yes, in statements at that time he defended the writings as if they were his own as best as he could, including trying to downplay the racism and, for example, trying to deflect by pointing out the actual philosophical differences he had with Jordan. What choice did he have? Everything he said, and the way he said it, is entirely consistent with this explanation, which he has given consistently since 2001 when he decided to reveal the ghostwriting aspect of the newsletter.

Msalt wrote: it doesn't really matter whether he wrote the precise words or just was the boss of the whole enterprise that produced them and agreed with the statements.

Where is the evidence that he even knew of the racist statements, much less agreed with them? He was the publisher, not the editor of the newsletter written and printed in Washington DC while he was practicing medicine in Texas, still a few years before the advent of collaboration via internet.

Once he disclosed the ghostwriting in 2001, he also said that he often didn't even read the newsletters after they were published, much less before. During the 1996 Dallas Morning News interview, they confronted him with the following statement from the newsletter: "If you've ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." Now, given his extremely uncomfortable situation -- trying to defend that as if he had written it, without saying he had written it, but also without revealing that he didn't write it -- his response is quite reasonable. I mean, what would you say? He simply said, "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them." Purse snatch victims around the world wouldn't disagree. It's OR to conclude from him simply saying that in a 1996 election-time interview that he knew about the statement in the newsletter in 1991, much less that he approved it, or that he has a racist mindset. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, you are stating as fact the current position/explanation of the Ron Paul campaign, but not everyone agrees with that, which is why there is a controversy for us to cover. I just don't think it's our place to evaluate the relative believability of either side of the controversy; we should state (on the page) the facts as directly as possible. This was an eight page newsletter with his name in huge letters at the top of every page, sometimes with his signature at the end, sometimes with him listed as editor, sometimes speaking in the first person about being a Congressman. Those are facts. Who advised him to say what? How were his choices limited? Those seems much more like conjectures and later explanations. I do think it's significant that at the time of his 1996 interview with the DMN, the newsletter(s) was still being published. it wasn't "decades ago" as he now says, and he had the opportunity to print corrections or retractions (which he does not appear to have done.) To answer your question, "where is the evidence he knew of them much less agreed" that is the importance of the 1996 interviews with Texas papers. He certainly new about them then, and defended at least 3 of the statements. (The two we list + Barbara Jordan). Msalt (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The National Review has links to scans of various newsletter pages. [11] One includes a masthead from 1987 which lists Paul as the editor and publisher, and another from 1988 listing him as editor. As pointed out elsewhere, many articles are written in the first person. It's not for us to judge here, but it seems rather negligent to allow people to publish things as if they were you without even reading them and then to hide that fact for another five years when people ask about them.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish the economics/monetary newsletters, which is much more his primary area of interest (and why he got into politics), like the Ron Paul Investment Letter, which I believe he did edit, and probably even took the time to edit while he was practicing medicine, from the Political Report, the Survival Report, etc. I don't believe the Investment Letter had much of anything controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) A great many newspaper columns by "celebrities" are, indeed, not actually written by them, but by a staff person. Charles Goren stopped writing his bridge column, for example, a great many years before his death. Ditto Drew Pearson used staffers to write many columns. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, very common. Ann Landers and Dear Abby come to mind, not to mention countless books, especially by politicians. With three or four newsletters going he had quite the little enterprise going -- milking that mailing list of past supporters -- while also delivering babies. I know he's an energetic guy, but the story that much of that material, that was not already bylined to someone else, was ghostwritten, seems much more plausible than he wrote or even oversaw all of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And if any of those celebrities ran for president then their columns would undoubtedly receive attention too. While many people use ghostwriters, few would say they did not even bother to read what was being published over their signatures. It's one thing for a bridge columnist, it's another thing for someone who aspires to the presidency. But let's stick to what we find in reliable sources - our own opinions (and those of Dear Abby) are irrelevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Once he left Congress he joined the LP and ran for president, then he went back to being doctor. He says now - and I know of no evidence to the contrary - that at that time he didn't even think he would ever go back to Congress, much less run for President again[12]. So, speaking of sticking to source, I don't think there is any basis to characterize him as "someone aspiring to be president" at the time those newsletters were written. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He aspires to be president now so the newsletters are under scrutiny now. If he was publishing racist material without reading it just in order to make money that doesn't reflect well on him either, but that's not our concern.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: I watched the video you linked, but it didn't mention anything about the newsletter, the period between his political activities, or anything else relevant to this thread. Was that the wrong link? What did he say that was pertinent?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Will. I got confused. I thought he said it in this one, but now that I think about it it's in interviews where he's asked about running 3rd party. I can't find a video right now, but every time I've seen him asked that, he says that he won't answer absolutely no to questions like that because when he left Congress the first time he never dreamed he'd be back, "so you never know".

As to the newsletters, I think he just turned the whole thing over to other folks in order to focus on medicine. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011

Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[54 The referenced article does not specify Rothbard as saying this. Rothbard was also dead at the time of the 1996 newsletter controversy. Should read "Some libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul." Woody1912 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Woody1912

Woody1912 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard never said any such thing and the article cited doesn't support the allegation in any way. The allegation is wrong and needs to be taken out. As for providing sources, that is your responsibilty. You made the claim and you need to back it up. On a side issue, Rothbard himself is the most likely candidate to be the author. There are similar articles signed under his name in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. The fact that he died just a couple of a weeks after the last one appeared is also more than a little coincidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.13 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please correct the "politics" section which states Mr. Paul supports "Constitutional Rights". There is no such thing as "Constitutional Rights", as our Rights are endowed upon us by our "Creator" and are unalienable. Saying "Constitutional Rights" makes it appear that the Constitution grants them to us. It should says at "Constitutionally PROTECTED rights" at the very least. Peace Wildbill 98.206.222.240 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Um... I think it's safe to say that your statement about all rights being endowed by the Creator is a non-neutral, non-consensus POV that Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting. Give to Wiki what is Wiki's, and give to God what is God's.Msalt (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Evolution ... "I don't believe it"

This video from 2007 of Ron Paul saying that he doesn't believe in human evolution is making the rounds today; the link is to CBS's site. I see there's no mention of Paul's stand on evolution currently in the article; reliable sources seem to think that this and his other positions on matter of science are significant. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a valid issue if we are discussing his views on various controversial subjects. Here's a long video of the same answer, for more context, but basically the same. And a reliable source: Discover Magazine Msalt (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Major omission from Ron Paul page

Why are Ron Paul's racist newsletters from 20 years ago only referred to in bibliography? It is a major controversy as it is stated he made 1 million a year publishing these newsletters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.41.195 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the controversy is discussed in the main article here Ron_Paul#2008_presidential_campaign as well as here Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy In regards to the current election cycle, while the topic has received some press, I do not think it has evolved yet to become a controversy for this election (although if he maintains his position as a front runner, it likely will become so) At that time we wilol have to think of some sort of intra-article merge to avoid having the information scattered around causing confusion, and WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also a mention of it in Inter-Congression years, 1985-1987 section and in the 1996 campaign section. Toss in the full section that's in the 2008 campaign section (in this article!) and I really have to wonder how in the heck could anyone have missed the multiple and fairly detailed sections about this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Often other pages have a specific section for "Controversy". This random netizen votes for such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.56.74 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, a well written WP article avoids the use of Controversy sections and instead incorporates the issue throughout the article. It may not be as easy to see quickly by looking at the TOC but nonetheless it is mentioned, as appropriate, chronologically throughout the article. I came to this article to read about this and was more than satisfied it was covered. Just do a search on newsletter and you'll hit all the salient points. SmallRepair (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

correction,a well written wp article lists information in a readable format! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.52.51 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"I came to this article to read about this and was more than satisfied it was covered. " On the contrary, the write-up provides an illusion of balance not deserved by the facts, including, but not limited to the more egregious statements made in the newsletters, regarding Jews, AIDS, and race riots. One is left with the impression that the controversy surrounds MLK day, whereas in reality that is not even a big piece of it. The retort by the Taki editor regarding Kirtchuk's piece is hearsay and inappropriate (ad hominem attacks not based in fact). You are left with the impression in this write-up that ALL of the controversial letters were "ghost-written." The write-up suggests that Paul's name was not on ANY of the new-letters which is patently false. The article does not provide detailed responses by the accused ghost-writers, which Rockwell and others have repeatedly rejected responsibility for. Nor does the write-up discuss the solicitation letters sent by Paul with Paul's signature clearly visible on them with additional controversial statements and which were only recently uncovered. The fact that the information is presented in what appears to be the least damaging way (e.g. whitewashed) with respect to Dr. Paul, that it is fragmented in various locations, and that it is embedded so as not be aesthetically obvious to the casual reader---only furthers the bias of the article. I think in this case, a wholly re-written and objective Controversy section would improve the article. 24.59.184.22 (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Joel

Good. Articles. Don't. Have. Controversy. Sections.

One can speak of controversies within particular sections, like voting record or viewpoints related to X. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above poster. I don't have time now, but this article needs to be reassessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.139.241 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Swann articles

I apologize, but I'm new to writing anything on wikipedia, but there is an update to the newsletter story: A investigative reporter in Kentucky by the name of Ben Swann from Fox 19 has uncovered a lot more information. A name (not Rockwell) has come up, and it's "James B. Powell". Please feel free to investigate. Here are the links: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters and http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters . These also have his newscasts in the articles, which people have uploaded to youtube and have been spreading virally. Thank you so much for whomever looks into this and can put it in his wiki in a professional manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.227.65 (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. One thing is, it helps a lot if you sign your comments. Just type four tildes ~ after you make your comment (and don't forget to add a space before them. You can even go back and add the four tildes later. It helps give credibility to your participation, especially on controversial articles that are in the news, and this certainly qualifies. ;-)

I discussed that report in the second paragraph of this section. Here are the problems I have with that report. First, the source is not particularly credible. Fox News is not a great source in general, much less an unknown local small town Fox News writer. On a controversial article, and especially on a biography of a living person (BLP), we must be especially careful to use sources of the highest quality.

Second, he may be an investigative reporter, but in the piece you site he is acting as some kind of editorial writer or pundit in the "Reality Check" column. He makes statements such as "Here's what you need to know. The talk of racism has become the lowest form of political discourse." That's not reporting, that's arguing, editorializing. Third, it's not clear what his sources are. He talks about presenting a writer's name "for the first time ever" but doesn't explain that statement. Why wasn't this name known before? It's right there on the page. Who says it wasn't known?

Fourth, what point is he making in relation to this controversy? The PDF he presents is simply a copy of one of Ron Paul's newsletters with a byline for James Powell. OK, one article once had a byline, that wasn't Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell. Interesting, but where does it fit into the big picture? We can't take pieces of evidence and assemble them into an argument; that's original research, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. That's not our place to do that.

So, I don't mean to be harsh, or to criticize you for bringing this up. This talk page is exactly where we bring up stuff like this and discuss where it might go. This is a fascinating little bit, albeit from a questionable source, but the bigger point is, what exactly would it add to this article? We're an encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Would they add this? To document what point? Thanks Msalt (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of WP:RS#Statements of opinion is that we should not use opinion pieces as sources for biographies of living persons. We can of course report the opinions expressed, with in-line attribution, but then we would have to explain why the opinion is relevant. Because Paul has been extensively covered in mainstream media, anything that they have ignored would be insignificant to this article. TFD (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though the line between opinion piece and news is gettings fuzzier every day. Some sources, such as the Reason articles, or say Talking Points memom, contain significant amounts of opinion but also lots of research and (in most cases) a good track record of following journalistic standards. Reason also has the advantage of some "inside" information from its more in-depth coverage of and knowledge of Libertarian circles. With this Fox piece, however, we don't know what their editorial position is, to begin with (some major media outlets have stated that Fox's owner Rupert Murdoch favors other candidates over Ron Paul). Definitely, the burden of proof is on any one who wants to use an opinion-based or less well known source to prove why we shouldn't just stick to the most well known and highest quality sources, especially when we have a wealth of choices.Msalt (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The research does not follow the same standards because there is no double-checking of sources - often this is impossible. However when reporters cover what is written in opinion pieces, we have a valid secondary source. TFD (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Would you please elaborate? Thank you. Msalt (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good newspapers have standards for fact checking which typically means that stated facts must be confirmed with two separate sources and the reporters must be able to provide documentation for their stories. Management may also review stories to ensure that they have been properly supported and the paper will provide corrections to errors. A press complaints council may also investigate false information provided in news stories. A writer providing his opinion on a political candidate does not face this. TFD (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I get it! Good points, thanks. Msalt (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

IS THIS SERIOUS? That's not how this works. You find an investigative reporter with evidence who counters this claim, otherwise it is to be accepted as true. THIS ISN'T EVEN FOXNEWS. The fact that these Newsletters are still even on a SUPPOSEDLY objective wikipedia article is ridiculous, especially because the only quote listed is taken completely out of context. He didn't say 95% of black people in DC are criminals, he said the judicial system considers them to be criminal or semi-criminal. The target of this attack was the COURT SYSTEM not BLACK PEOPLE. that said, there are many more incendiary awful racist things in those newsletters that could be quoted, but as they have BEEN INVESTIGATED, GTFO. There should be people who helped edit and publish the paper that directly received these writings from Paul if they were written by him, go and FIND THEM. Otherwise, YOU lack crediblity, not this source. wikipedia deserves better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.216.168 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

MLK

The newly added material on Martin Luther King seems overly long for this article. Maybe it'd be better to move most of it to the Political positions of Ron Paul, leaving the actual actions of Paul (votes, etc) for this article. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I think WP:SS dictates against including all of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and removed it and suggest we work out here what (if any) belongs in the final article. it was longer than the entire rest of the Newsletter section, which doesn't seem too short to me already, and it duplicated much of the existing material. Also, it contains a lot of OR or at least SYNTH.

One possibility would be to discuss MLK under Ron Paul's political positions. But it's tricky because we can't trace the newsletter quotes directly to Paul. Right now, we have four specific quotes from the newsletters, which cover a wide spectrum of issues (race, class, homosexuality) and better illustrate the controversy. I haven't seen the MLK quotes in news stories about the newsletters as much as the ones already in there, or even the Barbara Jordan quotes which have been covered as part of the controversy. We also have existing 1996 quotes from Ron Paul directly discussing his feelings about Barbara Jordan in relation to the newsletter (strong disagreement with what she stands for), something we don't have in this case. We're left to impute his feelings about MLK from his votes, for which he has offered non-racial explanations (saving money, a reluctance to honor people which also led him to vote against govt. honors for the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa.) I don't like to be in the business of imputing.

At most I could see a quick line along these lines: "The newsletters contained many attacks on civil rights Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a "communist" who "seduced underage girls and boys." In year xxxxx, Paul repudiated these statements and called King a hero. However, he twice voted against establishing the Martin Luther King Day holiday and voted against placing a bust of King in the US Capitol." I wouldn't get into the fine detail of the recent argument about the one yes vote Paul cast on the bill which just changed the proposed date of the holiday but didn't approve it; we can cover that in a citation to a reliable source, such as this onee: MLK Day Fact Check, by Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, January 8, 2012 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/mlk-day-fact-check/251037/ . It's not our place to pre-empt arguments, quibbly or otherwise. Msalt (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it a little strange that the attacks on King are offered as proof of racism. Clearly King's political views were quite different from Paul's; it is not strange that Paul would be reluctant to approve honors for a man known, not as the first thing people know about him but nevertheless in significant part, for promoting an activist model of government. Certainly he would not like to be associated with the tone of the statements in the newsletters (whether he in fact wrote them or not), but his opposition to King's policies need not be taken as in itself racial. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore wrote: "it is not strange that Paul would be reluctant to approve honors for a man ...". Well, we can put a period on that right there, except we should add or woman to the end. As has been previously noted, Paul voted against honoring others too, including Mother Theresa. As he consistently explains every time he votes against Congress honoring someone, he does it because he doesn't see authority in the Constitution for Congress bestowing such honors on anyone. To pick out one example of this to try to show a racist tendency, or to try to explain it because of a difference in political opinion, is completely missing the reasons "Dr. No" votes "no" on such bills.

Msalt wrote: "In year xxxxx, Paul repudiated these statements and called King a hero. However, he twice voted against establishing the Martin Luther King Day holiday and voted against placing a bust of King in the US Capitol."

If we put something like this in the article it would be a violation of NPOV because of the "however", which implies that calling MLK a hero and voting against establishing the holiday or bust in his honor is a contradiction. It would be a contradiction only if there were evidence that Ron Paul would support establishing a holiday for someone else, or would support putting a bust of someone else in the Capitol. If you know anything about Paul at all, you know he would vote "no" on such bills regardless of who they were intended to honor. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good and interesting points. However, I have seen Ron Paul supporters arguing that he did in fact vote for the MLK holiday (see the article I cited), and the fact remains that Paul did vote for the law changing the MLK holiday to a different day. It's hard to square that with uniform opposition to all honors, and it has been alleged that the date-changing measure was an attempt by congressmen and women who opposed King on racial grounds to be able to avoid political criticism by having a yes vote they could point to -- exactly what has happened with Paul. I have no idea what the reality of the situation is, but I'm not sure it's quite as cut and dried as Born2cycle lays it out. Calling someone a hero but refusing to honor them is, prima facie, a contradiction. B2C makes a strong argument why it wasn't, but I haven't seen that stated so directly in reliable sources, even the ones where I learned about his votes against Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama. Msalt (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm objecting to here is the conflation of "opposing King" with "on racial grounds". There seems to be an unstated assumption out there that it is not possible to oppose King except on racial grounds. That, clearly, is not true, and it needs to be pointed out and challenged. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Paul also placed the sole vote against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, in addition to voting against medals for Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Arnold Palmer, Alice Paul, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Charles M. Schulz, government worker killed on 9/11, Sioux code talkers, Tony Blair, etc. In some cases he argued simply on fiscal and constitutional grounds, and in others (Blair) he also voiced opposition to the people being nominated.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick web search and found a long list of congressional honors and plaques that Ron Paul has voted for, in a list of "22 Reasons Ron Paul is not Racist" ironically, which is being passed around by his supporters. http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp These include votes to honor Jackie Robinson, the Tuskegee Airmen, African Americans who made advances in science, African-American pioneers in Ohio, etc. He also voted to place a plaque in the Capitol noting the use of slave labor in building it. So the claim that he never supports these things does not appear to hold up. Msalt (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of his opposition to medals appears to be the cost, which he has said is $30,000 apiece. Mere resolutions don't cost anything. I suppose plaques are cheap, and might even be paid for with private funds. His voting against medals might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article, since he was often the sole dissenter.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be wandering into original research. We can't provide our own commentary on the newsletters or arrange quotes in order to lead the reader to a conclusion. We can only report what reliable sources say about them and I suggest that quotes from them, except as they appear in secondary sources, should be avoided. TFD (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edit adding mention of Ron Paul's 1979 vote to change the date of the MLK holiday to a Sunday, because it's not encyclopedic. I know that this vote has been discussed on the Internet, but only in one of two contexts; supporters of Paul using it incorrectly as evidence that he actually voted for the holiday, and opponents of Paul refuting that argument, citing it as a tactical maneuver to allow an obfuscating argument. Either way, it's not notable and tends to confuse the issue. The only thing we know for certain is that he voted to change the proposed date of a holiday he opposed from a Monday to a Sunday (or vice-versa, I forget), which is not significant whether it was a maneuver or a strong preference for Sunday holidays. The other change in that edit was adding the word "paid" to the phrase "Martin Luther King Day holiday." Since I have never heard anyone insert the word "paid" in the name of a holiday (Christmas paid holiday? Memorial Day paid holiday?), I see no valid or encyclopedic reason to do so here. It seems to be making some kind of point, which we try to avoid around here. I see no danger of confusion with unpaid holidays such as Arbor Day. Msalt (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Sunday vote would have created a holiday on Sunday. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that he "opposed" a "MLK holiday", and the current article is misleading. Secondly, if you would please read the link for "paid", it says "Two of the main arguments mentioned by opponents were that a paid holiday for federal employees would be too expensive". Again, without this context, the current article is misleading. Ron Paul has a history of opposing all sorts of federal expenses. Can't we have some factual balance here? Scott Illini (talk)ScottIllini —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

I have not altered the use of "voted against" instead of "opposed." However, the passage indicates that the newsletters' author writing as Paul (so, not necessarily Paul himself, so far as we can know) was opposed to and voted against the MLK birthday holiday. "It sure burns me" and "this outrage" and "infamy" are clear expressions of opposition.Dezastru (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rearranging the Political Positions section material

I am going to rearrange the political positions section material for two reasons.

First, Paul's economic policy, based on economic liberty and access to free markets, is central to his ideology (how many books has he written discussing economics and monetary policy? how many books on foreign policy?), yet in the current version of the political positions section, his foreign policy is discussed before his economic policy. So I am going to move the economics policy up.

Second, the flow of the whole section could be improved. A number of the topics jump around a bit, obviously from past edits by different editors. In some cases, it's just a matter of where the paragraph breaks come (for example: one paragraph starts out dealing with federal immunization programs then goes on to increased ballot access for 3rd-party candidates).

I am NOT deleting any of the material in the process of this clean up, just moving some of it around.Dezastru (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter section way too long - separate article?

Considering it is covered in great detail elsewhere (in the 2008 campaign article), and has a link to that, this section is way too long in this article. There are NPOV/BLP problems with the content of this section too, but I'll save that for the moment, as I am about to delete most of it anyway. I suggest the issue deserves its own comprehensive article at this point, with one or two sentences here referring to it. What say you... separate article? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice there was a brief attempt to start such an article at Ron Paul newsletter controversy in 2008[13]. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The length of the section appears fine to me. There are separate WP articles for Ron Paul's political positions, as well as for his 2008 and 2012 election campaigns, yet each of these topics has its own section on the "Ron Paul" main page, apparently without much complaint about length.

What are the specific NPOV/BLP problems you are concerned about?Dezastru (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My biggest concern is probably this part of it:

A number of the newsletters also vilified civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr". These articles, written in Paul's voice, reminded readers that Paul had opposed the movement to make Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

Paul voted against bills to establish Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday in 1979 and again in 1983. Paul was also one of only a handful of members of the House of Representatives to vote against having a bust or statue of King placed in the U.S. Capitol.

My objection is that the articles are clearly not written in Paul's voice and assuming they are or aren't is leading and implies knowledge of the true author. It would be more accurate to say, "These articles, published under Paul's name, reminded etc.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.180.113 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not (fixed --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)) NPOV because it implies that Paul's opposition to the MLK holiday and bust is consistent with the language in the newsletter that he claims was ghostwritten, without making clear that Paul consistently votes against such bills for being unconstitutional, etc. At the minimum we should include his stated reasons for opposing these bills. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean to say it's not NPOV, for the reasons you state, correct? --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any sources saying the subject routinely voted against adding busts and statues to the US Capitol?   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there were enough such bills for it to be routine, but he's called "Dr. No" for pretty much voting against anything that costs money and doesn't protect or expand liberty. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose a separate article on this per WP:CFORK. If you feel it is too long then reduce the amount of weight. Truthsort (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The same topic is already covered in at least two places - here and at Ron_Paul_2008_Campaign#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy. What I'm suggesting is a solution to this redundant content fork, by creating a common sub-article about the topic to which the content of both existing sections are merged. I think the topic is big enough, and believe it could be covered better, if it was addressed in its own dedicated article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement Paul voted against bills to establish Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday in 1979 and again in 1983. Paul was also one of only a handful of members of the House of Representatives to vote against having a bust or statue of King placed in the U.S. Capitol was deleted, with the comment that “this probably belongs in the political positions article, not here.” Should not the contributor who is making the deletion also perform that addition to political positions (there is a political positions section to the Ron Paul main article)? Otherwise, this information just disappears into the ether.

With regard to length of the article - I performed a document analysis at the time that Born2cycle suggested that the article was way too long a couple of days ago. At that time, the text-only prose size was 48 kB, "readable prose size," which falls within the acceptable size per WP:Article Size guidelines.Dezastru (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article length was never an issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a separate article on the newsletter and associated controversies. There is redundant material in articles which could be consolidated, and a deeper exploration of the matter could be made then would be appropriate in articles just about Paul or his campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I was trying to say. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor error in paragraph 2 of the intro

The second paragraph mistakenly says Paul entered politics in 1976. However, as the article makes clear, he entered politics in 1974, running for the Congressional seat he later won in a special election. I would suggest changing it to say either Paul entered "government" in 1976, or that he entered politics in 1974. As is, it is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.233.198 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Church going Baptist?

Is this some special terminology of which I am previously unaware regarding Baptists? If so, please explain wouldn't it be simpler and more correct to just call him Baptist? If you want to say the man iactive in his church, then say that too. Don't try to combine them. It sounds silly. 108.86.128.248 (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and Change made. --Bandit6789 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a well-known term, but for reference: The dictionary definition of churchgoing at Wiktionary ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction is between those who profess a faith but do not regularly attend church, and those who do.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Did it really say church going Baptist, as suggested in the subject heading, rather than churchgoing Baptist? That would be an odd usage — to me it suggests a church that might have been some other denomination in the past, but that was now "going Baptist". (I suppose I could look it up in the article history if I really wanted to know). --Trovatore (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ru Paul

Can someone remove all the links that take you to the Ru Paul page? This is shameless vandalism but I can't fix it myself since I don't have an account. PLEASE HELP!!!1! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.214.140 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Request edited to use template and set to answered = yes since someone has already fixed the issue. Troll-Life (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone add a source?

I found the following fascinating but could not find a source.

While exit polls indicate that he received write-in votes elsewhere, not only do many U.S. jurisdictions not require the counting or reporting of write-in votes, but some actually ban the counting or reporting of write-in votes.

It would be nice if one was added.

I'm sorry if I'm not conforming to protocol in this post. I'm a fairly new/inexperienced user. Space fountain (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems that this sentence is not supported by facts. Even if it were true that some places don't count write-ins (as I recall, this is only if they fall below a certain threshold), we would need a secondary source that explains why it is interesting that Ron Paul got write-in votes in places he was not running. Write-ins are generally protests, for example if people were to write-in Harvey Milk because both real candidates for some office had made homophobic remarks. Without an explicit source, this sentence is what is called WP:SYNTHESIS. Speciate (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't neither a source nor additional input with respect to Ron Paul. But I gather that in California write-in votes are reported only for declared candidates. Votes for, e.g., Mickey Mouse for dogcatcher, are not reported and perhaps not counted. --AndersW (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul's ties to neo-nazi group

The hacker group Anonymous hs just released material that confirm Paul's ties to the neo-fascist group called American Third Position, including Paul sitting in on several conference calls with its board of directors. [14] Please include this material in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.230.210 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More just one source will be needed to include it. If more reliable sources appear, it will likely be included.--Newbreeder (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. TFD (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources:

International Business Times 1 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291817/20120202/ron-paul-a3p-opblitzkrieg-nazi-anonymous-jamie.htm

International Business Times 2 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm

Vancouver (BC) Observer http://www.vancouverobserver.com/life/technology/2012/01/31/anonymous-neo-nazis-and-ron-paul

Orange County Weekly http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/02/american_third_position_ron_paul.php

Newsweek/Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/03/anonymous-accuses-paul-of-ties-to-white-supremacy.html

Msalt (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo Ron Paul campaign denies white supremacist ties alleged by Anonymous

Intelwire 'ANONYMOUS' hits White Supremacist sites

2 additional sources for connections to American Third Position Party story. Heiro 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect date for listed for first presidential bid

The introductory paragraph lists 1986 as the first time Ron Paul ran for president, but there was no presidential election that year. Should be edited to 1988. Annikaw (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed the lead as you suggested. --AndersW (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

First line of the article -- is "physician and author" the most notable thing about Ron Paul?

The first line of the article says

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, Republican United States Congressman, and repeat candidate for President of the United States

Is his being a physician and an author really more notable than his being a congressman? Imagine if the Obama page said "Barack Obama is an American author, lawyer, and president of the United States." Paul has been a congressman for a total of 22 years, and is certainly much more notable for that than for being a physician, by any metric that you choose to measure notability. — Sam 72.248.152.57 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, and I agree. Perhaps we reword to "Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a United States Congressman (Republican Party) and repeat candidate for President of the United States..." His OB/GYN work is mentioned in the next paragraph so perhaps we leave that out of the first sentence entirely. Thoughts anyone? --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Physician and author can be safely deleted. Current wording makes it seem like he's a notable physician, which he isn't. Scott Illini (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, as you can see in this edit. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Progressive run, not in past

The opening line of this page has changed to give the impression that Paul "ran" in 2012. He is in fact still running. Need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.77.5 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Paul hadn't "ran" in 2012, he IS running in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsletters (again)

I made some edits to the newsletter section to remove some language that, intentionally or not, is serving the pro-Ron Paul POV. Look -- this is obviously a contentious subject, on a semi-protected page. Please do not make edits without talk page discussion.

The most recent edits removed some of the latest information from reliable sources, which provided important context. They also, separately, inserted the argumentative language from the local Fox-TV reporter that speculates as to the possible author of one article in one newsletter. This has been discussed here on talk and rejected repeatedly for very good reasons. 1) not a reliable source, or even a news story. It's an argumentative editorial in fact. 2) Way too much emphasis on a tiny point, the author of one article 3) It's admittedly speculation 4) the source given doesn't even mention James Powell, and 5) assuming Powell is alive, this is a very weakly sourced and scandalous accusation against him, so it violates the BLP policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not just in articles about the living person.

Most importantly though, this whole point -- whether James Powell did or didn't write one or more articles in Ron Paul's newsletters -- is jumping into the middle of an argument, which is not something encyclopedias do. The whole issue is an answer to an allegation that has not been made in this article, or anywhere in the news sources that I have seen; the allegation that Ron Paul may have written the racist articles in the newsletter. I've read all the sources here and no one is saying that. So why would we refute an argument that hasn't been made?Msalt (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased Construction of this Wiki Page

(watch) 'Newsletter Controversy' occupies an exorbitantly large percentage of overall content, is covered in at least two sections of the overall wiki, and is the final significant section of the article, providing the final statement and affect to the reader. This indicates absolute bias.

Could an Admin please look at the way this article has been constructed (preferably an Admin without political interest). Thank you Frederich12 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation for comments. You do not indicate in which direction you think the bias you find in this construction is pointing. To my eye, this section has been expanded for several reasons, one of which is a tendency to try to refute attacks against Ron Paul (ie, a pro-Paul bias). It also has a tendency for editors to throw up their hands at shaping encyclopedic content and instead list a chronology of the charges and countercharges that have been made over the years. This is a long-winded way to describe something, but would seem to come from an inartful attempt to not be biased, by listing all of the arguments and counterarguments on both sides.

Given that the newsletters earned about a million dollars a year at their peak -- compared to Ron Paul's total assets of $5 million today -- and given that these newsletters have been a political issue in each of his campaigns since 1996, the issue seems to be due some significant weight. I'm curious what you think a more fair approach or length might be? Do you agree that the content of these newsletters was often highly controversial? That also seems to be the consensus opinion, and I don't think can fairly be called bias. But perhaps you disagree. Msalt (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the weight of this section to be appropriate. Akihironihongo (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was 'Christian' removed from his religious beliefs?

His religion was listed as "Christian (Baptist)" but for some reason, someone has removed "Christian." It needs to be remembered that wikipedia is a worldwide website, and thus, listing someone as "Baptist" (a denomination) without listing the religion (Christian) can be confusing. We do not have simply "Theravada" listed for Buddhists, or "Vaishnavism" listed for Hindus. Dr. Paul's religious beliefs as "Christian (Baptist)" should be reinstate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.242 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All Baptists are Christians, and that is well-known, so there's no real need to further describe its connection to the larger Christian religion.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Will Beback Christianism is a religion, whereas Baptists (or Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc.) are all just branches of the Christian religion. Therefore, "Christian" should also be listed; if only because not putting it is favoring so-called "religious" conflict/difference between people who actually share the same religion. benzband (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any other examples on Wikipedia or in the Encyclopedia Britannica where this is done? Because I'm confident I can find 100 where it is not done. Also, what is "Christianism"? I have not heard that term before.Msalt (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Msalt Although "Christianism" is described on Wikipedia and on Wiktionary as "obsolete", it does originally means the Christian religion. In french, Christianisme is the correct word for Christianity (translates as such), which may have led me to confusion.

Also, i can't help but point out that those parallels you mention are basically WP:OTHERSTUFF… although rather a lot of it . Anyway, i was just stating my opinion. Being an atheist, i suppose i haven't really got my head round much of this stuff (it's all opium to me… only kidding :) benzband (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving newsletters controversy to separate article

Currently the newsletters controversy is given extreme undue weight, so I am moving it to a separate article, as per precedents such as Jeremiah Wright controversy and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for Barack Obama. As evidence of undue weight, I cite this:

• Google news hits for "Ron Paul": 71k
• Google news hits for "Ron Paul" newsletter: 4k

So, about 5% of total coverage of Ron Paul mentions the newsletters, yet it is the longest section on this page (and this is biased towards the newsletters coverage as all the coverage prior to the internet and before the controversy are not picked up by Google). I am moving the entire section off page and leaving mentions + link in the sections where it is relevant (1) Early congressional career (2) 2008 campaign (3) 2012 campaign. Psicx (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My revisions can be seen here. I have dropped multiple links which I believe is usually discouraged, however given the importance of the article to the content and non-obvious nature of the subsidiary article, I think it is justified. Psicx (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The impact of the newsletters on his 2008 campaign still needs to be worked in however. Psicx (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd dispute the validity of the above list of Ghits. Many pages on the Internet are going to contain passing mentions the subject, but those pages are not of any real value. What matter are the pages which are substantial profiles or news reports on the subject.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Psicx, Google News hits should not be the sole basis for deciding whether material is given an appropriate amount of coverage in WP. Such a tactic runs a high risk of being negatively affected by WP:recentism. My sense is that 10 or 20 years from now, the newsletters controversy will remain a signicant issue in Paul's legacy, and on that basis, the newsletters warrant discussion on the main page.

Incidentally, in contrast to what you found by searching Google News, Google general searches finds ("ron paul" +newsletters) 48 million hits, compared to ("ron paul") 74 million hits -- in other words, newsletter searches pulls in more than 50% the number of hits as just putting in Paul's name alone.

The newsletters issue is not just a minor topic -- it has been a recurring topic in three of his major political campaigns over the last 15 years of his career, including in two presidential election campaigns. The newsletters also apparently have been a significant source of income for Paul and his associates (and probably helped him to maintain his political support and campaign donations in the years prior to the advent of the internet, given that a large part of his campaign contributions through the years have been made by donors from outside his district and outside his state). For many, the actual content of the newsletters, how Paul handled the publication responsibilities, and how he handled the criticism of the content of the newsletters over the years are relevant factors in interpreting his policy positions and his candidacy for public office.

If the consensus is that there is too much material on the newsletters spread between the main Ron Paul page and the Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 presidential election pages, rather than deleting the newsletters section from the main page, it would be more appropriate to trim some of the material from the 2008 page, since more information on the topic has developed since that election. I do not necessarily object to the creation of a new page dealing solely with the newsletters. However, if a new page is to be created to allow an expanded discussion of various points, then the essential points of the topic should still be maintained on the main Ron Paul page, in accordance with WP:SPINOFF rules. A Newsletters section near the bottom of the page, where it was before, would be appropriate. The various other references to the newsletters that are scattered throughout the rest of the main Ron Paul page could be deleted, being redundant.Dezastru (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose this shorter version of the Newsletters Controversy section to be placed on the main page. (All the other references to the newsletters in the other sections of the main page would be removed) (I have references for all of the statements, but have not included them here on the Talk page):

________

BEGINNING IN 1978, Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name ('Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report', 'The Ron Paul Survival Report', 'The Ron Paul Investment Letter', and the 'Ron Paul Political Report'). By 1993, a business through which Paul was publishing the newsletters was earning in excess of $900,000 per year.

A number of the newsletters, particularly between 1988 and 1994, contained material that later proved highly controversial, dwelling on conspiracy theories, praising anti-government militia movements, and warning of coming race wars. During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry.

The newsletters included statements such as:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws”

“[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [AIDS patients] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act,” and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers.”

Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr,” while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been “taken out of context.” In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by a team of 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published. He eventually disavowed those passages.

IN JANUARY 2012, the Washington Post reported that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "it was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it." Paul continued to deny the accusations.

________Dezastru (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

strong agreement with Dezastru. Google hits is anti-encyclopedic measure; the very reason you need an encyclopedia is to remedy the recentism myopia of the press. Furthermore, we don't know what criteria Google News is using. "Ron Paul Newsletter" has 6,900,700 hits on Google Everything; the only thing the low count for Google News shows is that Google News is a poor source of information.

The edits concerning the newsletter controvery seem dramatically POV, in favor of Ron Paul. Notably, the word controversy is removed altogether, and there is no mention in the 2008 campaign at all. There seem to be many pro-RP edits recently; I don't have time to go through them in detail right now but I urge other editors to do so. Right off hand, the NH and Iowa primaries are mentioned, where Paul got strong vote totals, but not several priMaries since where his total is much lower, despite other candidates dropping out. No mention of the news about his ties to racist group members. A brief, santized description of the newsletters mentions controversy only in asserting that it had no effect on his campaign. Etc. etc. I removed the last one which has no business in an encyclopedia; it's SYNTHy and not supported by its unreliable source (a brief blog opinion, which only says the controversy didn't dissuade his core supporters. Which ignores the question of whether it prevented his support from growing outside of his base.) From a quick read, I'd say this latest revision the article needs either heavy revision or a POV tag. Msalt (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has reinserted a passage about the so-called "newsletters" in the article. I do not see how this will help Ron Paul. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Right, so your idea of neutrality is to just pull out everything except the quotes?
I agree that the newsletters are important, and they are already mentioned in the article four times. Giving them a whole huge section is undue weight. They are not significant feature of his life, they are a significant feature of his campaign, and so go in that section. Psicx (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Psicx. An entire section here on this topic in this BLP is undue weight. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Relatively speaking, it's a very minor event, too minor for a section, let alone an entire article. Wknight94 ^talk 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wknight94, the only reason they are a separate article is because your ally Psicx took the text out of this article and turned it into one. Ron Paul produced these newsletters for 16 years, heavily branded with his name in large letters on the top of every page, and they generated a million dollars a year in revenue, which appears to be more than he has made from any other source. Please explain how you come to the conclusion that they constitute "a minor event." Msalt (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't know I had an ally. Good to know, I guess. Second, is there some precedent whereby any person that produces newsletters gets two articles - one for the person and then one for the newsletters? Would anyone advocate this approach if three or four of the newsletters (as I've heard anyway) over those 16 years (as you state) did not contain controversial subject matter? I think not, especially since 90% of the newsletter article is about those few controversial examples. If you're advocating a split because they're a major part of his life, I'd like a precedent - if you're advocating a split because of the controversy, I maintain the controversy is not a large enough factor to warrant a separate article. Wknight94 ^talk 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of precedents for separate articles on details of the careers of notable figures. One is right here -- political positions of Ron Paul. I happen to feel that there is far too much material about him both here and on other pages, and much of it has been contributed by pro-Paul editors. But I am one voice among many. I did not support a separate newsletter page, for that matter. But we move like an amoeba here, and I am reacting to the situation on the ground. One pretty decent reason for a separate article is that there are now many Ron Paul pages, and several of them mention the newsletters. In a situation like that, a separate page makes more sense, because the alternative would be to repeat a lot of material in several different places.

If you look at the sources, there are dozens of controversial newsletters. But even if there were only a few, that would not make a separate article a bad idea by itself. Ron Paul started and headlined a major newsletter business -- one that grossed a million dollars and had over 100,000 readers. That is a big deal, whether he's a politician or not, whether they are controversial or not. Note that the article is about his newsletters, not just about the controversy. Now, on top of that they often said very racist or anti-gay things (gays love the attention of getting sick from AIDS? Are you kidding me?), and yes, that deserves either a page or a big chunk of Ron Paul's page.

Since you seem to be addressing me personally, my personal preference would be only one Ron Paul page, of about 100K, with all the current pages' material (including the newsletter controversy) presented much more succinctly. But we are a mighty long way from there right now.Msalt (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm losing interest in this thread but have a couple counterpoints: On a technical note, there are currently exactly two articles linked to the newsletter page which does not match your "several" claim. Second, if the newsletters warrant a separate article because they are actually an important aspect of Ron Paul's net worth and exposure, etc., then hopefully you'll agree that such an article should be quite neutral - and that the article there now is anything but. Wknight94 ^talk 17:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, every page on Wikipedia should be neutral, and if it isn't, then let's edit it. I made a few edits and I didn't find it particularly POV, but there is a major technical problem. For some reason, the table of contents is not appearing, and I can't figure out how to insert one. I looked at the source of this page and didn't see any actual code for a TOC.Msalt (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I forced in a TOC, though it may not be needed. It would be automatic if the article had one more section (four or more total, including trailers like "See also", "References", and "External links"). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Since other editors have raised the issue of undue weight, we should discuss the overall balance of this page. It seems too long in general -- three times the length of pages on comparable figures such as Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson. There is also overfocus on some details -- a list of 5 committee assignments in the lede? -- and a neglect of others -- not one word about his career as an author prior to 1988?

My time is limited but I am making some edits to begin to rebalance. It would be great if other editors could take a look at this. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru: I would like to discuss the amount of text in the congressional tenure section. Since Ron Paul's is already 2 and a half to 3 times longer than comparable politician's web sites, I think we should look for ways to condense the text rather than expand it. Is there a standard of coverage, or minimum amount of detail that you see as being necessary here? We have to make sure that this web page does not evolve into a platform for the Ron Paul campaign. He already has his own website, and it's not our place to be touting his opposition to government spending, for example, whether it is typical or not. There is already a section for his Political Positions; I think that describing his stances there, and not repeating them in various sections of this web page, is the appropriate encyclopedic approach. Do you agree? Msalt (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Msalt, I'm glad to see you have been working to improve the article. It has needed a bit of sprucing for quite a while. In terms of the amount of detail on Paul's tenure, it's important to bear in mind that Paul is not the typical member of Congress, or presidential candidate, by any means. He's served longer than most other current members of the House, in terms of his cumulative tenure; few others were serving even before the Reagan administration, as he was. He's proposed many more bills, proportionally. He's run for the presidency three times. He's switched parties, and switched back. There's also the fact that he doesn't fit neatly into any of the typical political alignments of Washington -- you can't just say he's a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican and be able to decide where he will stand on an issue on that basis -- you can't even say he's a "Libertarian" and automatically know what his stance will be according to that label, so the shorthand devices that work with most other politicians don't necessarily apply in his case. He has is own specific political orientation that is arguably unique in Washington. Then there's the fact that at the end of the day, he is a politician, so there's always the issue of whether what he does (how he votes, what issues he takes on in legislation he sponsors or cosponsors) syncs with what he says. For all of these reasons, it makes sense that his WP entry will be a bit longer and more detailed than most other politicians'. I think it's important to maintain a little bit of flesh summarizing major issues he pursued (or didn't pursue) during his tenure, even if they were the same in his pre-1984 years as in his post-1996 years. You're right that he has his own campaign websites that provide some information about his positions and his background, but those sites, which make no claim to be balanced, will probably disappear in a few months, right after the election; the info on WP will hopefully persist. WP should be a site that readers can turn to in the future for a balanced summary of his history. I think the section on his pre-1984 tenure is about right now. The quote at the end could come out.Dezastru (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that an encyclopedia is important as a lasting document. At the same time, we need to be very careful to remain NPOV, especially when he is a candidate in the most important election in the United States (and one might easily argue, on the planet.) The very act of defining him as unique and not a typical politician is not a neutral position -- it is a major theme of his campaign, and polling has consistently shown that voters want that. Every candidate says they are unique and stand up to their party, whether it is true or not. My point about his campaign page is not that they serve as an alternative encyclopedia, but that it is there role to promote him, not ours.

For comparison, I looked to other long running candidates and political figures, some of whom also have changed parties, (Phil Gramm, many current Republicans actually) or run for president as outsiders (Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, etc.) I just don't find any congresscritters who receive this amount of information on Wiki, and given how many other pages Ron Paul has -- notably Positions of Ron Paul - I really don't think we need to duplicate all of that material here. Broadly speaking, Wiki doesn't care that much what Congressman's positions are, nor does the public, so I think we need to be triply careful about having the effect of building a narrative about what a "maverick" RP is, to coin a phrase. Some material is fine, but that point should be made in one paragraph on this page, with a pointer to the separate page on his positions and perhaps a brief mention in the lede. Msalt (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The current sections on the 2008 campaign, support for third-party candidates, and political positions could stand to be honed, as there are separate pages that discuss these in detail. The 2008 campaign and third-party candidates sections, in particular, are heavy on the chronological play-by-play that would have been timely four years ago, but are perhaps much less appropriate for the encyclopedia now.Dezastru (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I suspect that what may have happened is that editors added a bit here and a bit there during the 2008 campaign, in real time as it happened, and no one ever went back and condensed the narrative. We know how the 2008 plot ended, so we don't need to make it a page-turner. :-) Msalt (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012 - Newsletters section

Ben Swann, an investigative reporter for Fox19 News in Cincinnati, OH, aired a special 3 week Investigative Report on Jan 4th, 2012 into the truth behind the "racist Ron Paul newsletters". What the actual content of the newsletters was, and if not Ron Paul, then who the real author was. This special report has been widely ignored by the major news outlets, but the airing of the report appears to have had a quietening effect as the major news outlets also ceased airing any coverage of the issue at all.

Special Investigative Reporter Ben Swann reveals that there was a total of 9 newsletters which contained racist passages written over a 2 year period between October of 1990 to June of 1992. In 2007, During Paul's presidential bid, a newspaper called "The New Republic" obtained hard copies of the racist newsletters and published one on the internet as proof of the racist content. According to the New Republic, some of the newsletter editions with racist passages were:

Oct 1990, Nov 1990, Dec 1990, Feb 1991, Jun 1992, Jul 1992, (month) 1993, Dec 2002

One newsletter with many racist passages was the Jun 1992 (Special Edition On Race Riots). This newsletter was published online by The New Republic in 2007 to prove the content was more than just a few racist passages. However it was not published in its entirety as the last page, page 8, was cut off half way through. In the 2007 article The New Republic reporter, James Kirchick, had explained that none of the racist newsletters contained a byline - except one. But he failed to say which newsletter had a byline and whose name it was.

After the initial airing of the report by Fox19, James Kirchick contacted Ben Swann with additional information from his 2007 report. A Special Ron Paul Newsletter published in 1993 containing similar writings to previous 'racist' newsletters contained the one and only byline "James B. Powell". Through comparison, Ben Swann suggests that Powell may have been the anonymous freeelancer that wrote the earlier racist articles which Ron Paul has disavowed.

Despite the analysis of Ben Swann, The New Republic staff and James Kirchick continue to post articles critical of Congressman Paul and his supporters, and even to today insists Ron Paul wrote the bigoted racist newsletters.

SOURCE(s):
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters
http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-ben-swann

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-liberal-defenders
71.229.157.180 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother. Left-wing wikipedia mods would rather leave unproven rumors in their "objective" sources even though nobody involved in the publication has come forward to say Ron Paul wrote the letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.216.168 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No proof? lol Proof: Ron Paul with Ron and Don Black, the founder of neo-Nazi website StormFront and past Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. One of their many meetings openly supported and posted on "RONPAULSUPPORTERS.COM" http://ronpaulsupporters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ron-paul-white-power.jpg

David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and former Republican State Rep in Louisiana openly endorses him and he has not spoken against that when openly confronted on the subject. His office also colluded with the white supremacist "American Third Position" (A3P) party, he regularly meets with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Note: There are email records of these meetings. Those records are hosted here: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/
Lengthy emails between A3P and Ron Paul's staff are hosted here in their entirety: http://pastebin.com/t8mbyQUS

Despite Ron Paul's re-branding and revisionism of the War between North and South, he still and always will fight for having SLAVE STATES. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5BU1htHSrA <-(Ron Paul video: His historical revisionism supporting "The South Was Right!") He openly fights against civil rights and the rights of individual freedom. His political platform is focused on having corporate dictatorships prevailing over human freedoms and human rights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMCwr72Dig

Temp (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See the new section below, and please comment here on talk before editing the article. Thanks you. Msalt (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary Elections

Has Ron Paul ever won a state's Primary Election/Caucus/Straw Poll for President? I read this over but didn't see where he had won one, though maybe I missed it. If not, should that be noted? Njsamizdat (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater

Why is there no mention of Barry Goldwater in this entire article? The connections between Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, and the Libertarian movement are a pretty big deal. --174.44.124.123 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul and Goldwater are known for similar positions, but I am not aware of any other particular connection between them. What did you have in mind? Did Goldwater help start Paul's political career somehow? Did they team up in some notable way? Do you have any sources that connect them? --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law – a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.[48]”

Of course his success in blocking bills which he opposed has been somewhat higher than that.

"substantially reduce foreign travel" - Not quite accurate

The phrase "substantially reduce foreign travel" as part of Paul's platform/positions is incorrect. Can't find reference to it anywhere. I do find, however, numerous references to curtailing foreign travel by US Federal employees - i.e. taxpayer-funded foreign travel. Maybe change to "substantially reduce foreign travel by Federal employees." DiluvianEnt (talk) Diluvian —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't see "foreign travel" discussed in this article. Did you mean in the Political Positions of Ron Paul article? If so, you're right, so I've changed the wording there to "substantially reduce federal travel." Dezastru (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits on this page.

My friend had asked a question on this page, yet it kept getting removed, who keeps deleting everything on here? I thought this wasn't part of wikipedia's policy.174.19.139.81 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which edits you are referring to. Is it possible that they have been moved to the Archives? (You can access the archived discussions by clicking on the numbered links to the Archives (or to the Archived Discussions Index) toward the top of this page.) When no one has added anything to a discussion topic for several weeks, the thread gets automatically moved to the Archives. I think the archiving for this particular page is currently set to occur when a topic has been quiet for 4 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ron

where does it say his situation in the election on whether he has dropped out or not?140.198.45.66 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would he drop out? He just won majorities in two more states yesterday. And he continues to be the second place fundraiser in the GOP presidential primaries. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-majority-delegates-maine-gop-174422402.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.16.76 (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ron paul racism allegations

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/anonymous-hacks-a3p-website/

These allegations lend more credence to the newsletter controversy. However, there's not even a mention. Is it because of a lack of citation sources, or because of the controversial nature that the information was obtained?

Msheekhah (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably both.

A number of editors have fought to remove any mention of the newsletters from the Ron Paul page, despite the fact that other issues surrounding the newsletters have been extensively covered by mainstream news sources.

The Anonymous report you are referencing was discussed briefly on the Talk page a few months ago. See Talk:Ron_Paul/Archive_10#Paul.27s_ties_to_neo-nazi_group. Dezastru (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The '95% ... black' statement isn't just a misquote - it's a clipped misquote, out of context. Even the chron.com reference link supplied proves that fact. I read it. I'm sure such politically motivated misquotes are against some part of wikipedia's terms, such as the requirement of a source. Dr Paul was speaking AGAINST the racism in Washington city due to this  : "The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA) discovered that 42 percent of the young African American men 18 to 35 years of age in the District of Columbia (D.C.) were under criminal justice supervision–in prison or jail, probation or parole, out on bond or being sought on a warrant (Miller 1992).” from the study found here : http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-20862072/hobbling-generation-young-african.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.165.87 (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012: Link for "University of Georgia"

In the section "Political positions", add a wikilink for University of Georgia in the second sentence.

"According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole ..." should read "According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole ..."

108.81.25.227 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't really about the University of Georgia. Adding a link there would not help the reader understand Ron Paul or his political positions any better. See WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK. Almost all readers will know what a university is, and will know or be able to figure out that the University of Georgia is a university in the US state of Georgia. There may be a fair number of readers, however, who do not know what a political scientist is, so a link specifically for "political scientist" may help some users better understand the article. Dezastru (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles link to unrelated topics. The purpose of links is to assist readers who are reading an article and then want to proceed to reading about something that was mentioned in that article. In that sense I don't see why linking to University of Georgia would be considered overlinking. --108.81.25.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Also, WP:OVERLINK (which is not linked here to avoid overlinking) does not support any of the points you made about why University of Georgia should not be wikilinked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.25.227 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I agree with the IP here; there's no good reason it shouldn't be wikilinked, and it's certainly not violating WP:OVERLINK in any way by doing so. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul coin shop

He apparently co-owned a coin dealership, "Ron Paul Coins," for twelve years (1984-1996) with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate it after Paul resumed office. He also apparently spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention."

During a later interview Ron Paul made a reference to "Camino Coin Company." Perhaps "Ron Paul Coins" and "Camino Coin Company" were one and the same from 1984 through 1996? Or where they separate? Did "Ron Paul Coins" actually exist, or was it in name only? It looks like Blumert ran Camino Coin Company from 1959 through 2008 and then gave the dealership to a long-time employee at that time. Blumert apparently passed away in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4000 Babies

Is this really relevant or useful information? Everything I can find indicates that this is pretty much the average amount of babies that would be delivered by an average gynecologist in the time that Ron Paul was active as a Gynecologist. I mean, good on the guy, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to pat someone on the back for doing something absolutely average for the profession they're in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.164.77 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dropped out?

Several news stories indicate he has dropped out of the GOP race. Has he for sure? The article still cites he is a candidate. ★Dasani★ 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC) He did not drop out. The article is correct on this point as of 27 June 2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.172.221 (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"New Campaign Directions"

"Posted Jul 5, 2012 10:51am EDT — Ron and Rand Paul are set today to shift the central focus of their family's long libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook." [15] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul's Education

Has anyone found a resource that tells how Ron Paul's college and medical education were funded? His movement often goes with the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" mentality though I have never heard how he paid for college. The article says he was a flight surgeon after completing med school - no military experience prior to med school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.62.75 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ending his attempt" to ensure a speaking spot

Is that so? I cannot find proof of this statement. Especially when you consider that the candidate requires pluralities of delegates from five states only to be nominated, regardless of who said delegates bound to vote for in the first actual round of voting. Misinformation that should be edited out. 75.71.125.184 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Dan

I'm not certain that his goal was to get a speaking spot. Do we have sources that report such a thing unequivocally? I believe the "ensure" was in reference to the speaking spot required under the GOP rules for anyone nominated. If there is another way to "ensure" it, I suppose it would be reasonable to discuss that. -- Avanu (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the citation I gave, that's where the proof is. Ron Paul is not guaranteed to speak at the RNC after losing Nebraska, as explained in the article. He could speak only if invited at this point. Anyways, the whole point of him staying in the race was to win enough states to be able to give a 15 min speech at the RNC. That's what the original citation article about him ending campaigning in new states says, and I quote Ron Paul from that article that's been up there 2 months:

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that liberty is the way of the future,

In the article I cited this also is the entire premise. If this isn't enough, here's several others explaining his intent to win states to be guaranteed a speaking spot at the RNC, several with direct quotes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/237911-ron-paul-romney-campaign-scared-to-let-him-speak-at-gop-convention

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/09/12642257-ron-pauls-last-stand

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/ron-paul-could-force-convention-speech.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/09/the-ron-paul-war-over-nebraska-delegates

http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317431-ron-paul-just-wants-a-little-attention-for-his-cause?lite

I thought this was common knowledge and pretty well laid out in both the citation from 2 months ago and the one I just posted. However, I can add all these articles as a citation if really necessary. I believe he is holding "Paul Fest" or something outside the RNC in Tampa if you'd like to add that Naapple (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at all of your citations above and not one said what our Wikipedia article said. Ron Paul did say that he wants to have a 'presence' at the convention, but he clearly said that he wasn't sure that the party would give him a 'public presence', and he further said he hasn't asked the Romney campaign to speak nor have they invited him. He mentioned that by winning 5 state pluralities the party would be obligated to let him speak (as a nominee), but I find no source supported the wording in our article, and as such, I have made a minor modification to keep it in line with the sources. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By "official presence" I mean that by the rules of the RNC he would have been guaranteed a 15 minute speech if he won 5 states. This is the exact wording in the article I cited as a reference (4th line down). He still could have an unofficial presence in that Mitt Romney or the RNC leadership could allow him to speak anyway, but as of now he isn't guaranteed one.

As for "his ability" vs "his attempt"; it's close enough for me anyway, and "official presence" vs "a presence" is trivial enough that I won't pursue the issue if you really prefer your wording. Naapple (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I only considered it because the IP editor raised a question. The previous approach made this seem like Ron Paul was officially taking this approach, rather than it being a more grassroots-led effort. We don't have specific sources that make either position completely clear. I think Ron Paul carefully chose his words in saying "official presence" versus "presence" and he had his reasons for that distinction. We often overlook the nuances, especially when they are filtered through our supposedly reliable secondary sources. -- Avanu (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I completely agree. Naapple (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Error re: Tom DeLay

This article erroneously states that Ron Paul's successor in Congress, Tom DeLay, eventually became Speaker of the House. In fact, Tom DeLay rose to be House Majority Whip and then later House Majority Leader, but he was never Speaker. The Speakers during his time in the GOP leadership were were Newt Gingrich (1995-1999) and then Denny Hastert (1999-2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.41.16 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul eligible for the nomination according to RNC

http://digitaljournal.com/article/324280

There is also an article from the Examiner but apparently Wikipedia won't let it be posted. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that that article is from May ... Dezastru (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The link you posted isn't a very good source. -- Avanu (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article both lies in the opening paragraph and contradicts itself further down. The video is is probably faked. Subject of the video states: "original video file at: (original video is probably going to make you mad in 5 seconds)". The link is no longer to the correct video on Fox News. Further more the article is outdated. DigitalJournal itself is much like the Examiner, in that anyone can be a "digital journalist" and write up an article. If Examiner is blocked, I'm surprised DigitalJournal isn't as well.

I did see today's Examiner article, written by a college student. It too is full of falsehoods, with a citation to dailypaul. I'm honestly a little shocked at the outright lies and all the supporting comments on that article, but then that's why the Examiner is blocked.

In any case, if you do a search for "Ron Paul RNC" you'll see a dozen articles from mainstream outlets that state that Ron Paul does not have a plurality in 5 states and is not guaranteed a speaking spot at the convention, nor is eligible for nomination. Even Ron Paul knows this, which is why he is holding something literally called Paul Fest 2012 in Tampa one day before the RNC (iirc), but it is, of course, completely unaffiliated with the RNC.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Naapple (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RNC Legal Council Jennifer Sheehan documented RNC presidential nominating practice in a communication to Nancy Lord saying:

"... the nominating process, which requires the majority of delegates from five states to put a candidate's name into the official nominating process. The delegates from these five states must sign a nominating form that is then submitted to the Secretary of the Republican National Convention."

State binding of delegates addresses only their vote on first ballot. Signing of the nominating form is not constrained by such binding. Since Paul has a majority of supporting delegates in Nevada (though they are 1st-ballot bound to Romney) a win in Nebraska was not needed.

You can find Sheehan's words here:

http://republicanselect.blogspot.com/2012/05/rnc-counsel-on-rule-38-of-rnc-rules.html

http://www.nancylord.blogspot.com/

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COMPLAINT_SACV-12-00927-DOC%28JPRx%29.pdf

A0000006 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Find an article that states Ron Paul is actually on the RNC ballot or has a guaranteed speaking spot. Whether or not he should've/could've/would've or whatever legal action is going on really doesn't matter here. Right now, as the rules are, Ron Paul does not have a plurality in 5 states, and that's from the RNC. When they change their mind, then he'll get his speaking time and spot on the ballot.

When the Republican National Convention or Mitt Romney's campaign says Ron Paul is on the ballot or has a 15min speech, then this wiki article can be changed. Anything else is speculative, and quite frankly, unrealistic. Naapple (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that "as the rules are, Ron Paul does not have a plurality in 5 states, and that's from the RNC". For now, at least mention that there is controversy. Ron Paul himself says he has a nomination in this KTRH radio interview from yesterday:

http://www.ktrh.com/player/?mid=22267328

A0000006 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ron Paul does not have a plurality in 5 states, and that's from the RNC" - Incorrect Naaple, the RNC committee did not state this, the media did. Either way you are missing the point, the plurality the media is referring to is bound delegates - which is inaccurate reporting in and of itself.

The binding of delegates pertains to VOTING, not nominating. In other words, if a state has a majority of Paul supporters as delegates, they can nominate Ron Paul even if they are technically "bound" to vote for Romney during the first round. This is per RNC rules, and you can call the RNC rules committee yourself to verify this.

Ron Paul supporters represent the majority of delegates in the following states: Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, nevada, Louisiana and Virginia. You can confirm this yourself on the thegreenpapers.com. Since Ron Paul has a plurality of supporters in 6 states, he is eligible to be nominated from the floor at the RNC convention. Hopefully this clears up any confusion.

DoMiNo1987 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree/disagree with your assertions, but do note that they are WP:OR unless a WP:RS has made that same analysis and fact finding. your statement, while simple is way beyond WP:CALC in terms of what the ramifications are based on various interpretations of the rules. Unfortunately, I think the WP:RS bar is going to be difficult to meet in this case, because the media likes to marginalize/ignore Paul. This will be further exacerbated by the party that will likely try to roll over Paul if possible, making the "truth" somewhat difficult to acertain. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Domino, every main stream media source and even Ron Paul seems to disagree with you, or Ron Paul would be speaking. We are talking about bound delegates (ya know, the ones who represent the voting of the people, ie; democracy). Again, all this is WP:OR anyway. As it is now, Ron Paul won't be on the ballot and won't be speaking.

In regards to that radio station interview: Ron Paul believes he should be nominated, not that he is. He knows he won't be on that ballot at the RNC nor has a speaking spot. I encourage all of you who feel that hijacking a state convention and overriding democratically bounded delegates feel that you're disenfranchised, to write the RNC and get this whole thing changed so that we can change it here on wikipedia. In the meantime, though, Ron Paul isn't speaking or nominated. Sorry. Naapple (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delegates are elected representatives. This is a Republic, not a Democracy. If Ron Paul has a plurality (NOT a majority) of delegates in 5 or more states, he will have a speaking slot. 71.4.236.2 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He won't. And that's from every legitimate journalist out there. Whatever the Paul crowd thinks they have apparently isn't true. Prove otherwise. Naapple (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

I'm searching through this article and there are any number of terms that just aren't coming up but should be. Where's "Christian reconstructionism", "Dominionism", "tenther" and "neo-Nazi"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll note that I asked why these terms don't come up, and the reaction was to summarily delete my question. It could be argued that adding these terms would be a WP:BLP violation, but I don't see how it can be a violation to bring up the subject. If anything, removing my question is a serious breach of editor etiquette, in that my words are being tampered with.

In any case, I'm not making any of this stuff up, and it's an entirely fair question. Even if all of the alleged associations with these terms are false, it is still true that they have been notably and credibly alleged. One example would be http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-ron-paul-a-closet-theocrat-66586/. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are references to reliable sources? These are terms unfamiliar to me and I follow politics quite a bit. Did you mean Ron Paul is a 'neo-Nazi' or that he opposes that stupid movement? There are guidelines in Wikipedia (for writing about living people in particular.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I posted a reliable source about the issue of his connections with the first two terms, and it included links to other reliable sources on the same topic. Here are links about the last two terms: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/16/794109/-A-Layman-s-Refutation-of-the-Tenther-Movement, http://newsone.com/1842275/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/.

Again, the question isn't whether the connections are true, as we should not be stating that they're true. In fact, it's quite likely that some of them aren't. But that's not for either of us to judge. We just report what notable secondary sources have said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Tenther"/Daily Kos cite is to a column written by an anonymous blogger, the (Neo Nazi?) NewsOne cite is to a Casey Gane-McCalla column that extensively quotes the hacker group "Anonymous" as a source, so I am not sure that either of those columns would qualify as reliable sources for these terms being used to describe Paul. If the Washington Post or the New York Times, ABC News, etc. used those terms to describe Mr. Paul, his activities and his beliefs then that would be different. Shearonink (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting Anonymous makes the article unreliable; perhaps you could explain how. The other neo-Nazi story is http://www.buzzfeed.com/pajaroentertainmentltd/photo-of-ron-paul-palling-around-with-neo-nazis-31ii, which includes a link to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?_r=4&ref=politics. I believe you did mention the New York Times as a source you accept as reliable.

The Kos blogger is using a pen name but is by no means anonymous (http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/12910/). Ron Paul's support for tentherism is reported by tenther sites such as http://news.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/ron-paul-voices-support-for-nullification/, with links to more reliable sources, such as http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/ron-paul-ill-decide-soon-presidential-run?page=2. Besides "tenther", the related term is "nullification".

I won't pretend that sourcing any statements about these terms is trivial, but it does look doable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because 'Anonymous' is anonymous and a group dedicated to hacking activities....that would seem to not make them a reliable source. As to using "Tenther" to describe Ron Paul, if WP is going to include all significant viewpoints about terms then Radley Balko's Reason column link would also be an appropriate reference. The use of the term "nullification" to describe Paul's views and to not describe other politicians as such seems a little disingenuous to me. For instance, it would seem to apply to both conservatives and liberals who are on both sides of the medical marijuana laws and other local-use/marijuana laws. The controversy about his newsletters and their language has a section in the main Ron Paul article as well as its own standalone article: Ron Paul newsletters, Paul's political views are covered in Ron Paul#Political positions as well as its own article: Political positions of Ron Paul, and Paul's views about the Tenth Amendment are mentioned at least 5 different times in the States' powers section. As to using the above terms to possibly describe some of Ron Paul's beliefs - Tenther/nullification, Christian reconstructionism, Neo-Nazi, Dominionism - the use of which could be construed as violating WP:NPOV, I would point you to the example of how Wikipedia has dealt with terminology about abortion in the past:

Opposed: Opposition to legalized abortion, Pro-life, Anti-abortion and

For: Support for the legalization of abortion, Pro-abortion, Pro-choice with Women's rights covering Women's reproductive rights.

Also, using single photos from the Internet to prove asserted associations for politicians with various individuals would seem to be a slippery slope...many politicians have their pictures taken at campaign events with all sorts of people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a close association with that particular individual whatever people might assert both pro- and con-.

In my opinion, using the above various terms to describe Paul either one way or the other should not hold precedence but the usage of these various terms to describe him or his views should be scrupulously referenced from multiple, reliable sources keeping in mind any possible WP:BLP concerns.Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The reliable source is not Anonymous, it's the newspaper reporting on it, so your objection does not hold. In fact, our article on the group -- Anonymous (group) -- is full of reliable sources about it and what it says.

I found that Reason article denying tentherism during my research and I'm totally fine with including it, as it's a notable view. It's vital that anything we say is neutral and balanced, precisely because of the terminology involved, so that cite has a place.

As for how broadly tentherism applies, I'm only interested in whether it applies here. If, say, it also applies to Romney and Obama, that's fine, but should be dealt with on their article, not here. Having said that, I read Tenther and couldn't help but to notice that it contrasted the views of traditional libertarians with the statements in one of Ron Paul's newsletters. This suggests that Paul may well be opposed to the federal government's power but not the state/local one's, which is precisely the defining characteristic of a so-called tenther. I think it's extremely important that we accurately report Paul's views, using his own words and reliable sources talking about his words.

Ultimately, if we stick to our sources, I don't think that WP:NPOV would be a problem. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

NewsOne's story starts like this:

"“Anonymous” claims to have recovered emails from Kelso that prove that Ron Paul has regularly met with members of Jamie Kelso’s neo-Nazi political party American Third Position and even was on several conference calls with their board of directors."

So Casey Gane-McCala's story in NewsOne starts with a quote from Anonymous about emails and then the rest of the story?... The rest of the story consists of quotes from Anonymous....so yes, in my opinion the reliability of Anonymous in and of itself as a source is very much at the center of how reliable this NewsOne story is. I do disagree with the statement that "We just report what notable secondary sources have said"...not quite. If that is all that Wikipedia articles are, then all we would have to do is be a listing service of what other sources state...but there is editorial discretion and editorial consensus about what is and what is not included in a Wikipedia article. If you think that the NewsOne story can be used as a reliable source for Paul's asserted Neo-Nazi ties, then include it. If you think that you have found enough reliable/independent sources to support including "Dominionism", "Christian reconstructionism", "Tenther", and "Neo-Nazi" as neutral point-of-view descriptions of Ron Paul & his political beliefs, then include them in the Ron Paul article as well. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NewsOne doesn't believe it can assert Paul has neo-Nazi ties. Instead, it is reporting a credible claim. In the same way, we are reporting on the notable claim, not endorsing it.

It is a simple matter of fact that Anonymous has accused Paul of these ties; we have reliable sources to prove this. Whether the claims are true is not for us to decide. They're certainly plausible, in that neo-Nazis have explicitly given support to Paul, as shown by the posed photo with Stormfront's leader. It's not a wild claim by any measure. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, if you think you have enough reliable/independent sources to support including these four terms as being neutrally descriptive of Ron Paul and his political beliefs, then add them to the article. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have enough reliable/independent sources to support including the issues around these terms in a neutrally descriptive way. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Christian reconstructionism", "Dominionism", "tenther", "neo-Nazi" Are you trolling? If you want to add a bit about Ron Paul's beliefs on nullification then do it. I know Ron paul has an interesting crowd following him, but come on. Naapple (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you actually have a point or are you simply trying to bait me? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both my point and your intent are pretty clear. Naapple (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I'm not taking the bait. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any other motive on Wikipedia other than making sure that certain articles are written to your interpretation of neutral? You are begging to look like a single purpose account. --JOJ ^Hutton 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a real stickler for punctuation. How about you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rothbardanswer

Your latest edit removed the mention of is newsletters, which are probably more notable than anything he wrote for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It's also not clear anymore whether he published the books he wrote. I looked up "The Case for Gold" on Amazon and the publisher is listed as CreateSpace, which is a site that helps people self-publish. Can you fix these problems? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this missing?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/18/is-ron-paul-a-dominionist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1003:1017:BE30:5BFF:FECF:46FE (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a blog and this is a BLP? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is sourcing, we can find reliable sources. But it's strange that none of this stuff is mentioned, even the things we can easily source. Gary North's involvement with RP is one example of this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the are reliable sources this can and should be included. Nemissimo (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Gary North mentions this, so we can use whatever citation that article used. If not, Googling "gary north ron paul" turned up pages and pages of links. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone cited "antiwar.com" as a source to call Ron Paul and Tea Party neocons.

I do not see in this article where Paul is referred to as "neocon". Where is that? I do see this statment, in the lead: "Today, many self-identified 'Tea Party' members hold views which align more closely with neo-conservatism, as opposed to Paul's small-government libertarian views" which is cited by Antiwar.com and clearly suggests that Paul's views ran counter to neo-conservatism.--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is vandalism, but it is certainly not supported by the source and should be removed. Further, even if it was supported, I don't know that I would say antiwar.com is a reliable source. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement in question has been removed, per this discussion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Republican?

Ron Paul has renounced his GOP membership... again

Ron Paul: The GOP 'Is Not My Party,' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It would probably be prudent to wait a few days before adding that to the article. He may want to qualify what he meant by that remark. Dezastru (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Dezastru. Note the the source linked by the IP reads " he may be done with the mainstream Republican party as a whole" (emphasis mine). Something more definitive would be needed to add this to the article.--JayJasper (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely unreliable source. Betty Liu was the interviewer with Ron Paul on Bloomberg's program In the Loop. Compare with the Boston Globe quote (link) where Paul says "we will become the tent eventually". Ashley Portero (writer of this IB Times article), is editorializing, not analyzing the Bloomberg program. She also promotes her own article and its interpretation on her Twitter feed, but doesn't mention up front that she wrote that article and its opinion. I would say a much more reasonable interpretation of Paul's quote is simply to say he doesn't 'own' the Republican party, and he goes on to say that he is proud of what is working, namely the plan that is referenced via the Boston Globe quote above. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is Politico's coverage. And here is the original interview (@4:58). Dezastru (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Green Tree

Green Tree is its own borough, not a Pittsburgh neighborhood. His bio infobox implies otherwise. Was it a section of the city when he was born? YellowAries2010 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No it was not, and someone keeps changing it, from my extensive reading on Dr. Paul he did grow up in Greentree (a borough that has never had any clinics nor hospitals) but was born in Pittsburgh, for anyone that has ever been Greentree is bordered on the North, West and East by Pittsburgh proper and is about 5 minutes (in good traffic) from downtown Pittsburgh. I am changing his birthplace to Pittsburgh which is what all sources reflect.Marketdiamond (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Republicanism

Not sure if this article is open for general editing but Ron Paul has disavowed the republican party as "not his party" after losing the race for the GOP nomination. As it stands Ron Paul does not "belong" to a particular political party.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/379552/20120831/ron-paul-2012-interview-gop-party.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.95.242 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, since I think he means: I don't run it, it's not the way I want it, I don't support this particular candidate, both parties stink. As opposed to saying something clear like "I resign from the Republican party. I'm telling my followers to NOT take it over and make it more the way I want it, join some other party." CarolMooreDC 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Inflation hawk" nonsense and unsourced claim

"Paul has a consistent record as an inflation hawk, having warned of hyperinflation as far back as 1981.<ref>Five Myths About the Gold Standard, Congressman Ron Paul, Congressional Record, February 23, 1981: "I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse. But in Washington today we have five myths about the gold standard.</ref>"

Can anyone find a reference so we can verify that he did said that on February 23, 1981? When I google the quote I only find forums and mirrors. Nothing reliable. Also I couldn't find a video of that.--Neo139 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this, it's in the Congressional Record. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats a .blogspot blog. We can't consider it reliable.--Neo139 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it as an RS. I'm saying it points to the canonical statement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

this site itself may or may not be a reliable source, but includes an image of the printed congressional record. However, also remember that WP:V does not require online, free, or easy access. The congressional record was claimed. The fact that the record is not available online is irrelevant. Anyone can go to the library of congress and read it to verify. Only if someone went, and the item was not ther,e would this be contestable. http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/5goldmyths.htmGaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reality check: nobody doubts that Ron Paul said this. Ron Paul doesn't deny it. There's no controversy, no reason to think that our indirect sources made any of this up. I'm comfortable pointing at the Congressional Record as our reliable source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! I tried to find the Congressional Record Volume 127, Session 1 Part 2 without success. The closet was the Part 15-17. The reason I was skeptical is because I googled the quote and only find a blogspot site. I will remove the inflation hawk and leave the warning.--Neo139 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

Correct his middle name: "Earnest" not "Ernest". 96.236.155.34 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Request contradicts multiple reliable sources on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Final Address to Congress

"Texas congressman, noted libertarian, and former Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Wednesday delivered his farewell address to Congress."

“At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period,” Rep. Paul said. “My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.” [16] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good photo-pictures

I especially like the last picture, showing three generation: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and grandson William Paul. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol Paul

Considering the recent election, and her new books, Carol Paul seems to be notable enough to have her own, separate page. There was one that got deleted 4 or 5 years ago. Thoughts on building another page for her? PrairieKid (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there enough significant coverage in reliable sources about her to establish notability? If so, start the article.--Newbreeder (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

carol's pretty notable Twonumbers (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)