Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Net Worth?

Since he's running for president shouldn't something be included? I can't find anything. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll results?

The article should only be referencing random-based political polling, not "American Idol" unscientific polls where one person can vote as many times as they want (such as the MSNBC post-debate poll asking who won the debate, which I've deleted since it does not belong in a reference text.

All national polling results on Ron Paul are available here: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

He's averaging at around 1% nationally, tied with Gilmore, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and Hunter. If Wikipedia wishes to reference Ron Paul's polling numbers, they should use the numbers in the above link.

---

shouldn't there be some section on how his electoral bid is going at the polls? Here are some possible sources: yourfreepoll pollpub

How about some real polls as opposed to online polls? Or is the truth about this man's candidacy off limits?

I can tell you that at this point in NH he has raised more money in one visit than all the other candidates except Romney.

He has had enormous success in the debates and I do not believe that should be ignored. I'll be editing something about the results in shortly. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Success isn't measured by online polls, certainly not if you're seen as "out there" by the mainstream media. Online polls are obviously not scientific, and what is worse is when news commentators were saying that an early lead by Ron Paul, even in an unscientific poll, was absurd. He certainly wasn't the one receiving applause at the last debate after his spat with Giuliani. But, if to you guys, this campaign is about crafting a little collage of isolated figures to make it seem like Ron Paul has a chance, along with organizing efforts to flood online polls with votes and then presenting those results as evidence that he is not a fringe candidate, by all means, enjoy yourselves.

Please sign your posts with four tildes so we can know who you are. The talk page is not the place for random comments and insults of the subject. Popularity is not measured by online polls, but it can be measured by money raised, and in New Hampshire, I believe he's raised the second-most amount after Romney. Overall, I believe he's raised the fourth-most amount of money among Republicans. This isn't in the article and I might add it.--Gloriamarie 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrast on 9/11

Libertas has now contributed three different sentences contrasting Paul's views on 9/11 with some imaginary mainstream:

1. "This is consistent with the views of Osama bin Laden who justified the attack on the same basis. Opponents of bin Laden argue that there can be no justification or excuse for mass murder."
2. "The mainstream Republican and Democrat position is that Osama bin Laden's hatred of American pluralism and freedom prompted the attacks."
3. "Critics reject this reasoning, saying it is code for justifying the attacks on the basis of American support for Israel. In other contexts, Paul has made no secret of his opposition to Israel."

In addition to being somewhat contradictory, each is inappropriate, POV, and inflammatory enough as to require citations for these supposed views. Taking them one by one:

1. Is simply absurd, as even Libertas appears to recognize (see above).
2. Implies a mainstream bipartisan position which does not exist and is not cited
3. Invents "critics" making a very specific criticism of Paul's comments, without offering a citation of any such critics. In addition, it states that Paul opposes Israel, rather than U.S. policy in support of Israel.

I find all three unacceptable. RadicalSubversiv E 04:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul's quote is about cause, while Giuliani's quote is about justification; they are not the same thing. 9/11 can be said to have been caused by US policy without implying that 9/11 was justified by US policy. Giuliani was not commenting on Paul's statement and his quote is thus irrelevant. — Davenbelle 19:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Either way, the result is that in the entire article there is now no mention at all of Ron Paul's position on Israel.

Having read much of Ron Paul's writing, I believe that this is a fundamental issue with him. He claims, in essence, that America has been in the wrong in it's foriegn interventions since the late 19th century. He criticises America's role in reshaping the Middle East -- making no exceptoin of the reestablishhment of the Jewish state of Israel. Ron Paul's arguments about the motivations behind jihad against America are virtually inseparable from his arguments about our ties to Israel. Israel is the very heart of jihad motivation, after all.

Ron Paul argues for breaking all political ties with Israel (a boldly isolationist position, by most estimates); effectively leaving Israel to fend for herself in a sea of anti-Israel jihadist states. So, while it may never have been a direct statement of disapproval of Israel, it comes close enough to raise concerns.

At the least, the subject should be covered in this article. I leave it to objective Wikians to do so in a NPOV way, of course. Mantic 05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your use of weasel words, it's clear that you are motivated by personal opinion rather than obeying Wikipedia guidelines. Someone should find a quote by Paul which directly mentions Israel. Otherwise, it's safe to assume that his opinion about our relationship with Israel would follow his belief in non-interventionism. Therefore, unless someone finds a quote discussing Israel within the context of our foreign policy, it would be inappropriate to address the issue. Otherwise, it would constitute POV and original research. CommonSense101 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

my removals

First off I don't see why that 25,000 thing is encylopedic, nor what his legalstive director called bush, you are putting in so many just random triva's that don't seem to be encylopedic at all. Aka this page looks like it's turning more into a statments paul have made that could be taken as being a bit different from mainstream, rather then an enecylopedica entry on a person Chuck F 08:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This does not qualify as a specific explanation for your removals of content, as far as I'm concerned RadicalSubversiv E 08:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly, if that info is fine, then I'm just going to go and listen to limbaugh or some other talk show host, and start quoteting every single thing he says every mintue as an info on him in the enclyopedia. anyway onto more points here 1. the legalastive director is not him, this has not been a newsworthy event it has no real purpose here, it's like me going and starting to add things that Dick morris said to the Clinton article 2. the others seem sepfically npov editons to make him seem worse, and are really taken out of context, but in context they wouldn't be encylopedic at all.

Chuck F 08:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) In many ways, congressional staff are the eyes, ears, and mouths of their member. The comments you removed are particularly unusual ones to be coming from staff, and seem notable for the article. If Dick Morris said notable things about Bill Clinton that will help inform the reader about the subject, please add them. 2) is so ungrammatical I can't figure out what you're saying. RadicalSubversiv E 08:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comments about race are pointless.

Income tax

While I am here. the phrase caught my eye:

He believes in the complete abolition of income tax,

I am not an ecomomist, and I may be wrong, but I always thought that taxes are the main source of financing the state, the income tax delivering the bulk of it. If I am correct, then the article must explain how he suggests to finance the state (or trim the bureaucracy, or he is an anarchist, whatever). Otherwise he doesn't look smart. Sorry for intervention into not my business. Mikkalai 22:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The argument is generally that the size of the federal government should be drastically reduced, so as to be closer to what it looked like in the 19th century, when there was no income tax. Usually omitted is the fact that the federal government then was primarily funded through protectionist tariffs, which libertarians are also opposed to. RadicalSubversiv E 00:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians draw a distinction between protectionist tariffs which unfairly inhibit foreign competition, and uniformly-applied customs duties, collected for the sole purpose of funding the necessary, constitutional functions of the Federal Government. These taxes are considered preferrable to income taxes, since they don't require the federal government to invade the privacy of individual citizens.

He is smart. Only about 80% of the budget is covered by income taxes. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are all taxed under FICA, which is not part of the income tax. Highway repairs are funded under fuel taxes, customs and protsecurity under minor, use-based import tariffs, etc. A lot of the BS our government does is what gets funded by the income tax. Just imagine, the federal government would have to justify each of its expenses to the voters if there were no income tax! Foofighter20x 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you are very welcome to comment and are probably right. It's just positioning really, I don't think the Congressman is seriously expecting the abolition of the IRS or taxes. But it's a helpful perspective I think to help us think about the size of government and its over-reaching.

Libertas

To Mikkalai, There have been over 200 communist and socialist groups in America since 1880. Since that time they have tried to force an income tax on America. Eight times was the law about instituting an income tax struck down by the Constitutionalists sitting on the U. S. Supreme Court. Where did these communist and Socialist groups get their idea of an income tax? From the Communist Manifesto which called for a graduated income tax. The Federal Government was first to be supported by taxes on Imports. But since we live in a Communist Free Trade, that goes and in 1913, the Income Tax was finally passed by a Constitutional ammendment. So there, We now follow the communist manifesto and not the document our Founding Fathers started. WHEELER 14:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are several economic schools of thought, Ron Paul supports the Austrian School which can be found at Mises.org. The right of property that was enjoyed by Americans was destroyed by the 16th Amendment, the subjugation of our individual states to the central government, and the income tax which turned us (at the least) into a Socialist government. Income tax is the denial of private property, of which we are allowed whatever the government wills, and rendered what used to be considered in America a fair-trade (our labor-for-pay) completely taxable. Fafyrd 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

From an article written by Ron Paul: "Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000!" http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html

To Mikkalai: The late Libertarian (and 2x Presidential candidate) Harry Browne was also very much in favor of abolishing the tax on income and made a strong case for it. To put it very simplistically, eliminating income tax revenues would go hand in hand with reducing what the federal govt can do, thus greatly reducing the size (and power) of the federal govt, which is the whole point. The Downsize DC group has an ongoing campaign to reduce the size of the fed in general and specifically to repeal the income tax (http://www.downsizedc.org/mission.shtml). It is also worth noting - and in fact you asked about this - that there has not always been an income tax in this country. Yet, it survived and grew nonetheless. Most of us who are alive today have never known anything different which is probably the biggest reason people question how we could possibly survive as a nation without it - or even moreso we don't question it at all.

marihuana

I saw a spelling change to this word. I spelled it that way because it is spelled that way in the bill he sponsored. (unsigned comment by User:Kalmia)

Either spelling is "correct," although the "marijuana" spelling is generally considered the most common form in contemporary American English[1]. I would say that we should use the standard in most cases, but if we could cite the bill he sponsored, we could include some excerpts that utilize the spelling original to that text. Could you point me in the direction of the bill? I would be happy to hunt for pertinent quotes. Dick Clark 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason, perhaps custom, laws referring to marijuana usually spell it "marihuana".128.151.176.7 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the above statement. I am a law officer.

John Birch Society

I've commented out the unsourced anon claim that Paul is a member of the John Birch Society. Of course I don't know for sure that it's not true, but I don't ever recall hearing it, and it seems it would have been an issue when he ran for President as a Libertarian. --Trovatore 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He gets the most consistently high marks the John Birch society gives to anyone I'm aware of[2], but that doesn't mean he is one. Although possibly a mention of his high marks with them would be acceptable, but it might already be there.--T. Anthony 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Paul gets high ratings from every conservative group that rates politicians based on their Constitutional positions. Ron Paul is a strong advocate of adhering to Constitutional principles and his votes in Congress reflect those beliefs. -- Jtpaladin 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think singling him out as being thought highly of by the John Birch Society is a bit biased in and of itself. Why not pick another organization that likes him, or list several. It is a bit like saying the communists like someone in the 50s. kpturvey 1:57, May 29, 2007 (CST)

Books

Does anyone know the ISBN numbers of any of the books listed in the "Books by Ron Paul" section of the article? And do you know if Ron Paul has written any others? Unregistered User 71.96.165.158 21:52, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

AFAIK, those are all of them. Most were published by FREE, and don't seem to have been assigned ISBN numbers. --emb021 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana Legalization

I know he has often stated how much he is against the War on Drugs and victimless crimes. He also voted in favor for medical marijuana. But has he been outspoken for the legalization of marijuana specifically? Zachorious 12:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a specific citation mentioning marijuana specifically. He supports decentralizing government, so as an official elected to a federal office, I assume he would remove the federal governments invlovment and let the States and localities take it from there. I would like to see a citation to this or have someone ask him. --Kalmia 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Ron Paul's views on legalization of marijuana or any other drug. If in fact he is against the War On Drugs then I commend him for it. However, if he takes a Libertarian viewpoint on certain issues, as it seems he does, then it makes sense that he stops short of supporting "legalization". It's difficult to argue that "legalization" - unlikely as it is - would bring with it an enormous (and invasive) new layer of federal government, the role of which would be to regulate every aspect of drug use. The anti-drug crowd would never allow outright legalization. It would only be permitted if they were assured that strict government controls would be in place. That sounds like about as big a nightmare, at least to me as a Libertarian, as the current ridiculous situation.

He believes that there should be no federal drug enforcement, that it should all be left to the states to handle and to decide whether drugs are legalized, how they will handle it, etc. He believes that the situation in which California has declared medical marijuana legal, and federal DEA agents have swept in and arrested terminally ill people for violating federal law is outrageous, that if the state has declared it legal it should be fine. ---Gloriamarie 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For 128 things related to Paul and drug policy, check http://www.mapinc.org/find?BK=ron+paul&BT=Phrase&BO2=and&BK2=&BT2=All+Words&TO=and&TK=&TT=All+Words&SO=and&SK=&ST=All+Words&AO=and&AK=&AT=All+Words&GACop=inside&GAC=&Section=All+Types&MM1=1&DD1=1&YY1=1990&MM2=12&DD2=31&YY2=2007&SUB=Search&PA=1&MAX=20&DE=High&SRT=Latest

Stance on death penaly

The artical says:

"Congressman Paul adheres to the consistent life ethic, and therefore opposes all forms of killing not done in self-defense. His pro-life views factor into his support for non-interventionism, and are the reason he opposes capital punishment."

But he said: (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm) "Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts."

Which seems to be contradictory. Anyone knowledgable enough to explain or update the article ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.230.65.68 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

It's not contradictory. Paul does not believe in the death penalty for domestic criminals, but in the case of terrorists, enemy combatants who come onto our soil to kill as many as possible, he supports using additional forms of penalty. -Gloriamarie 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I saw the external links, and...um, yeah, that's messy-looking, all right.

Here is what I propose that should be done about the links: Split them up into sub-sections.

I have a good rough draft saved onto my computer, and I'm likely going to use it to clean up the links.

ObscureAnomaly 07:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup of the external links, mostly links not following NPOV, advertising, or Social Networking. Sub-sections would be a great idea for this article as well most other political figures. Acidskater 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed inappropriate external links. In addition to the wiki site which is simply a solicitation to flood online polls, I removed an online petition and all blogs. Please see Wikipedia:External links for guidelines on what an appropriate external link is. Rhobite 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC debate "poll" does not belong here

Whoever keeps adding the online vote taken after the MSNBC debate should think about it more - it is in no way a scientific poll, as they themselves are quick to point out. It is not a random sampling, there are no sure protections against multiple votes - they do not and we should not claim that it is a poll of anything. It is merely an online vote, of people who feel like voting, and is of no real value. You are giving ammunition for people who are against Ron Paul by including it here. Tvoz |talk 05:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Read this: MSNBC.com on their online votes. Tvoz |talk 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but since the poll was conducted immediately after the debate on the network of the debate, I would think it would have some merit. It's not just any network poll that only fans of that network vote on in any given time - it was a poll that those who watched the official debate voted on after seeing the debate live. It's more to do with viewer response than anything precise or scientific. I think it should be kept, but everything you said here should be mentioned in the article to make it clear to the article reader that the poll was far from perfect and shouldn't count as an official win for any candidate. Poetic^X_contribs 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I said don't call it a poll or imply that it has any scientific validity - you would be implying something that is untrue. Tvoz |talk 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just by reading "MSNBC Poll" you would know that it's NOT a scientific poll. Who really cares if it's scientific or not? The fact remains that Ron Paul won the poll after the debate. End of story. interpaul |talk 00:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

interpaul - Your arguments that a person should automatically know that the poll is unscientific because it's hosted by MSNBC and the fact that you say "who really cares if it's scientific or not" all sound very POV to me. You admit that it is unscientific - on Wikipedia we don't just leave things to chance by "assuming" people already know things and we don't leave things out because we assume "no one will care." The fact that the poll is indeed unscientific needs to be mentioned. Poetic^X_contribs 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, folks, I give up. I too want the article to be fair and give Paul a balanced presentation, unlike what the mainstream media tend to do, but some editors here insist on characterizing unscientific online surveys of whoever happens to answer as "polls", saying that Dr Paul is the frontrunner, has won polls, etc., as if these were Zogby-like polls. It's incorrect and misleading. It's not the way valid opinion polls work, and I believe you are hurting your own case by making these claims, which MSNBC itself does not. By all means include the fact that people responded well to his performance in the debate - I had that wording in there - but don't make it seem like it is anything like Gallup or any of the real polls. It's not "far from perfect" - it does not claim to be a scientific random sampling poll. Just don't use the word "poll " and you'll be halfway there. If others are not interested in a fair presentation, so be it. But the section's neutrality is therefore in question and I'm adding such a tag. I'd prefer not to do so, and will remove it when the section is re-worded so that it is clear what these online votes really represent. The way it is now is not neutral. PoeticX -you have it right above, and I think my wording said what you are saying, but people keep reverting it and changing it, so maybe you'll have more luck than I did. I hope i'm being clear: this is not an attack on Ron Paul - it is just a plea for accuracy and neutrality. Tvoz |talk 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The MSNBC poll does not qualify as a "voodoo poll," because MSNBC did not allow multiple voting. I removed the inappropriate link again. JLMadrigal 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a defining criteria that a voodoo poll allows multiple voting, but rather, that it has "no statistical or scientific reliability" so the results cannot be assumed to be representable for the larger population (unlike a scientific poll). I will thus reinstate the link. Instead of allowing it to appear like it in any way is a scientific poll, perhaps we should consider highlighting that there were 70,000+ votes of which around 40,000 favored Paul, suggesting considerable interest. Terjen 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine to mention the poll as long as we include the caveat that one cannot draw statistical conclusions based on the poll. Since the poll involved self-selection, it is statistically useless. It is irresponsible for us to write that "Some have said the moment was a major gain for Giuliani, yet polls show otherwise." MSNBC's poll shows nothing, except perhaps it indicates Paul's popularity in Internet libertarian groups. I wouldn't remove the mention of the poll, but we must reword it. I haven't heard the term "voodoo poll" before, but a nonstatistical web poll seems to fit the definition well. Rhobite 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Media Bias related to poll

To the editor of the page, I would like you to attach information regarding ABC and other media outlets calling Guiliani (Is that how his name is spelt? I don't care if it is wrong, since I dislike him) or Romney as the winner of the debate, then having to change their positions when thousands of people complained. For evidence I include this website as evidence: Alternative News Sources Blog. The blog also has several links to other on-line sites such as CSPAN, proving the bias as stated, and that ABC did not even include Ron Paul in their online poll, until people complained. Please add this info to the section on the debate. While I must disclose that I strongly dislike Ron Paul and pretty much all the Republiscum candidates, I want Wikipedia to remain an accurate info source, unlike Conservapedia, ABC news, or Conservative-oriented media in general. I am not signing my name as I feel that it is not necessary. 128.218.224.40 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That blog is not a reliable source - get an article that talks about ABC leaving Ron Paul off of their poll, if it happened, - but an article in a more reliable source than you provided. And please note that the MSNBC online vote is not in any sense a scientifically conducted poll and articles should not refer to it as such. That is misleading. Tvoz |talk 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a "scientific" poll? There is no way to get a perfect picture of people's views. Many people do not participate in paper "random sample" questionnaires. People who took the online poll were those who saw the debate online. That is the only "difference" - if it qualifies as one. The NSNBC and ABC polls, as well as the others cited, were entirely open. JLMadrigal 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A scientific opinion poll uses sampling and attempts to control bias so the resulting statistics can be generalized to the larger population from which the sample was drawn. That a poll is open for all is a sign that it is not scientific, as it introdices self selection bias. We know that as of today about 30,000 of 70,000 votes in the MSNBC survey favored Ron Paul, but that's about it. The result cannot be extrapolated beyond those voting, unlike a scientific poll. Terjen 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Terjen is correct. That they were open is the point. "Scientific" has to do with the method of choosing the respondents, among other things, not whether it is a "perfect picture" of anything. These were not a random sampling - they were self-selected. And there is little if any protection against one person expressing his or her opinion - voting - more than one time, and thereby skewing the results to favor their own preference. Read opinion poll, voodoo poll, and MSNBC's own explanation for starters. It's misleading to suggest in any way that this candidate is leading in the polls, because that implies that he is leading in the polls that are considered to be more valid - the ones that call themselves scientific - like Zogby, Quinnepiac, Gallup, etc etc. So to take it away from the Republicans: if they say Hillary or Obama or Edwards is leading in the polls, they don't mean an online survey, they mean in some officially conducted poll that has some kind of built-in protection against fraudulent loading of votes or viral marketing. Those polls are not necessarily accurate either, and they always vary in odd ways, but at least there is an attempt to make them random, which statisticians think is important. An online survey of who did best in a debate is simply not a valid, scientific poll - the sponsors don't claim it to be, and it should not be mis-reported on wikipedia as such. Include it if you want to make the point that his performance in the debate was well-received - but do it in a way that is not misleading or inaccurate. Tvoz |talk 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The polls: the article goes into great detail about how accurate the polls are. Stating that IP adresses, and popup windows insure accurate voting. However this story was posted all over the internet. I mean ive run across links to that poll many times. Thousands read the story and flocked to the poll, many of which are not politically interested and naturally would have thrown their vote on ron paul. Does the poll somehow weed out people under the age of 18 ? The poll is extremely one sided. This article is deceiving and obviously has POV problems. 68.82.241.63 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We learned in Elementary Statistics class that polls that require the people to go out of their way to answer the poll are not reliable. That's because you're not getting a representative sample, but are just getting people with strong opinions. Most people who vote in presedential elections, I don't think have very strong fervent political philosophies. Libertarians tend to be very fervent in their philosophy. Acirema 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The national polls conducted by polling agencies are self-selected as well-- the person called identifies themselves as a likely Republican voter. Whether that voter is actually a Republican or actually going to vote is not guaranteed. There are also biases in that those who are not represented in the phone book (those with only cell phones, those with VOIP lines, etc.) are not included. This has been covered in scientific studies in regards to the 2004 election and will most likely have more of an impact for 2008.--Gloriamarie 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag removal

Are we ready to remove that distracting tag in the campaign section yet? The article now covers both sides regarding the "voodoo poll" assertion. JLMadrigal 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That section is in very poor shape. It seems like the tag should stay until we remove opinionated statements and unreliable sources. Things like Youtube statistics and PrisonPlanet.com (9/11 conspiracy theory site) are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rhobite 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The absence of actual opinion polling numbers from the article is also conspicuous. In opinion polls which are based on statistical sampling techniques, such as the American Research Group national poll, Gallup, etc. Paul consistently receives about 1-2% of the "most likely to support" responses. Rhobite 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nation--opinion --not a news source

The Nation articles are taken from opinion pieces and are not actual statement of the facts.-Anyone can plainly see the slant this website has in the first 5 seconds of going there --unfair to use as a sourceZippysrp 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Slant? Perhaps. False? No. Using a POV source is still very allowed, I think. --Golbez 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Neutral point of view" in the articles sourced as required in posting rules--therefor the nation articles being a non neutral source should be removedZippysrp 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV mandates that Wikipedia articles be written from a Neutral Point of View, not that the encyclopedia cannot cite sources that fail to do so. There is no undue weight being given to The Nation since there are plenty of sources cited in the article that very obviously come from a different angle. DickClarkMises 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If fairness and balance is the goal this also needs to be included.[3]

I agree, that National Review piece should be mentioned in this article or perhaps in the articles about the debate and '08 race in general. DickClarkMises 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy only requires that a source be reliable not neutral. The article on Wiki must be neutral, but its sources do not. There are many articles that use op ed pieces from both sides of an issue as sources to present the facts brought up in the debate or discussion of a topic. The Nation satisfies the reliability criteria, so they can be used as a source. However, any opinion they express must be marked as their opinion and not as fact. An example of what doesn't satisfy reliability: blogs of almost any sort with rare exception (such as blogs with editorial oversight). Xuanwu 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As an example, The Economist definitely has a point of view in its articles (pro-markets and free trade, socially liberal, etc.), but it's one of the best sources for global news out there and I see it often on Wikipedia. It's quite reliable. ---Gloriamarie 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that The Economist is very well researched when it comes to United States politics. I hold the May 5th-May 11th issue in my hands. On page 13, in "The White House feels the heat", I see "And there is, besides, the small matter of the presidential election itself. Every one of the declared Democratic hopefuls, but none of the Republicans, wants to get America out of Iraq in short order...So far, the Republicans in Congress have remained remarkably loyal to their president: only two of their senators and two representatives voted with the Democrats on the Iraq bill." Ron Paul was one of those two representatives. That doesn't seem to be terribly accurate to me. Mark7-2 09:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read The Economist every week for years. They got a new editor-in-chief a bit ago, and I've noticed since he's taken over that the magazine has gone way down in quality. I've found a number of factual errors and complete oversights since that time. The fact that they don't take notice of Ron Paul is a symptom of this, since he is the candidate who agrees more than anyone else with their ideas. I've even thought about not reading The Economist anymore, which would be a real tragedy because I've always enjoyed it. At first I was happy to see the old editor go, beause he was supportive of the Iraq invasion and almost a cheerleader for Bush, but this one just doesn't seem to have the leadership that the previous one did. /End of rant on the Economist 's downturn.--Gloriamarie 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

debate information

Hey guys, do you think that the debate information might be better put into his actual 2008 presidential wiki article? That seems to be a better place for it to me. --DeviantCharles 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tvoz |talk 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is misleading regarding "polls"

In the May 3rd and May 15th debate sections, none of the "polls" cited are scientific polls. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news sites regularly have online votes on a whole range of issues. Although these news sites are generally considered reliable sources, these online votes are completely unreliable. The news sites even state that they are unscientific polls. The problem is that online voting contains very significant self-selection bias. Some political campaigns specifically email supporters and ask them to go the the news sites and "vote for candidate X" after a political debate. Even when campaigns don't email supporters in such a manner, self-selection bias still exists in all of these types of polls. --JHP 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add "unscientific" in front of the polls. I thought that that was covered in the article, but add what you like. The polls are not scientific but they are mentioned by the media, so they're worth noting. Yes, campaigns can tell supporters to go to the sites, but all the campaigns have the equal opportunity to do that, and it would make sense that the candidate with the most supporters and most money would be able to do that the easiest. I don't see what that has to do with the article, though. --Gloriamarie 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The websites themselves have said on many occasions that the results are not only unscientific, but they are actually SKEWED. Big difference between "unscientific" and "skewed". Msnbc and Fox have both mentioned this. Bl4h 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the polls are hosted on news sites, they can be considered secondary sources and are therefore citable within the article. Their exact nature (scientific, unscientific) should be mentioned in the article to keep the piece neutral. But given that the polls have received media coverage and commentary in and of themselves, they are worth keeping in. Xuanwu 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that an unscientific poll can be skewed, or it might not be-- there's no way to know, because it is not a poll as would be taken by Gallup. There is always a self-selection bias with those polls-- people who do not choose to take polls will not be included. Saying that a poll is "skewed", though, is more POV than unscientific-- unscientific should cover it. --Gloriamarie 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason unscientific polls should not be used is because they are not reliable. To quote the Wikipedia article on the subject, "A voodoo poll is an opinion poll with no statistical or scientific reliability and which is therefore not a good indicator of opinion on any given issue. A voodoo poll will tend to involve self-selection, will be unrepresenative of the 'polled' population, and is often very easy to rig by those with a partisan interest in the results of the poll." --JHP 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The label Non-scientific is preferable to unscientific, as the latter has a slight negative connotation. Terjen 06:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The media is covering these polls, and the media is hosting these polls. Therefore, they are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Whether they are unscientific or not, they are explained as unscientific in the article. I don't see the problem including them.--Gloriamarie 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, these polls are UNSCIENTIFIC. They are fun polls put on web sites as entertainment ("infotainment") to keep people interested in the site, but their results are completely meaningless. Wikipedia even calls them voodoo polls in the article regarding them. By the way, non-scientific isn't even a word. Even the news sites that host these polls call them "unscientific". --JHP 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was I that first introduced the references to voodoo polls... which should make it appparent that I am not confusing them with scientific polls. Describing the "polls" as non-scientific doesn't take away from the point that they aren't scientific, yet avoids the negative connotation of unscientific, keeping our language more neutral. Non is used with many words to change their meanings to the opposite. My position is that we should use the term vote instead of poll as the former more is more accurate, but if we use the term poll, it should be preceeded by non-scientific to avoid a confusion with scientific polls. Terjen 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While I commend you for your dedication to WP:NPOV and for your willingness to point out that the votes are not scientific (which I noticed after my previous post—sorry), inventing a new word is going a bit too far. In fact, it is a violation of WP:NPOVT which states, "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality." I do not agree that "non-scientific" is any more or less POV than "unscientific", especially since the adjective is describing the reliability of a statistical methodology, not Ron Paul. Furthermore, "non-scientific" is poor grammar, just as "un-nuclear" or "un-invasive" would be. --JHP 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using the word "vote" rather than the word "poll", because it is a much more accurate description. --JHP 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHP on all of this (although I don't have a big problem with "non-scientific" - I prefer "unscientific", but better "non" than calling them polls) - I've been saying all of this here since after the first debate. These are not polls. Paul is not a "frontrunner" as was stated a few times. SOmeone upstream mentioned self-selection: that's the point about why these online and texting votes are unscientific and therefore not to be confused with polls (which are also flawed and often wrong, but at least are consistent). The people who responded after the debates selected themselves - they were in no way random - and there was little or no verification that people only voted once. So they do not represent a random selection of the population. Again, even the traditional polls have problems, and sometimes their results are dead wrong, but they aren't gamed, and they give some indication of something other than that a particular candidate has a devoted following who call/text/log in to state their support. The random selection method is flawed because maybe college students don't have telephones, for example, so don't make too many assumptions about the results. But at least all the pollers have the same problem, and so at least across the polls you might have some sense of what's going on - even if in the end it's competely wrong. Tvoz |talk 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me also point out that the presentation of unscientific voting results in the article appears to me to be an intentional attempt to present Ron Paul's campaign in a favorable light. This is exacerbated by the near-complete absence in the article of results from scientifically-conducted polls. I am a libertarian, and I hope Ron Paul does well, but Wikipedia is not the place for campaigning. --JHP 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to remember the fact that although Ron Paul has done very well in various online polls (one online poll by ABC gave him something around 90%), the hundred or so scientific polls taken on this topic always show him receiving 3% or less (usually around 1%) of the respondent's votes. No scientific poll taken as of May 19th gives Ron Paul more than 3%. Regarding the online polls: naturally they have no statistical reliability, however, I still think they deserve mention in the article because, if nothing else, they show that some of Paul's supporters are, erm, dedicated. It is fine as long as they are not presented in a way that suggests they are anything other than what they are--unscientific online polls. --69.139.96.35 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest Zogby poll has him at 3%, up from 1% in the first Zogby poll. All the other non-"Rudy McRomney" candidates were less than 1%. A Zogby poll is scientific. While still a small slice, a triple increase is a nice increase, especially when the other "second-tier" candidates, many of whom have gotten more media attention, polled at sub-1%. That could perhaps be mentioned in the article.--Gloriamarie 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Zogby poll is mentioned on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Terjen 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think the Zogby NH poll had him in 5th place, ahead of the three who don't believe in evolution, and a couple of others - and yes, I agree tha it's notable to be included. As long as it isn't worded in such a way as to sound like this makes him a front runner, or "first tier", or the like. It is what it is, and if you're below Paul you're not happy. But Rudy McRomney still are solidly ahead, by a large margin. Tvoz |talk 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An increase from 1% to 3% is within the margin of error and is statistically meaningless. Rhobite 05:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the increase is not meaningless just beacuse it is within the margin of error, although more likely to be due to chance than if it was larger.Terjen 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ron Paul supporters slant

In the May 15th Presidential Debate section, there was some obvious slant coming from Paul supporters stating that Giuliani was "eager to divert the conservative audience's attention from his earlier stance on the abortion issue." A grain of truth? Perhaps. However, this is completely opinionated and has no place this article. Steviedpeele 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this assertion is similar to comments made by commentators on Fox News immediately after the debate. There is no clear reason to believe that their commentary was tainted by some hidden support for Ron Paul. If we are going to make that assertion, though, it should be attributed. DickClarkMises 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the assertion is attributed to a comment from "The Nation." Personally, I think that line should be redone to make it clearer that the line is the analysis of a news source and not original research. Xuanwu 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea.--Gloriamarie 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Camapaign section

I suppose I am nit picking here... But isn't the camapign section supposed to be just a summary for the Ron Paul Campaign article which is smaller than the summary. Would it be appropiate to move the body of text to the campaign article and yet again write a summary? Lord Metroid 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete agree with the first comment. Highly politically opinionated.

Separate from whether it is POV or not, yes, the presidential campaign section here is way too detailed and should be a short summary with the longer disquisition in the Presidential campaign article, like the other candidates have it. And it's not the place - here or there - to argue the merits of the points he made with supporting commentary like Michael Scheuer's, unless the supporting commentary is specifically talking about what Ron Paul himself said - comments on his comments. Tvoz |talk 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Nation commentary said-- they also mentioned some other FBI/CIA analysts that are not mentioned. That is just given as an example.--Gloriamarie 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Antisemitic" remarks

How the hell can this be construed as anti-Semitism "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."..it's simply stating a fact :s User:pastorgas

I really think the "antisemitic" remarks need to go. It's just ridiculous and completely leading the reader to suggest that opposition to either Zionism (which some Jews even oppose, for crying out loud!) or Israeli lobbying equates to hating Jews. That's like saying that if you hate Nazism or opposed German cheerleaders during WWII you were anti-German or hated Germans - which is, of course, stupid reasoning. -- Pieter 1212 PST, 5/18/07.

I removed the "antisemitism" part of the section. It would also probably be a good idea if we linked to the offending page/pages of his newsletter that are allegedly racist. Granola Bars 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that his remarks aren't anti-semitics by them self. The key difference is that I, as an editor, am not accusing him of it - another source was. That's why I said there were allegations of it. This is common on Wikipedia to present other sides and criticism. I don't mind if it's taken out, however, unless I can find another better source. Rm999 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government isn't anti-Semitic any more than criticism of the North Korean government is anti-Asian, or criticism of the Iranian government is anti-Islamic, or criticism of the French government is anti-Caucasian. The source has not demonstrated his supposed anti-Semitism with any reliability. --JHP 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And critisism of the US government isn't nessessarily anti-American, something some have also accused him of. --Kalmia 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The remarks themselves were not even Anti Israel per se. If you know what the guy stands for, then you know that he would object to any foreign country, not just Israel, exerting enormous influence on policy makers and politicians in Washington.-User:pastorgas

But the source didn't accuse Paul's remarks of being possibly "antisemitic." Just racist.

Good point, but the Wikipedia article did.[4] --JHP 02:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - I accidentally mixed two sources together. The one that called him antisemitic is not verifiable. The one I sourced mentions his Israel remark, but does not use the term antisemitic. Rm999 03:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Houston Chron article does not say that he is racist, either, it just says that he'd made some remarks about race. I corrected this within that section.--Gloriamarie 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"ALLEGED" racial remarks NOT spoken by RON PAUL

I have been reading various posts on different websites that there may be evidence that the so called "Racist Remarks" are actually not true and were made up entirely by an aid that worked for Paul's campaign(one post stated they were a plant from an opponent). I suggest they be removed until their authenticity is confirmed.

The information that Shuzo1189 just added sheds some light on the matter, but it reads like it was copied and pasted from another site. Granola Bars 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the racism section. The quotes come from his newsletter, and have been repeated in a newspaper, both verifiable enough sources. You guys need a reliable enough source that points to the fact that he didn't write it (hard to argue that someone wrote something he did not believe in his OWN newsletter), otherwise I suspect that those are just rumors that are being started by his supporters. I am trying to keep this NPOV. Rm999 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all." --207.69.140.33 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the Chronicle article, statements by Paul, and a Texas Monthly article (I believe), it seems like the consensus is that the newsletter did in fact publish these remarks but they were written by a staffer and Paul claims to have had no involvement in the publication. If we report this in a neutral way, while citing sources, I hope that the Ron Paul supporters will resist the temptation to remove the entire section from the article, as they have done in the past. Everything2 is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Rhobite 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything2 is obviously not a reliable source, but Texas Monthly is. Before removing the information entirely, simply put a citation tag on it. The section is certainly not complete without the defense.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual interview/article from which the quote came is available only by subscription from the Texas Monthly website at http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7 but I'm not sure what the policy is for subscription-restricted citations. As such, I added a reference to another source that includes a link to the Texas Monthly article with a note on that site that a subscription is required to view it. -- Apotheon 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, add it back in that case, but i think we should leave his explanation from the houston chronicle article too (that his remarks have to be taken in context), and we should find the actual text of the article ASAP to verify it. Rm999 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found the text myself. It is verified, appears on page 2 of a 3-page article on Texas Monthly's site. See confirmation at end of section.--Gloriamarie 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"If we report this in a neutral way, while citing sources, I hope that the Ron Paul supporters will resist the temptation to remove the entire section from the article, as they have done in the past." It's not that surprising that they would. I took a look at the Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama articles, and I don't see any "allegations" of anything on either one. Obviously not NPOV if you are only airing one candidate's dirty laundry, while the other 2 look like a campaign press release bio.

Wikipedia is not a competition between articles. Each article stands on its own, and in this case I am trying to make the Ron Paul article as good and accurate as possible. I don't have any sort of agenda, but when I read interesting and relevant facts in reputable sources I like to add them to Wikipedia to improve the site overall. I don't read up much on Romney or Obama, but if I did I would be just as inclined to add to their articles. Rm999 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Interpaul is starting a revert war on this section. Interpaul, if you read this please discuss why you think the section doesn't belong here. I am very open to rational discussion about it, but I hate it when people remove my edits for no good reason. If you revert it again, you will have violated the 3 revert rule, BTW. Rm999

Has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR (actually it was 5 reverts) Tvoz |talk 08:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone having any luck finding the newsletter in which these quotes appeared? This section seems rather incomplete without it, and I'm interested to see the context of the quotes. A reliable source for the aid part, if it exists, would be nice as well. Granola Bars 04:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw it on Wonkette here which is a link to this. Sure sounds racist to me. Tvoz |talk 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the Houston Chronicle article that's already in the section and is the the source for the section existing in the first place. I'm asking for a link to the actual newsletter. Granola Bars 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right- didn't realize what you were asking. But according to the 2001 interview, he seems to acknowledge that the statements were made in his name in the newsletter, if that's your concern. Tvoz |talk 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since he didn't make the comments, he wouldn't be putting those newsletters up in electronic form, I'm sure. You can try to find them.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 interview is not contained in ANY reliable sources that I can find. http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/17/the-attack-machine-goes-after-ron-paul links to a site about Texas, claiming that the link contains a quote from him blaming it on a staffer (it does not). Elsewhere, they link to http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205 which also does not contain the quote. Without a verifiable source, I have no reason to believe that he ever even claimed it was a staffer. If he says it, and it is reported in a verifiable source, I would love for that defense to be placed in the section. Until then, the supposed defense must be treated as a potential false rumor. Rm999

Ever try Texas Monthly's website? I suspect this might be the article in question (one of the few 2001 articles that mention him and apparently the only one that is specifically about him); the website requires a subscription in order to read the articles, however. --4.239.168.140 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

When information, especially information that refutes something negative in a biography, is not cited well enough, you need to put a citation tag on it rather than removing the information entirely. I'll contact Texas Monthly and see what they say.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." -Jimmy Wales

At this point, it cannot be sourced. As I said before, once it can be sourced, it can be added. Until this, it is 'I heard it somewhere' or 'I heard it on a blog.' Also, why do people keep replacing the quotes I added of his remarks? It makes his comments make much more sense. I'm going to change it back because I honestly think it makes that part of the article make more sense - another change will break the 3 revert rule. I am open to discussion about it here, but I spent enough time compiling my sources that I feel I deserve an explanation on why it keeps getting removed. Rm999

A person's biography is held to a different standard than a regular article. Negative information must be aggressively sourced. That means also including information that states that that negative information is incorrect. The proper response is to put a citation tag and wait a few days until a source can be found. I've been gone for the weekend and I haven't tried yet. The information should be included with a cite tag for the moment.--Gloriamarie 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as a compromise, I have left the 2001 interview part, but I implore anyone who cares about accuracy of information to actually read the current source and realize what a joke it is. Please replace it with a real source ASAP. Otherwise, I will remove it soon. I care about wikipedia, but not enough that I'm going to waste my time on this. Also, I added back the quotes - if you want to remove them again, discuss it here so you don't break the 3 revert rule.

At this point I have two reasons to believe he never said that a staffer made those comments. 1: it contradicts him saying that "his" comments were taken out of context. 2: It is odd that no one can find any sort of source, other than blogs that point to the same everything2.com page, which seems to be a message board of blog of some sort. That everything2 page doesn't even seem to be up anymore. Rm999

You have barely given anyone time to find a source. Whether you think he did or didn't make the comments is not relevant-- and your first point doesn't hold up. He says in the source, if it is true, that he felt he had to take a "moral responsibility" for the quotes because they were given in his name, and his campaign aides told him to be quiet. So, he took responsibility for them. Read anything else he says-- including the comments currently included in the second paragraph-- and you'll learn that it makes more sense to give him the benefit of the doubt.--Gloriamarie 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rm999 on this - I followed the links, which I had not done before, and they lead nowhere. This does not belong in the article until something reliable can be found. This 1996 newsletter wording has been swirtling around for the last few days on Digg and elsewhere, so it's impossible that no one in the campaign has heard about it - if his refutation exists, they should have it. I do not agree to leave a bogus source in there - maybe with a "citation needed" and a short time limit the qoute can remain. Tvoz |talk 20:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the campaign to see if they have a response. That was yesterday. I got an autoreply saying that they have been overwhelmed since the first Republican debate with emails, so it might take a few days to get a reply.--Gloriamarie 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Racism section doesn't belong here at all, including the discussion about it. As stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons , "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Well, it's the retraction that is not sourced or poorly sourced - the item itself is from the Houston Chronicle. So by all means, remove the retraction. Tvoz |talk 23:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but denials of something negative about someone falls in the same category of saying something negative in the first place-- a few days to get to the bottom of it are warranted.--Gloriamarie 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The opposition to the racism section that I added seems to have no real backing. Proof of the 2001 interview where Ron Paul denies everything has not materialized, so it does not belong on here. The only people who are reverting the racism section are editors who do not seem to understand the etiquette of Wikipedia (e.g. they refuse to discuss it here, and they do not give a good reason to remove the section). I am starting to get really tired of spending my time on this, but the apparent lack of manners of the Ron Paul zealots has led me to believe that I need to fight for the truth. Any editors who are reading this, please make sure that this section remains with the quotes unless there are compelling reasons to remove it. Rm999 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting before seeing this talk section, but my edit summary explains it - you cannot say "allegations" when the only allegations are either by you or "common sense"; such a thing has to be sourced to someone specifically making allegations. --Golbez 08:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the reference in the article. Rm999 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Golbez - but the allegations have what appears to be a reliable source - the Houston Chronicle, to my knowledge a mainstream newspaper - so it is completely reasonable for it to be included. Rm999 hasn't conjured this up out of thin air - it was reported (on Wonkette, for example). But no one has yet come up with a reliable source for Dr Paul's 2001 retraction. I hope someone does, so that it can be added. But meanwhile you have no justification for removing the section, and saying it is OR is just plain wrong. As for your removal before reading talk - well, that happens sometimes, but now that you know it is being discussed here I assume you will particpate in the discussion rather than revert it again. My suggestion to Ron Paul supporters would be that you find some reliable sources that support his explanation of what happened in that newsletter - either the 2001 interview or other sources. That's why it says "Citation needed". FInd your citation and expand the retraction if you wish - with something verifiable, not a blog or a source that points nowhere like the last time. And Appeal - don't just revert as if you don't know there is an ongoing discussion here. Tvoz |talk 14:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Except I don't see allegations here. They reprint something from his newsletter - and offer no opinion on it. "Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues." This is a statement of fact, his newsletter did this; I see nothing about the Chronicle saying it's racist. I don't see any allegation from the Chronicle that what he said was racist; you appear to be putting words in their mouth. So, the most NPOV thing would be to state the fact - that in 1992, Paul's newsletter mentioned this, or that it took the Chronicle four years to report it. But I don't see an allegation of racism here from the Chronicle or from Morris. Morris alleged in the article that Paul's ideas were 'fringe', hardly a minority view; but not once does he allege racism. Using the term "allegations of racism" is very NPOV, as no one has alleged racism, only fringe views, which include some views on black people that may or may not be considered racist, but we cannot put words in their mouth -- the word "racism" only exists in this article as something Paul says he is opposed to. No one quoted in the article, nor the author of the article, charge Paul himself with racism. You cannot infer an allegation that does not explicit; that is OR, and a violation of BLP. This has nothing to do with Paul's alleged 2001 retraction, and everything to do with the text of the article being sourced. --Golbez 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I sort of disagree, and sort of agree. You are right that the term racism was never used, perhaps because it is a controversial in itself. At the same time, some common sense needs to be used when writing a Wikipedia article, because nothing can be a direct quote. The Houston chronicle article accuses him of "portraying blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues." We obviously cannot title the section that. How about we compromise and change the section title to "Controversial Racial Remarks?" It is hard to disagree that the Houston Chronicle is reporting that he made racial remarks and they they were controversial. I want to avoid steering this into original research, so I can agree that using the term 'racist' may be placing a POV (which I'd like to emphasize I don't actually have) into the article. Does the compromise work for you? I don't want to remove the entire section for reasons stated above, but I am willing to compromise on some of the wording. Rm999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Chronicle#Criticism I'd question it's reliability. Johnmike81

The criticisms seem to all boil down to the fact that it's a liberal paper in a conservative area. I don't think that makes it less reliable. Rm999

Someone linked to the article article above. It's http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7 . Unfortunately, you need a subscription to view it, and that preview doesn't give anything that we need. Therefore, I have this site: http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-paul-and-race-continued.html . It quotes a substantial portion of the article, including Dr. Ron Paul's response to these accusations. I think this is enough to make their validity at least questionable, if not completely rebutted. The section should be removed. Johnmike81

(1)The Houston Chronicle wikipedia link JohnMike81 posted above (please sign your posts) has no relevance to this - not a word about this - so why did you add it?

(2) You really don't get it. If the blog is a good source, it should be added to the section with the bibliographical info about the Texas Monthly piece where it allegedly first appeared. In my view, since the Texas Monthly piece is only available to subscribers, we should in fact include the blog, even though it is not the best source I've encountered, and reference the magazine article which presumably is available in libraries or online if you choose to subscribe. Paul acknowledges that the newsletter said this in his name - we've had wording to that effect for a while now if people would leave it alone - but he says he didn't write it, but that he stood behind it. Right? So we need to say that, and have his comments that were in response to it in here with references. This has nothing to do with BLP - the subject of the piece acknowledges that this newsletter existed - he acknowledges that the comments were printed in his name - he then disavows their content but explains why he stood behind them - all of this needs to be in. I've posted a revised section reflecting all of this, well referenced. We need to have a balanced article, not a campaign piece. See other candidates - they all have negative material in them - you can't have it differently here. Please stop removing it. Tvoz |talk 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will have access to the Texas Monthly article hopefully tomorrow; then the whole thing can be solved. Paul said that he felt he had a "moral responsibility" for them, not that he "stood behind" them. That is original research. Personally, I feel that adding the exact quotes is a bit much if in fact he did not say them himself and a staffer is responsible. I will let others decide on that, though, I suppose. Anyway, I should have access to the article tomorrow to confirm whether that is the correct article and whether it includes the quoted passage.--Gloriamarie 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed this previously as it was inserted in between my posts - yes, when I said "stood behind them" I did not mean that he said he agreed with them, I meant that he took responsibility for them because they had been written in his name. But it's not that a staffer wrote them and they went out as general literature - apparently they went out in effect signed by him, and that's why I think this has be be here, albeit with his cited explanation and a cited representation of his actual views - which is what I had added. Tvoz |talk 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(3)I had missed RM999's heading change, but have reinstated it- sorry about that. Also I think Gloriamarie's rearrangement of the reworded section is fine. Tvoz |talk 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article is about Ron Paul. If Ron Paul never said those things, then it doesn't make sense to even mention it. It's just hearsay spread by a bad article due to comments said by a bad member of his campaign. Leaving it here is violating Wikipedia's requirements for the information's validity. I hope to hear from you soon, Gloriamarie. Maybe it can stay, but only if it's made explicitly clear that this isn't something straight from Ron Paul's mouth. To me, it seems more of a misunderstanding. We have to be very careful about how we portray this information. Johnmike81 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A misunderstanding? Come on - those things are stated in his own newsletter as having been said by Ron Paul. They were authorized by him - if not the specific content (as he now claims), he allowed someone else to write a newsletter and sign his name to it. It was only nine years after the newsletter came out that Paul claimed that he didn't actually write it, but of course he had to accept responsibility for the words. Even assuming that is true, a writer put those words in his mouth for his newsletter, and it went out as his words. For all intents and purposes at that time it was him saying it - and especially given the time lag between the statements and the explanation/retraction. Ghostwriters, speechwriters, editors all function as if they are the person writing - that is the point. He much later said that those words didn't really represent how he felt or what he thought - great. But when the newsletter went out to his supporters, it was Ron Paul talking to them. And when the content is inflammatory in the way that content was, it is notable. I totally agree that we must include his retraction, which I did - with references - but to say the whole thing is a misunderstanding is to sweep it under the rug and we're not going to do that here. This goes with the territory- if you have someone else write things in your name, you have to either stick by them or disavow them, but disavow doesn't mean erase - whatever damage might have been done was done in his name. By the way - we have not included, at the present time, the Israel-lobby comments or attack on Barbara Jordan that also appeared in his allegedly ghost-written newsletter under his name, although an argument can be made for their inclusion as well. Tvoz |talk 08:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an argument can be made for their inclusion, since he states that he was friends with her and worked with her in Congress in the Texas Monthly denial that we have seen. Please keep your personal views of the situation off the talk page. I am trying to see both sides and remain neutral and look at sources for this. If I can get access to the Texas Monthly site today, and the denial is actually in that article, I believe the quotes should be removed from the section, but I'll let other editors decide that. If he didn't say them, he didn't say them, and to imply otherwise is burgeoning into strong territory for Wikipedia. The TM article even states (paraphrased) 'the comments were extraordinary mostly because in a 20-year political career, nothing else like this had ever been said by the Congressman.' He puts more personal writings into the public than almost any other congressperson, if not all of them. Looking at his statements that he has made as a congressman on his website and other sites, he has never said any of the like. Looking at the entire situation, it seems that special consideration of negative material, as applies in biographies and as seen in the tag at the top of this page, should go into effect.--71.65.202.41 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)(note: sorry, wasn't signed in..--Gloriamarie 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Confirmation. The Texas Monthly article here is a three-page article that includes the information that has been quoted from it on page 2 here. The quote is accurate as previously reported. The article includes a lot of background on his personal life and more details about his professional life that I've never seen before. I'll be adding some of that information today. With this confirmation, I vote that the offending quotes should be removed-- he has said that he didn't say the individual quotes, that they don't represent his beliefs, and they are available on linked blogs. The majority can rule on that, though.--Gloriamarie 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I guess Page 2 of the article redirects to the original landing page.--Gloriamarie 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion of this is not on the talk page, actually, other than about why the section is notable and belongs here. That's my opinion of how it should be handled in this article, not my opinion of the content or my opinion of Dr. Paul's positions which I have not expressed so assumptions shouldn't be made and which are not affecting the way I am editing here. In fact I also spent a lot of time this weekend researching the details and adding citations to this section so that it would be a fair rendition of what happened - fair to the events and writings of 1992, 1996, 2001 and 2007. If the words had been attributed to him by his opponent, of course I would agree that his denial is enough to remove them from here. But they were attributed to him by his own publication - perhaps erroneously - but nonetheless they stood in the public record that way for four years when they were publicized to a wider audience, and then another five years before they were explained. So this is not a question of an error or misunderstanding as another editor said, that was quickly corrected and might be unfair to include. His choice to not respond to the 1996 article with an explanation means that the public had this information for quite a while - perhaps unfairly to his true beliefs - and it therefore is notable to be included in an article about him. Tvoz |talk 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the allegations should be taken out; if someone hears about them and wonders and comes here, they'll wonder why it's not covered. As long as the denial/explanation is included, I think it's fine. However, I'm not sure about the appropriateness of including the individual quotes when he says that they do not represent his views and he did not say the specific quotes. I'm not sure of another time that this particular situation has happened to refer to for guidance, so I'll listen to what others think about including the quotes. It could also be appropriate to include the Texas Montly statement that it is unlike anything else he had said in 20 years of public life. He may also have spoken about racism in his writings; he's published many over the years.--Gloriamarie 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this article. It quotes a source as saying that the newsletter had little to do with Ron Paul and was simply run under his name. It will be interesting to see if that gets covered anywhere.--Gloriamarie 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he himself didn't quite say that - and he could have in 1996 or in the Texas MOnthly article in 2001, but he didn't quite say that then either. So I don't know how reliable that source really is. You did better research for us by getting the actual TM article - they relied on everything2.com which we rejected days ago as not being a decent source. Tvoz |talk 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I DEMANDTHAT WE SHORTEN IT OR DELETE IT - I agree with the deletion of this section on the grounds that it is being given way more space than it deserves. These are allegations and as such it is a clear unbridled attempt to slander a man with someone else's words. If mentioned at all it deserves no more that two or three sentences at most. In my view, this is an unfair attack on this candidate and it is now consuming a significant portion of the total page. If anyone were to consume this amount on space for lets say "Internet popularity" they would be warned. It is absolutely rediculous that we would make a whole page out of something like this! Anappealtoheaven 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section is way too large just as the campaign and position section is way too large for the article on Ron Paul the person. They need to be summarized and information moved to campaign respectively position articles. Lord Metroid 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting this section as it has now been shown by FreeMarketNews to be a false smear campaign. This is slander and it is against wiki policy. Everything listed in this section is a response to slanderous alegations and therefore only promotes the slander against the man who has never been quoted as saying anything remotely close to the lies you are promoting! Anappealtoheaven 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I restored it. Perhaps the section needs a bit of revising to cut down on the wordiness/space, and also highlight Paul's present-day denouncements of these old remarks. But the did exist, they were published on his behalf and in his name, and should remain. Tarc 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the section to one current citation that reference that SLANDER in one sentence. This is still to much but it is an attempt to compromise and reduce the discussions of words from an "unknown" third party. Anappealtoheaven 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not slander to report on the fact that there was a controversy regarding Ron Paul and racist remarks. The section fully notes that they were allegations made by a political opponent, and also notes Paul's refutation of the allegations. He admits to not saying or writing them, but still takes responsibility, as it was his newsletter. Add your freemarket-whatever retort in as well, but the bulk of this section should remain. I realize that you are a fervent Ron Paul fan, but that does not excuse the whitewashing of past controversies, any more than we can bury Clinton's Monica-gate. Tarc 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarc is correct - and surely you see the difference between the Houston Chronicle and Texas Monthly magazine on the one hand and "Freemarketnews" on the other. The latter, in case you don't, is a far less reliable source, and they don't even source their comments - fine for them, but not for wikipedia. I'm taking it out once again. Many if not most of the other political candidate articles have all kinds of negative things that have been properly sourced, and there is no reason that this one should not. As it is the article veers into POV more than it should, but we're working on that. Our goal here is supposed to be to build an encyclopedia, not to promote an individual. Two people have already been blocked for 3RR on this same section - they didn't even do us the courtesy of participating in this discussion or give their reasons for deletion, and that's just not the way it's done here. Tvoz |talk 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tvoz, I am for the truth, not whitewash! If you want to have a section on the controversy I don't care. However, you have taken a controversy created by someone else publishing remarks under ron paul's name and you have further lended your support to the SLANDER by giving it more than two or three sentences.

Again, I have no problem with the mention of it, I have sat by for days without injecting or deleting comments. Now I've had just about enough of what is becoming YOUR BOOK about what someone wrote for ron paul.

It might be shorter if we just dump the copyrighted full text of the articles into the page, ya think? Rediculous is what this is. Say your bit and move on. Don't use wiki as your BOOK publisher.

By the way, does the 3RR rule apply to TVOZ? How many reverts have you done on this section now to save your BOOK and grow it?

Anappealtoheaven 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa - you are the one who is making "demands" and accusatory statements, not me, and that's not appropriate here. I don't have a clue about what you mean by my "book", and frankly I don't care. {Is writing a book supposed to be an insult, by the way?) Yes, 3RR applies to everyone - why don't you learn how the system works and go see if I've violated it. (Hint: I have not.) You also might read up on slander and libel. (Hint: you have to know that something is untrue when you publish it to be found guilty of libel - yes, it's libel that you mean, not slander.) We are including accurate accounts from reliable sources, including Ron Paul himself who told a respected magazine that the words were in his newsletter and acknowledged that they were attributed to him. He said he regrets that it happened, but he doesn't deny that it happened. He appears to be honorable in this, in fact, and we say so at length. We are reporting on what happened. I know some of his supporters would like to sweep this under the rug, but that's not the way it works here. As long as no one is making up a story, or posting something from a source that is not verifiable and reliable, and as long as it is presented in a neutral manner, and is notable - it should be in the article. I'm for truth too, Appeal - and truth sometimes includes some things one would prefer to avoid. This is not a vendetta against Ron Paul. See below for the relative weight anything negative in this section has compared to the rest of the article. I find him to be an interesting character, and I found his article to be inadequate and slanted when I first looked at it, so I am editing here in hopes of having a good article about him. I'm here neither as a supporter nor a detractor - can you say the same thing? I hope so. Now, try dialing down your personal attacks, ok? Tvoz |talk 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserting some facts into this discussion

1. the number of words in the section that are describing the allegations, so essentially anti-Paul: 262
2. the number of words in the section that deny the allegation and have a recent quote on racism, pro-Paul: 335

So first of all, if this section is slanted at all, it is slanted toward the refutation of these allegation, and are in support of Paul.

3. In contrast, the section on just the May 3 and May 15 debates - all of which is pro-Paul - has a word count of 926
4. And the word count for the Internet popularity section which is completely pro-Paul is 254

I could go on - you'll find that the article has almost no information that is negative about Paul, and is in no way slanted against him. This section has been presented in an overwhelmingly fair way to him, sourced reliably. Show me how the negative part of this section is dominating the page in any sense. The Freemarketnews piece is not acceptable to be added here, so go find something more reliable and maybe that can be added. And find reliably sourced material about his true views on race.

But I don't think increasing the section is the way to go - in fact it was somewhat shorter before the Barbara Jordan allegation and his denial of it was added. I would be happy to remove the Barbara Jordan part - the mention of her up top and that quote of regret about her inclusion in words that were attributed to him - as it seems to be in the article just to support the addition of his denial. Any opinions? Tvoz |talk 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have put the Barbara Jordan part in. It's ok to take it out; I also think that perhaps the racist quotes themselves should not be directly quoted because he has said they don't represent his beliefs. Again, I'll go with what everyone thinks of that subject. By the way, I'm sorry I posted the Free Market News thing; I didn't mean to create a controversy, but I was just posting it in case other more reliable sources came up saying the same thing. I'm not an expert on Free Market News' reliability, but I have seen them republished in mainstream newspapers, if that says anything. Anyway, the section should be included because it has been covered in the media. I think it's pretty good as it is.--Gloriamarie 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the actual comments to a footnote - this is how similar things have been handled many times on the Obama page - no one is denying that the comments were printed under his name, most especially him, and no one is denying that these were the statements - so I think a reader would expect to see what the hubbub is all about. I don't think they need to be in the article proper, if they are in a footnote, so why don't we try it this way. As for the freemarketnews, you didn't add it to the article, just mentioned it here, so I don't think you have anything to apologize for. My problem with using them in the article is if you look at the way they sourced their piece, it is that same everything2.com blog or whatever it is that we decided previously was not strong enough to include as a source for our article, so you obtained the Texas Monthly article itself and used it as a source. Freemarketnews are vague about their source for the newsletter's claim that Paul didn't even know about what was in the newsletter - and Paul himself notably does not claim that- so I don't see how we can use it. Not sure about Barbara Jordan - maybe let's let this last round settle in first?

Also - the quote that was added as being from 2002 via Lew Rockwell is the same exact paragraph that we had excerpted from Paul's April 2007 "Government and Racism" on his Congressional website. I don't know where Rockwell got 2002 from - maybe Paul used the same wording again in 2007 or maybe Rockwell had it wrong (I haven't looked at Rockwell yet) - but in any case we don't want the same quote twice, so I consolidated them into one longer set of quotes from April 07. Tvoz |talk 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously TVOZ and Gloriamarie own this BOOK. So much for everyone else. We could put it in stone except I'm sure it is going to grow some more first. Keep the section, just summarize it down to under three sentences and start writing your next BOOK; preferably on some other wiki page. Anappealtoheaven 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand what "civil" means, do you. I asked you to dial it down - is that possible? Instead of sniping at me and at Gloriamarie - people who are actually trying to improve this article - why don't you comment on the changes or make a real contribution? Or did you not notice that I made a major change to the section a little while ago? And your lame analogy to a book is devoid of meaning. Why don't you enlighten us. Tvoz |talk 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism section

I suggest moving the section on his positions about Racism to Political positions of Ron Paul. Terjen 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Granola Bars 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is not about his positions on racism - it is a section on a controversy about them. Feel free to add a section on his views on racism to political positions - it's a good idea in fact - but not to remove this from here. Apples and oranges. Tvoz |talk 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversy about Paul's positions on racism fits nicely in as part of a section about his positions on racism. These topics are not incomparable. Terjen 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was civil and I have been civil. I have not been cited for a 3rr violate like others. I have quietly accepted everytime my changes were reverted. Now it has been heppening to others too often. This section is about what someone else said; not Ron Paul. Yes it deserves mention but the abundant size of the section and the placement on the main page is excessive and in bad taste. I will not waste any more time on editing this section as there are already plenty of good suggestions that have been truncated by TVOZ. All I ask is that someone bring it down to three sentences or less; and move it to another page as Terjen suggests - that is not a bad idea either.

Anappealtoheaven 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL - this section in particular - it has nothing to do with whether you' ve been cited for 3RR. It has to do with the way you address other editors. ANd what I truncated was the actual newsletter quotes that others objected to being in the article proper - by moving them into the footnotes they are here for reference but they are not hitting you in the face. I already answered the "abundant" comment with actual word counts, and now the word count in what's called "readable prose" here is even less. So I have responded to your concerns, just not completely the way you want it, because I think it needs more than 2 or 3 sentences to be fair all around. "Bad taste" is irrelevant and differs by POV - verifiability and notability are the standards here. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's make the Racism subsection in the "Political Positions of Ron Paul" section focus on Ron Paul's viewpoints, rather than the accusations. Paul has a clear and elaborate position on racism - I suggest we front with that, then open for the accusations before his reply on the matter.Terjen 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I feel like this section (and the talk page!) is under attack by a whole new group of people. The section was great a few days ago, and now has been butchered into a mess by people who seem to want to remove the section entirely. Hurting the article does not make your biased agenda come out any stronger. There is a key difference between what he claims and what his critics claim. This article should be organized in the following order, which presents things in the order they happened: What the original newsletter says, and the houston chronicle article on it, including his defense at the time. His view on racism from other sources. His recent claim they he did not actually make the original comments. This is a fair, unbiased telling of EVENTS that happened. There are NO subjective opinions in the article, nor should there be. Rm999 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RM - i think I had it that way at one point, and I completely agree with your point and your analysis. Tvoz |talk 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested source

CNN contributor Roland S. Martin has an excellent article about Ron Paul's controversial debate comments here. Title: "Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated" --JHP 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is added, maybe it should go in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article instead?

Ron Paul is being 'Swiftboated' by the GOP and right wing press. Maybe there should be a section on that. TheDeciderDecides 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as long as you can find a good source. But put it in the presidential campaign article, not the main article.

(RESOLVED) Will Wikipedia break the news?

Ron Paul's medical training is very weird. Doctors do not just do one year of residency and then become an OB-GYN. Did he do other training that's not listed. His congressional biography says what wikipedia says. Maybe someone in the congressional office is wrong. Wouldn't it be neat if we in wikipedia corrected the truth and put it in his wikipedia biographical article?Pipermantolisopa 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Hey, my first breakthrough in investigative editing! The wikipedia article missed 2-3 years of his medical training in Pittsburgh. I've made the correction.Pipermantolisopa 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What may be causing some of the confusion is that he was drafted in the middle of his medical training, entered the Air Force as a flight surgeon, then came back and finished his residency in Texas.--Gloriamarie 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias

under May 15 GOP Presidential Debate the line "Rudy Giuliani interrupted to suggest Paul..." Watching the debate clearly shows Ron Paul's time finishing and then Giuliani requesting to comment, not an "interuption"

Please sign your comments using four tildes. Reuters said "interrupted": [5] It was not his turn to speak so it gave the appearance of an interruption. Someone can reword if they would like, but the main point is not whether there was an "interruption" or not but what he said once he started speaking.--Gloriamarie 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is: Giuliani did not interrupt Ron Paul (which is how it sounds now) - he interrupted the flow of the debate by speaking when it wasn't his turn. I agree with you that the main point is what was said. GarryKosmos 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We can find a more specific word for this. I agree he did not interrupt. He "spoke out of turn", or "immediatly responded" or maaaaybe "interjected". I dont know how to sign, so I wont.

quotes

"So do all who live to see such times but that is not for them to decide. All we have to do with the time that is given us."

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

"The wise speak only of what they know."

Not sure who posted these and I'm too busy to look back to see - or more importantly who they are quotes from - but they belong in Wikiquotes if they can be verifiably attributed. And if they are by Ron Paul, we can link to the page there. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are by Tolkien. Terjen 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

hah - boy did I give the doctor a lot of credit. (And they're here to provide some poetic insight?) Or is Tolkien a favorite author like L. Ron Hubbard is for Mitt? Tvoz |talk 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good quote if anyone wants to throw it in there. It was said during a speech in New Hampshire in February '07.

"I believe that one of our problems is that we have had Presidents that want to do too much. And the people of this country like a strong president. And I wonder, how can I run for an office like this and say, "I want to be a weak President!" But you know what, the answer to that is we should have a much stronger president. Strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that the President shouldn't have."

Nick 04:57, 26 May 2007

district info

His district does include significant suburbs of Houston, but I do not think it correct to say it includes suburbs of Austin and San Antonio. The latter two cities are at best about 100 miles away from the district, and most of it 200+ miles away. If the constituency is important to the article, it would probably be pertinent to analyze the odd mixture of southeast Houston and Galveston and its suburbs (with populations significantly from the state universities and major medical branch, oil refineries, and NASA) with the significantly rural areas down the coast. Strangename 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been redistricted recently, also. Perhaps that was referring to the old district boundaries. I'll take it out for now. Thanks.--Gloriamarie 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rudy's response

Perhaps instead of paraphrasing Rudy Giuliani's comments, we should just quote him. It's a short quote. (I forgot to sign before, signing now) Kylebrotherton 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

good addition Tvoz |talk 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent article changes

Thanks to Gloriamarie for adding all of that material (which she seems to still be doing - it's great stuff) - the article is much improved, in my opinion. And thank you for clarifying the Letters of Marque section - now it makes sense . I also think the debate Middle East discussion is vastly improved by substituting Scheuer's comment for what was there before - Scheuer is talking about Ron Paul's comments directly which is appropriate for this article. A disquisition on middle east politics is certainly not irrelevant to what Paul said - and may "prove" his point - but it doesn't belong in the text of this article, so I moved the bin Laden stuff to a footnote - it makes more sense that way, and the information is here but not dominating the section which should be specifically about Ron Paul and what he actually said in the debate and what people said about his comments - not verification for the point of view he presented which is footnote stuff. See Barack Obama - expository footnotes are done there often that way. I think the debate section works well now - although it might be longer than needed for this article and could be shortened here and longer bit added to RP Presidential article. But for now I think it's ok here. I added a {{fact}} to the Paul reply to Giuliani because I dont see it in the RGVRP article, and we need to find a transcript to point to. I'm not questioning the quote, just need to reference it. There must be transcripts of the debate all over the place - and in fact a transcript is a better source for all of the debate quotes - change to that and leave RGVRP for the commentary is how I would do it. Great job GLoriamarie. Tvoz |talk 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But... I am a litle concerned that the article is reading a bit like a campaign brochure - the perennial problem in these articles - and could use some more critical commentary. But he hasn't gotten a lot of press until now, so I don't know how much there is - note how much more there was about the 5/15 debate than the 5/3 debate where the NY Times, for example, had him in their last paragraph along with some other hapless candidates who got no coverage. 5/15 was a better day for airtime for the candidate, and the press picked up on it. I would expect that some of his more controversial points of view have atracted or will attract some reliable source commentary - we rely too much on blogs now, I think. Tvoz |talk 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article has gotten better on that account (moving away from blogs). What do you mean by some of his more controversial points of view? The sources you describe may be published now.--Gloriamarie 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the debate section

Since the debate stuff is now in his Candidate for 2008 article, shouldn't we just remove the debate stuff in order to make it a bit less cluttered? DeviantCharles 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be condensed down, but it should be included in a summary. This is the most publicity he's ever gotten. I found this quote from a letter Michael Scheuer wrote and it's pretty long, but I'll post it here. I think it's probably better than the one that is already included from Michael Scheuer:

"Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live... . We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are 'over there,' and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.... And no matter how you view Mr. Paul’s words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Mr. Paul’s frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda’s one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner."

He and Scheuer are also apparently having a press conference on this subject tomorrow.--Gloriamarie 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Educating Rudy at the National Press Club, Washington DC. Terjen 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and now for something completely different - impeachment of Dick Cheney

I have not come across anything that says that Ron Paul is supporting or attacking Dennis Kucinich's filing of articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney (HR 333 I think) - has anyone seen any comments that Ron Paul has made about this? Tvoz |talk 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything on this either. He does often work on bipartisan issues with Dennis Kucinich, but this, I don't know.--71.65.202.41 17:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive actions against crazy information

As described by the digg entry "Fox Clearly stating that people who question the government are absurd", Fox broadcasted "Malkin attacks Paul on 9/11 questions" where they used a short clip from Ron Paul Meets the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth to create a Strawman as usual and paint Ron Paul as a conspiracy nut believing it was an inside job. So no need to add any such entry based on that source. Lord Metroid 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism Section

Unless someone has accused him of racist behavior or speech or unless there is some scandal with respect to race that Dr. Paul or his campaign has been involved in, this section is purposeless and any relevent information on Dr. Paul's views of race and racism should be merged into the Political Views section. If views on race warrant its own section for political candidates, then that is a different matter. I don't see such a section for other candidates in the 2008 election, so I a presuming it doesn't and can be merged if it's kept at all. If someone wants to merge it or delete it, feel free. Otherwise, when I have more time, I'll work on it. Ikilled007 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having a Racism accusations section without substantive evidence that he is indeed racist is like having a "wife-beating accusations" section: regardless of the proof, the allegations alone stain his reputation. I think this is a WP:BLP issue. DickClarkMises 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. The current section is a considerable improvement on the previous one which was simply titled "Racism". It seems that some are attempting to use wikipedia as a tool to bash the Paul campaign. At the same time, Paul supporters have been needlessly removing the article. From an objective point of view, it is clear that it must be addressed (as it now is). Paul's actions and words throughout his long political career prove that he is not a racist and that these are false allegations against him in order to smear his campaign.--71.236.20.221 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unless someone has accused him of racist behavior or speech" - The Houston Chronicle, the Texas Monthly, and Ron Paul's opponent in an election all pointed out the racist text which appeared in his newsletter. If Barack Obama or Mitt Romney publishes a newsletter with racist text, then it would be discussed in their respective articles, just like it is discussed here in Ron Paul's article. Keep the section. Rhobite 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, who are you the judge of what constitutes "racist text"? I didn't find the text in question racist at all if we define racism as a baseless judgement of inferiority based on race. That was clearly not the case. In fact, the article didn't even declare it to be racist text -- it was very carefully crafted language (the article) saying something like "which could be construed by some as [racially provocative]". There was indication that anyone even considered it problematic. Ikilled007 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The newsletter said "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Are you claiming that these are not racist statements? Rhobite 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying black teenage males who rob people are slow on foot? How can it possibly be racist to say they are not? Hey, here's a racist statement for you: black NBA ballplayers can jump incredibly high. Ikilled007 06:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether racist statements or not, it is original research for a Wikipedia editor to say whether they are. What exactly does the Houston Chronicle article say? Texas Monthly does not say that he is a racist; they say it is extraordinary since he had never said anything like that before, and they ask him about it and he says they were written by a staffer. --71.65.202.41 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, those are both racist statements. Basketball players can jump high. The fact that you are adding "black" means you are stereotyping based on race, and that, friend, is one of the classic definitions of racism. You would not be likely to say "blond basketball players can jump incredibly high", because you'd probably ask what being blond has to do with it. Well, the same thing goes for race. The statements in that newsletter were racist - our article is bending over backwards to say that in as neutral a way as possible, but by definition they are racist statements. But I suspect you actually understand this point and perhaps are trying to make another one. I don't think this is the place, however, to have a debate about what is racism. Tvoz |talk 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• What you call stereotyping I call statistics. Is it a racist statement to say that affirmative action for blacks is necessary but for whites is not because they tend to have less wealth and opportunity than whites? Not if it's true that blacks on average are less wealthy and have less opportunities than whites. See, this oppressive PC nonsense doesn't allow for ANY examination into race, which means it's unscientific and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ikilled007 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to make some kind of philosophical point, but as Tvoz pointed out, this discussion isn't really relevant to the content of the article. There is no need to argue over the definition of "racist text" (although the text clearly is), as we have cited reliable sources for each statement and discussed the newsletter in a neutral tone. Rhobite 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This text is potentially defamatory and should be removed unless somebody can provide a credible source. Life, Liberty, Property 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several credible sources, including the Houston Chronicle and Texas Monthly. All controversial statements are attributed and therefore the section is compliant with WP:BLP. Your complaints are not actionable unless you specifically describe which statements you think are defamatory, and why. It is not helpful to blank the entire section without making a specific complaint. Rhobite 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read the section and I guess it is actually valid and relatively neutral, however the title of the section could cause some people to perceive him as racist. I guess its fine and I'm sorry I rushed to judgment. Life, Liberty, Property 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The section seems to have disappeared again. Where was the discussion of this?--Gloriamarie 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the racial remarks section to the Political positions of Ron Paul on June 7. It was open for discussion in the earlier Racism section. Gloriamarie later removed the paragraphs regarding the racial remarks, arguing that they were in this entry (which they were not). Terjen 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you had transferred it, I thought you had copied it over. Sorry about that. That section has been getting blanked by vandals lately quite a bit. I do think it belongs here rather than in Political Positions.--Gloriamarie 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is under constant controversy

As we have seen many times and the latest being the domestic violence section being reverted moved and so on. Wouldn't it be better if we just discussed most of the major deletion or moves we would want to do in here before we do it. Because as it is now revert wars are rageing in this article... It was so much easier to maintain when he wasn't as recognized Lord Metroid 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok - you and I were editing within a minute of each other, and I didn't see your edit summary until now. I had moved the VAWA stuff from being its own section into this article's political position section, with the question of whether it should be in this article at all. I was removing what Joeu had put in as a separate section. I actually don't think this needs to be in this article if it is in the daughter article - as I said in my edit summary, I don't know that we can have every vote of his written up here. Sorry for stepping on your edit - I had not seen it until now beacue it was just short of being an edit conflict.. Ok with me to remove the VAWA stuff from here, pending what others think. Tvoz |talk 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with removing it, we can't have everything mentioned. However Joeu is very uncooperative and silent. Lord Metroid 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's clearly in the other article, I'm taking it out of here. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

word-order makes no sense

The article currently reads: "He is particularly effective at reaching 14th District voters on veterans' issues, such as procuring lost medals for war veterans who never received or lost their medals;"

This word-order makes no sense.

Misinterpretation possibility #1: By "procuring lost medals" has he used a metal detector? Or were the medals lost after he procures them? It should be enough to say "procuring medals."

Misinterpretation possibility #2: The words "never received or lost" could be misinterpreted to mean "neither received nor lost," in which case why has he replaced them?

If I understand it correctly, it should be worded thusly: "...on veterans' issues, such as procuring medals for war veterans who lost or never received their medals."

k7tz52oef5y5g93r40 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and reword it.--Gloriamarie 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Maher Appearance

Paul appeared 5/25/07 on Real Time With Bill Maher to talk about his comments at the May 15th debate.

Heres a video I searched up [6] Bl4h 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Environment

I've been looking into Ron Paul and I'm quite pleased with what I read, but I would like to know more about his stance on controlling global warming, a problem that Libertarians seem to be unable to handle. There isn't any real information on his web page and there is no mention of it here. Global warming will in all probability be an important issue in the 2008 election and I would like to hear what he has to say on it. I know he voted against the Kyoto protocol, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he believes the federal government has no role in this issue. If we could find some information on this it would be helpful to voters.

Kpturvey 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate for his Political positions article. From what I understand of his position, it is this: he would stop getting involved in wars that are largely based on oil. He would stop subsidizing oil companies. These foreign and domestic policies strengthen America's reliance on oil. He would let states pass carbon emissions laws (they weren't allowed to do so until recently). By not going to war for oil, companies would face higher operating costs in those countries and the cost of oil would reflect that. With oil costing more and without subsidies for oil companies, alternative energies would prosper and become much more economically feasible. In Congress, he has been a member of the “Green Scissors” coalition with Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense to cut environmentally harmful overnment spending. I believe he's at the top of ratings for cutting that type of spending. It's a good idea to put this in the Political Positions article and I'll try to do so.--Gloriamarie 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

lopsided?

Coming back from Memorial Day weekend, I see the article has changed. There is some lopsidedness. Why is the 2nd debate and the racist statement so long in comparison with his 2nd congressional record? What was the racist statement? Did he not do anything in congress so that part is shorter? Can we fix this in a neutral manner?Pipermantolisopa 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The statements are in the footnotes. Since he says he did not say them and they do not represent his views, that's more appropriate than quoting them in the section. I'll take a look at the congressional part to see if things have been taken out.--Gloriamarie 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Congressional part is the same length it always was. His voting record and views are covered in the Political Views article, but you're right, it could be good to add a bit more here.--Gloriamarie 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's fair to accept that the quotes don't represent his views. I personally take his word for it, but I'm not sure if it's prudent to, with neutrality in mind. Quite frankly, there was a quote with his signature that he now disavows as the work of another, but that is nothing but a claim on his part that we ought not reject or accept on behalf of the Wikipedia community.Benthepanda 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Living Persons policies on biographies, any negative or inflammatory material must be well-sourced or removed immediately. The quotes are sourced to his newsletter, but since he has given a denial that they are his words or views, since a magazine has said that the controversy is extraordinary considering that he never said anything else like that in many years in public office, and since he has spoken negatively of racism... I don't think it corresponds with the living biographies policy to assume otherwise within the article, and it's easy to take a neutral view and present both sides of the situation. The living biographies policy is an important policy within Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community really must take it seriously. I don't see how that goes against neutrality. --Gloriamarie 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the racism discussion to Political positions of Ron Paul. We shouldn't give such a minute issue prominent coverage, some 1/12 of the text of the biographical page.Terjen 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Change/Addition Request: Documentaries, topic pages and databases

to: site administrators from: www.ronpaulaudio.com

Please use this posting as a request to include a reference and external link to www.ronpaulaudio.com

This site is a resource archive of Ron Paul Speechs and Interviews that is updated daily as the campaign progresses.

Thank You for your consideration.

--Goldenequity 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this first.--Daveswagon 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused. My understanding is that the Main Page content is restricted and not "open" to general editing by the public. So, I placed my request in this discussion section, hoping for a response from those responsible for editing and updates for a response. (thanks for responding Daveswagon!) I still have not heard from or been emailed by anyone regarding the above request.

Am I not understanding something? To everyone....can you give me a little insight? Am I going about this the wrong way? Thanks for any help all. --Goldenequity 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is open for editing for any member of wikipedia, it is closed for unregistered users as much vandalism occured. Lord Metroid 06:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

creditable and acceptable source required

Comments by that former CIA analyst about Paul's 2nd GOP debate doesn't belong in the article. That's just one guy's opinion. Similarly, other hypothetical additions that wouldn't belong include "my high school history teacher thinks Paul shouldn't be President because he doesn't like whiskey" or "Jane Smith, daughter of former the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Labor in the Ford or Carter administration agrees with Paul in the -- issue"--Pipermantolisopa 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "just one guy's opinion" for a few reasons: 1. he's the top al Qaeda and bin Laden specialist for years in the CIA. 2. He held a press conference with Ron Paul saying that Rudy Giuliani is wrong and needs to read up on foreign policy if he expects to talk about 9/11. I haven't added that to the article yet, but I will. (If your high school history teacher held a press conference with Paul to say that, then that might be notable too.:)) I said this in the revert description that I made. --Gloriamarie 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

what do you think about removing references?

This is asked here because it related to Ron Paul. To avoid a fight, I won't mention which one.

If a CNN reference is used as a citation to a sentence in an article, isn't it unwise to remove it just because the article has some other information that a wikipedian doesn't like. For example, in the John Edwards' article, I put in some info about healthcare and put a reference to it. Someone didn't change the language much but wanted another reference because they like the content of the other reference, not the CNN one.

What do you think?Pipermantolisopa 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If both references substantiate the sentence, I would usually favor leaving in both citations, as they may provide different aspects for the curious reader.Terjen 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on what kind of information is included that is not amenable to the other editor. Is it important enough to be included in the article? If it's not, and the other reference is also cited elsewhere, it may be better to use the other reference. I'm in favor of consolidating references as much as possible. If the other information is not important enough to be in the article, I don't see why a reference should be kept just because it mentions it. Or, as Terjen suggests, both could be left in.--Gloriamarie 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible joke...

I read this sentence in the article: In the May 3, 2007, GOP Debate, Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the abolition of the income tax.

The next sentence shows why he supports this, but I was watching the debate and my understanding of it was that an email asked him something along the lines of: "As President, would you abolish the Internal Revenue Service?", to which his response was "Immediately." This got a big laugh from the audience, and he smiled himself, which led me to believe that he was joking. After all, give me the name of one American who doesn't support the closure of the IRS? - Bardiak 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He has repeatedly said that one of his first, if not his first, official acts in office would be to close the IRS. It's no joke. As for one American? Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush. Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter. Al Gore. Barack Obama. The list goes on. --Golbez 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was serious. Here's something he wrote on the subject last year.

"But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."---71.65.202.41 05:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

8 minutes?

Did he really get 8 minutes at the June 5 debate, as currently claimed in the article? 2 hours is 120 minutes, so if each of the 10 candidates got 10%, that would be 12 minutes each, assuming no time for questions or the break. The break alone was about 5 minutes and there had to be at least 10 minutes of questions, which takes the total time used by the candidates down to about 105 minutes, or 10.5 minutes each on average, and that's conservative (they probably had less than a total of 105, and, so, less than 10.5 on average). I'm tagging that 8 minute claim as needing a citation, at least until someone can substantiate it. --Serge 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He was at 5:51 according to Chris Dodd.[7] --207.69.140.22 06:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that sounds more reasonable. Not a great source, but it's something. I'll update accordingly --Serge 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2008 Campaign Summary

The section supposed to be a summary of the 2008 presidential campaign has gotten way too detailed again. I suggest it is stripped down substantially, merging the subsections for the debates with those on the 2008 presidential campaign page. However, as the entry on his campaign are timely, there should also be a link to the 2008 presidential campaign entry in the introduction to this article. Terjen 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be trimmed down. However, the part about the May 15 debate should probably be left in because that's an important occurrence in his political career. Perhaps it could have a section of its own? The rest of the detail about the other debates is not necessary.--Gloriamarie 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I believe it's time to limit edits to registered users in order to keep tabs on malicious edits. I am finding it difficult to keep up with restoring sabotaged links and deleted sections. Just now, a spot check revealed several misdirected links. These vandals should not be permitted on wikipedia. JLMadrigal 11:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. Many of the other presidential candidate article are protected too.--Daveswagon 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Ask, Don't tell

Under the june 5 debate one user has a biased opinon and did not understand what Dr. Paul was saying, Paul said that both homo and heterosexuals should be booted from the military only if their behavior becomes disruptive, Paul believes that all people have the same rights .

I removed that last night-- it was an incorrect statement the way it was written and if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is placed anywhere it should be in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it again-- my page hadn't updated, and I said that it was written in an NPOV manner, but it had been rewritten since the last time my page updated. It should be in the Political Positions article if it's anywhere.--Gloriamarie 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Section about Ron Pauls fanatical following?

Should there perhaps be a section with a warning that Ron Paul has attracted an extremely activist and extremely aggressive following on the net? Pretty much every web forum I visit -reddit, digg, TDS...- has been bombarded and gamed by Ron Pauls fans, and they're notorious for gaming every internet poll they can find (see e.g. www.pajamasmedia.com, www.cnn.com, and www.2008horserace.com ; the comments from the webmaster at 2008horserace are hilarious).

And to be honest I get the impression they're active here too.

The Man On The Street 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he simply has genuinely more supporters than you think. He has won repeated races for Congress in Texas, after all, so he clearly can garner tens of thousands of votes in his own district. --Golbez 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since folks are generally accustomed to choosing the lesser evil in U.S. presidential politics, and in a year with a field that is otherwise so uninspiring that many are looking forward to bonafied bores like Al Gore and Fred Thompson to step up, it should not be surprising that a principled and rational politician with a consistent voting history like Ron Paul stands out, inspires and garners real positive support among those who are normally disillusioned with the "same ol' same ol'". In fact, it's about time. And no, I'm not one of those gamers, though I did vote for Ron Paul in the 3rd debate polls at msnbc and cnn. --Serge 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While Paul indeed is raising good questions, I cannot regard the preciding paragraph as remotely non-neutral. If its author directly compared Paul's positions with positions of Gore or Thompson, that could be a valuable contribution. "same 'ol same 'ol" adds no information. Hcberkowitz 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the Talk page, not the article. We're not expected to be unbiased here. To adhere to WP:NPOV all that matters is whether what we add to the article space is NPOV. A "warning" about Paul's alleged "fanatical following" on the internet sure does not meet that. To the contrary, citations from the mainstream media, at least so far, are respectful, and certainly not colored with POV and inappropriate adjectives like "fanatical". --Serge 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

May 15 debate quote change

{moved from user talk page)

I found the statement on Youtube here. I'm just not sure which citation a political debate would fit. Hope that's what you were looking for. Hewinsj 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to watch the video of the debate - once was enough - but the quote that was changed ought to be verified and reference added. Youtube is not a good reference, however - perhaps someone can get a written transcript from somewhere. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

commisioning of destroyer USS KIDD

some one add this. Ron paul commisioned the destroyer on june 7 manchurian candidate 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the Ron Paul article

How many would be in favor of this? It seems that many non-registered users have been vandalizing. Maybe it would be better to only let registered users edit it. I would expect this to drastically cut down on vandalizing, and it would save a lot of time from doing reverts. --CommonSense101 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article

Just from the opening paragraph: 1) "He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he is a medical doctor who votes against any bill he believes violates the Constitution."

The cited link does not say this. It says he's earned the nickname Dr. No and that _by his own account_ Ron Paul votes on "deeply held principles, not campaign donations" It does not say what those convictions are, and judging from his voting record and his explanation on why he's opposed to abortion it would seem to be at least as much his religious principles as his constitutionalist principles (which, incidentally, are hardly "strict", as he opposes the right of the supreme court to interprete the constitution!).

Plus, show me one politician who himself would say he votes according to campaign contributions, not deeply held personal principles!

2) "Paul's presidential campaign has gotten considerable attention after his participation in the televised Republican presidential debates."

Where? What constitutes 'considerable'? Why is this sentence even included?

Compare the tone of the article on Ron Paul and his policies with the articles on e.g. Rudy Giuliani. Notice the complete lack of negative or even controversial points in the Ron Paul entry, while the Giuliani entry is fairly balanced. Also notice that what sortof controversial points there are (such as Ron Pauls opposition to abortion and his associated arguments about the right of the supreme court to interprete the intention of the constitition, or is opposition to Net Neutrality) are presented in excusing/explanatory passages. Ron Paul controversies, like the leaked racist newsletters (the remainder of which Ron Paul refuses to make public) are simply not mentioned.

This is not a neutral article; this is an article written by his devoted fans.

The Man On The Street 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1.) The cited link in that case is for the use of the nickname "Dr. No"-- if you look under "Later Congressional Career" you'll see a section on what people have said about how he votes. You are free to put a better citation in the first section if you'd like. You can just reference the Texas Monthly article, which easily says all those things, for instance, and there are others which also say basically the same thing. 2) Considering Giuliani's entry sentences to his article say that he is "America's Mayor" and knighted by Queen Elizabeth, I don't think it's giving undue weight to say that Ron Paul has gotten "considerable attention"-- he got lots of mainstream media press after the 2nd debate in particular and was in all the debate wrap-ups after that one. "Considerable" doesn't always equate to "positive". I saw that a few days ago and actually thought it was a useful addition because it's true. How is opposition to abortion controversial? Half the country (maybe more than half) is opposed to it as are most Republican politicians... it's part of the platform since 1980 even. (Just as being pro-life might be controversial to someone who is pro-choice, being pro-choice might be controversial to someone who is pro-life!) I don't even see anything about net neutrality in this article. Those are for "Political positions of Ron Paul." The newsletters are mentioned-- someone removed them and I put them back after the weekend. If you think the article is not neutral, you're free to make your point-- but the ones you bring forth do not prove neutrality either way. You're free to help contribute to it if you'd like. In no way can he be compared to someone like Rudy Giuliani-- Giuliani was the mayor for years in a city with many newspapers. Ron Paul has not had nearly the amount of media coverage, and, well, Giuliani is a unique case (look at the sheer number of controversies in that article), that's for sure. Giuliani, if you'll notice, also has one short paragraph on his political views which redirects to a longer article. There's no mention in Giuliani's article of net neutrality or strict constructionist judges (I believe he has said he would appoint them) because these are not major issues for a biography article when there is also a Political Positions article. --Gloriamarie 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The present citation does not support the text in the article. If you know of citations which DO say what the text says, change it. 2) Giuliani HAS been knighted, it's simply a statement of fact. "Considerable attention" on the other hand is a void statement; it doesn't mean anything at all other than that he's not completely ignored. The only reason I can see to put it in the article is to play up the perceived level of support - which, last I checked, still hovers around 1% of the registered GOP voters. 3) Ron Paul DOES have controversies. He's supported unrestricted drilling for oil, he's opposed to the separation of church and state and votes accordingly, he's stated he feels the church should play a bigger role in society than the state, he's on several occasions expressed racist views, he's stated he wants to legalize ALL drugs, he's opposed to ANY restrictions wrt the sale of guns, e.g. background checks, there's the racist newsletter... the man even voted against giving Mother Teresa a medal, and you're saying there's nothing controversial to say about him?!

Sure, you can dislike some of his political positions, but if nobody from a noteworthy source says anything about them, is there actually a controversy to speak of?

Mother Teresa, guns, and drug legalization are mentioned in the political positions article. His position on oil drilling would be a welcome addition. I'd think 99% of Christian conservatives consider the church is more important, so that part hardly seems controversial. Newsletter is already mentioned in this article. Rather curious about "votes against separation of church and state."Granola Bars 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign all your comments with four tildes. It's difficult to keep track of comments otherwise. 1.)I previously said that the Texas Monthly reference could be moved to the first Dr. No sentence-- anyone is welcome to do this, and it is on my list of things to do, but I just haven't gotten around to doing it. 2.) "considerable attention" could perhaps be reworded to "increased attention", but the addition is useful and should stay. 3.)Many politicians support unrestricted drilling for oil, which is a political position anyway. From that article, he has always voted against the annual energy bills, which give subsidies to companies for domestic drilling. Your further contentions are personal opinions. Since the separation of church and state is located in the Bill of Rights, and Ron Paul goes by that and says it's the one thing that guides him, it would be controversial if he was against it. Please cite your evidence for this-- from what I've seen in working on his Political positions article, he supports the separation to an extent but does not go as far as many people who say, for instance, that a person can't have a private prayer while in school. He would say that violates freedom of speech and should be allowed. Also, Paul's position is that he is against federal drug laws and wants all drug laws handled at the state level, not for full legalization. Mother Theresa is in Political Positions but it could be a good idea to cover that here as well, perhaps I'll add it, along with the story of how he offered to contribute his own money to mint her a medal and no one else joined him.--Gloriamarie 02:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gold standard

In this interview, Paul says he would not go back on the gold standard but that he would "legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender." He says this does not mean he would amend the constitution, but that he would legalize it. [8] What is meant by this? Free gifts 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that current law that forbids the use of gold and silver as legal tender is unconstitutional (technically, I guess you can't pay for something using gold or silver), and he would work towards legalizing it to be used as legal tender. --Serge 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm don't know what law you mean, but I think you may have the wrong idea about "legal tender". The fact that something is not legal tender doesn't mean you can't buy something with it, if the seller is willing to accept it. "Legal tender", as I understand it, is what the seller must accept. In other words, I think in the United States you can't advertise a product for 100 Canadian dollars, and refuse to accept American dollars instead, because American dollars are legal tender. But if you're willing to accept Canadian money, that's up to you. --Trovatore 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gold/silver are not legal tender. So far as I know, the IRS and other fed agencies are not required to accept it as payment for taxes, for example. I suspect this is the law in question. Apparently, Paul thinks it is unconstitutional. --Serge 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw an interview with Paul where he said that the use of gold or silver coins for trade could be made easier as a parallel system to paper money to bring discipline to the paper money system and give Americans more monetary freedom. He said that if you want to convert your dollars to gold coins, you presently have to pay sales tax on the transaction, and that is a barrier to people using gold coins as money, since the government classifies gold coins as products that are bought and sold instead of treating them as a type of money. He also said if you buy a gold coin, and the price of gold goes up, and you sell the coin for more dollars than you paid for it, you presently have to pay capital gains tax on the difference, and that also acts as a barrier to people being able to use gold as money if they want to. He said he favors changing the taw laws in both of those situations so that there would not be a sales or capital gains tax on that transaction. His thoughts on what an "ideal perfect monetary system" would be were not discussed in that interview, so I cannot shed light on that, but it is apparent that he is willing to support incremental changes in the direction of a gold standard, and is not just be an "all or nothing" type of person. Anharmyenone 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what interview that was by any chance? It sounds like the information would be good for this article or the Political Positions one.--71.65.202.41 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations section

Something seems to be wrong with that section of the article, but I am not sure where the problem lies. Can anyone here fix it, since we have been getting OTRS issues about that section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

German-American

Should Paul be listed as a German-American since the article mentions that he is second generation? I assume he also has non-German American heritage as well, but it appears that his last name at least has German origins. I do not know what is necessary to classify someone as being Irish-American, German-American, etc since most caucasians in the U.S. have heritage from multiple European nations. CommonSense101 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favor. I'm not sure what the criteria is. I know on the Barack Obama talk page, there has been much talk about him being Irish with some people inserting that he is Irish-American and others reverting it. However, I believe his Irish ancestry goes back further than grandparents... so in this case, I don't see any reason why Paul shouldn't be listed as German-American; having grandparents from Germany is pretty close.--Gloriamarie 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

June 5 GOP Presidential Debate section makes it seem like he was treated unfairly and it makes it seem like he won, and while he might have been treated unfairly, a lot of the references are only talking about opinions and should therefore have the other side. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you go into some more detail or change it to how you'd like it? All I see is that he got six minutes while many other candidates got 10 (as documented on websites which kept track of the time) and that he won the online MSNBC vote afterwards of 75,000 correspondents. I think that's pretty NPOV. Nevertheless, it's probably better suited for the Presidential Campaign page.--Gloriamarie 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all factual and referenced, so I see no issue with neutrality. I feel the neutrality tag should be removed. I'm calling for a 'official consensus discussion' about removing that tag. User:Pedant 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the tag should be removed. I don't see anything in that section that is NPOV.--Gloriamarie 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Approve I also agree. It's just facts. Virek 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Approve. Facts and not opinions. --Bombastus 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Constroversy Section

I've seen other wikipedia articles with a "controversy" section, with individual incidents listed within that section. I think the way the newsletter section exists currently puts too much emphasis on a single incident. I suggest creating a "controversy" section instead, and making one place where any subsequent incidents may reside. Kylebrotherton 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asking about this on another article (John Edwards) and was told that many editors prefer to place controversies within the article in the appropriate sections. (For instance, a controversy about a law career would go in a "Legal Career" section.) In this case, that is the only controversy I'm aware of, so a "Controversies" section with only one controversy might not make much sense. If you look at the John Edwards article, there's no Controversy section that includes the various things such as his personal injury lawsuits, the UC Davis speech, etc. John McCain has a Controversy section just as you describe. If you look at Rudy Giuliani, though, his article is basically all controversies, and Hillary Clinton has a separate page for hers. So, it's done differently with many different candidates; I'm willing to see what others say about this.--Gloriamarie 22:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it makes it quicker to find any controversial things that pertain to a cantidate, and it would seem that controversial things are something that a large number of people may have interest in. Tack 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the newsletters currently have their own section anyway, I don't see how that would add to the article or make things easier to find.--Gloriamarie 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Walter Williams

I read the source where Ron Paul supposedly endorses Walter Williams as a Vice President, but NOWHERE in that source does it state that Ron Paul endorsed having a Paul/Williams ticket. Please take down that fact, it is FALSE.

Please sign your comments with four tildes. You're right, the source didn't confirm the information. It is possible Ron Paul may have made such a statement, perhaps on New Hampshire NPR, and if someone finds the link to that they can re-add the information.--Gloriamarie 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's pets

I reverted the addition that Paul has an orange tabby cat named Pirate because I couldn't find any citation for it. It would be interesting if true but as of yet, doesn't seem to have been written about.--Gloriamarie 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Facebook Poll

Under internet popularity it mentions that Ron Paul came in 2nd, this may have been correct at the time but he is now currently third after Rudy Giuliani. Also there are now 114,620 votes compared to the "more then "44,297 votes. You must be logged into Facebook to see this, http://apps.facebook.com/elections/. Evil Vin 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the section. Thank you for flagging this.--Daveswagon 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)