Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

"Pro-life"

I will now rudely combine all the pro-life and abortion subpoints under one head. John J. Bulten 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We the People Act and court spending

JLMadrigal says that the We the People Act would "prevent federal courts from expending funds for the purpose of interfering in state and local government decisions regarding the display of religious text and imagery, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage" instead of "would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments

Here's what the Act says:

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
... (2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.[1]

I am correcting the error. ←BenB4 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Error? What error? Two sides, one coin. JLMadrigal 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Resolution: None. (Yes, "error" is too loaded.) John J. Bulten 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Why BenB4 refuses to acknowledge Paul's position of the States as the center of the abortion issue is beyond me. Paul's position is abundantly clear. Please keep the reference to the 10th amendment. JLMadrigal 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's opposition to abortion and capital punishment is again being used as a teaser and will need to be removed for various reasons discussed. His support of the 9th and 10th amendments defines many of his positions - including these. Currently, this article sufficiently outlines his position on these issues, and the positions article elaborates as it should. Abortion and capital punishment are political positions on which all candidates have a stance, but if they belong in this article, they can not be used in the lead - unless clarified. His pivotal states' rights position, on the other hand, distinguishes him from the other candidates. JLMadrigal 12:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Bull****. He's opposed to both. and no about of verbiage about the 9th and 10th amendments changes the fact that he's voted and introduced legislation to ban abortion. 209.77.205.2 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me try teaching you with an illustration: Let's say the Supreme Court says it's OK for anyone to dump toxic waste into any body of water. In response, Representative "A" introduces emergency legislation that limits such pollution to bodies of water greater than 100 square miles, and limits contaminants to chemicals with a toxicity level below "X". So representative "A" has effectively limited pollution which wasn't supposed to have been federally authorized in the first place, while seeking an opportunity to overturn the original decision. The decision represents Roe v. Wade, and the band-aid represents the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Need I expand? JLMadrigal 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying he's all for states' rights as long as the Supreme Court doesn't disagree with him? I like the "unshakable foe" quote from his own website someone found. Are you going to say we need to nuance his own campaign material? ←BenB4 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the quote is misleading as to his position. What he believes personally is separate from his political positions, which is that he believes states should decide for themselves. The inclusion of that quote gives a misleading appearance to his more nuanced position on abortion, and I just don't see why any editor would want to insert something misleading to readers.--Gloriamarie 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved by John J. Bulten 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

might need clarification

Paul is pro-life, but, consistent with his opposition to federal power, he is in favor of allowing each state to decide whether to allow or prohibit it, instead of the federal government.

Ron Paul wants to allow each state to allow or prohibit life? I assume that "it" is supposed to refer to abortion in this context, but perhaps that could be made a bit more clear. 62.158.126.58 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not even true. He says that sometimes, but he votes and introduces legislation to flat-out prohibit abortions. 209.77.205.2 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Negatory. The act that he voted for filled a gaping loophole in Roe v Wade. (see above) JLMadrigal 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you think saying it funny like "negatory" makes it any less of a lie. What "loophole"? The vote was still to ban abortions. At least two of the bills he introduced would have banned all abortion. And at the federal level. He gets up on the stump and talks about the "murder" of unborn children. ←BenB4 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There are also two generalized categories of abortion: early term and late-term. I believe the form of abortion he voted to ban at the federal level was partial birth abortion, which is a different matter altogether for even many who support abortion rights early in pregnancy.--Gloriamarie 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on positions

(Deleted RFCpol tag because of no action, and general consensus that the legislation should be included briefly whether or not it conflicts with stated positions.) John J. Bulten 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) An issue has arisen as to whether the Ron Paul#Political positions section should include a description of the legislation Paul has introduced which conflicts with some of his stated positions. Should it? ←BenB4 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you would need a reliable source stating that his legislation conflicts with some of his stated positions, or you are firmly in Original Research Land.--Gloriamarie 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not suggesting that we state in the article that the legislation conflicts with his positions. I think we should describe what the legislation says and let people decide for themselves. You have spent quite a bit of time trying to convince me he is not anything more than "personally" opposed to abortion even though he says on his campaign web site that he's "an unshakable foe," so I am not at all surprised that you don't want to describe the legislation he has introduced that would define embryos as legally equivalent to people and remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts. ←BenB4 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that can't be included. It should be in the Political positions of Ron Paul article, and abortion should not be the focus of the summary section in this main article. With 45 sections, abortion only being one of them, why is abortion and specific legislation relating to it mentioned in two or three of the paragraphs of the version you prefer, when other things that he's spent considerable time in Congress on, such as education or healthcare (one example: the Health Freedom Protection Act), are not mentioned at all? The summary section should summarize the full linked article, not serve as a section almost solely focusing on abortion or any other issue. The "unshakable foe" quote also seems to be a new addition on his website.--Gloriamarie 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It already says he wants to defederalize health care in the first paragraph of the positions section, and the Health Freedom Protection Act isn't even mentioned in Political positions of Ron Paul so it's not likely to appear in the summary. The We the People Act and the Sanctity of Live Act are interesting specifically because they conflict with his supposed libertarianism. Plus, do you think that wanting to forbid the federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments is less important than anything he's said about health care? ←BenB4 08:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They're not at conflict if you understand that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. According to the US Constitution, most powers are delegated to the states and the people. The federal government is supposed to have very limited power. 24.14.76.94 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Health Freedom Protection Act actually is mentioned in Political positions of Ron Paul, just not by name: "He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a prescription for vitamins).[1]"--Gloriamarie 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there is a lot of legislation that isn't mentioned by name, but we have had an article on the We the People Act since January 2006. ←BenB4 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's really more of a stub; there was almost as much written in this article on the Act as in its own article!--Gloriamarie 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a stub, but it has seven times as many sentences as the description here. ←BenB4; 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the description of the bill, not the full article.--Gloriamarie 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured on main page?

It is not stable and in dispute because Gloriamarie, who proudly proclaims her support for Paul on her userpage, thinks we should include what he says about himself but not the conflicting legislation he has introduced. Clearly this is headed to mediation, so I doubt it would make a good FAC. ←BenB4 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What conflicting legislation? I've talked with you about things like this before and everytime there was no conflict; you didn't understand what Paul was talking about? 24.14.76.94 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

At least two other editors have agreed with me, so don't blame that on me. I'm just working to make the article better. You have likewise proudly proclaimed your non-support for Ron Paul, but I don't see what that has to do with it-- edits and whether they are 1.) neutral and well-sourced, and 2.) improve the article, are what count. Just because I'm a vegetarian doesn't mean I can't edit the article on vegetarianism, if my contributions improve the content and are neutral and well-sourced.--Gloriamarie 06:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User GloriaMarie is a constructive editor on this page. While Gloria and I don't share our politics, we both constructively try and improve this article. It's a shame we cant say the same about you, Benb4. Now stop attacking people who don't share your same political views.Turtlescrubber 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a good idea to delete other users' comments on talk pages. Turtlescrubber was only telling you not to attack me; that is not a personal attack in and of itself.--Gloriamarie 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And telling someone to stop beating their wife doesn't imply that they have been? Pointing out your obvious conflict of interest as evidenced by your user-page advocacy and disregard for WP:NPOV is not an attack. ←BenB4 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You have now resorted to two personal attacks against me; my edits are always NPOV. Please cease and desist. Of the two of us, my edits are the ones conforming to the neutrality policy, and yours are not.--Gloriamarie 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've explained this before: Calling someone's edits biased is not a personal attack. What would it be like if we weren't allowed to call out biased edits? The same goes for conflicts of interest. ←BenB4 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone's edits biased when they are not is a personal attack, IMO. It's a loophole in the system. We discussed this in mediation.--Gloriamarie 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with GloriaMarie on her entries. I don't know why everything Ben is writing has to centre around abortion, perhaps he would prefer to hang around the Abortion pages and write about useless things there instead? Gloria's version (I hope you don't mind me calling you that) of the page was a lot better than the hoo har Ben wrote. You should not be making personal attacks on other editors as this is not the place to do them, secondly your opinions are as neutral as George Bush's on the Iraq war. I am British and the pages on Ron Paul (who even I think should be president, if only I could vote!!) have taught me a lot about him and his campaign. He is the type of guy we need more of, especially here in England where political correctness and everyone's "rights" have blighted the lives of many because people are too worried about their political face to stand up for what is right. That is something Ron Paul does and Gloria has shown this in her writing over many subjects. 80.74.247.74 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not centered around abortion. Only one paragraph of the disputed portions involves abortion, and as Paul has chosen to campaign so strongly on it, and the issue makes headlines all the time, what's wrong with a single paragraph? I'm much more upset that the description of the We the People Act was removed. ←BenB4 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The We the People Act paragraph, however, mentioned abortion, the beginning paragraphs mention it, and it appeared in four separate instances in your version. Your version had an odd focus on abortion at the expense of every other issue. It was not a single paragraph. Why the insistence on a full paragraph on one piece of legislation in a summary, when that bill doesn't even merit a longer article than it has?--Gloriamarie 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, abortion is a huge issue:
As for the WTPA, it encompasses abortion. Is there any other of his bills that we have an article on? ←BenB4 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Google hits are actually usually not a good measure of relative notability, as evidenced by a comparison of a teen idol (2,190,000 hits) vs. a two-time Nobel Prize-winning scientist who invented the transistor, came up with the BCS theory of superconductivity and changed modern life as almost everyone knows it (327,000 hits). Some things are just more likely to be mentioned on websites; that doesn't necessarily make them more notable. It only means they're more likely to be featured on a website.--Gloriamarie 02:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness scientists aren't selected by people voting on their telephones from their couch. The number of pages on a subject has some relation to how often people write about it, and in turn to how important they think it is. ←BenB4 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Which proves my point: by any measure, John Bardeen is more notable than almost anyone, yet he has a fraction of total hits on Google than someone who has made two Disney movies. Google hits do not necessarily equal notability, just that certain people are more likely to have a website made about them, by teen girls or by anyone else.--Gloriamarie 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life

So, now there is a dispute about whether it is okay to say that Paul is pro-life without including two dozen words of rambling "nuance" about the 10th Amendment which contradict his votes and the bills he has introduced to ban abortions.[2][3] I will let Dr. Paul speak for himself:

"I am pro-life."[4]
"I am strongly pro-life."[5]
"As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist...."[6]
"As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion."[7]
"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."[8]
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."[9]
"I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration."[10] (emphasis added)

By my count, there are at least three dozen more where those came from.

If you want a constitutional amendment to overrule the 10th Amendment, then do you think you're going to go around telling people that you think the 10th Amendment should be the deciding rule on the issue? No!

It feels like Bizarro World that this is even an issue. (Note: I did remove the pro-life mention from the first paragraph -- and I wasn't the one who put it there -- as it should occur with his positions.) ←BenB4 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, its a legit question. However, the Constitution is amendable, isn't it? He respects the constitution as it is now and the state's rights, but he wants to change the constitution (the legal way) to be more pro-life. I can respect that. In this way, you can definitely think both. You respect the constitution as it is while simultaneously moving to change it. Wrad 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet he voted to ban abortions "to offset the damage of Roe v. Wade" or some such. If he believes that, then he believes two wrongs make a right. ←BenB4 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
But he's a constitutionalist basically. It isn't contradictory at all. You respect the constitution. If you don't like it, you go through the process to amend it, as opposed to passing federal legislation in the usual way. From constitutionalist perspective, it's not contradictory at all. A court decision has less umph than an Amendment. It's all how you look at it. If you look at whether he's pro-life or pro choice, and nothing else, you might see a contradiction. But there isn't one. He just respects the constitution, and right now he believes that the constitution protects state rights on abortion. He is pro-life, and wants to make and amendment in that direction, but that doesn't contradict anything. It just shows respect for the constitution. Wrad 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
So, do you think it's fair to qualify his pro-life stance with "he wants the decision left to the states in accordance with the 10th amendment" without mentioning his proposed constitutional amendment or his legislation or his congressional votes against abortion? ←BenB4 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless there are reliable sources saying criticizing his position on it. The question is not whether he's pro-life; it's whether his position is more nuanced than that, in mostly leaving the issue to the states to be handled. There's a reason he gets a 65% rating from pro-choice NARAL some years when most pro-life politicians get 0%, and that's because he votes against federal measures having to do with abortion and the like. Your opinion on the matter is clear, bu the question is, How is the article going to be made better? Should the article be completely based on abortion? Other politicians' articles barely mention it, and I have compromised by making a whole paragraph on the issue in the Political Positions section, which no other issue has besides the Iraq War. There is no need to say it in the opening, in a way which would lead readers to think he is one of those who gets a 0% from NARAL.--Gloriamarie 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Not long ago you were telling me a summary had to be short, now you're telling me "pro-life" won't fly, even though he refers to himself that way. We have to talk about the 10th amendment, even though he wants to add an amendment of his own? There is a paragraph with a complete explanation of all the nuance (thank you.) All the other positions in the summary list have just a few words. Pro-life should too. ←BenB4 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually am on the fence about whether it should be left in; Tvoz is convincing me a bit with some of her arguments, but the reason I initially took it out was because JLMadrigal's addition of the 10th Amendment might lead to you putting specific legislation back in the lead, and lead to the same disagreements we've been having for the past few days on the subject. If the editors discussing the matter on the talk page agree to have it in the opening with no explanation, I have no problem with that because I accept consensus when it has been reached.--Gloriamarie 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, Gloriamarie - one purpose of the lede is to summarize things that are gone into in detail in the article. The very fact that there is a (short) paragraph about his position on abortion makes it correct to include it in the lede. I don't see at all why you conclude that it is less important than free trade which is in the lede, or that including the words "pro-life" where I did in any way is creating what you call in your edit summary "an abortion-centered laundry list" or that it makes the article "completely based on abortion" - huh? That's just ridiculous. I think it is necessary to include pro-life along with the other stands he has taken on the major issues of our times, and in fact his stand on abortion is unusual and therefore notable. Sorry, GLoriamarie, but I really disagree with you on this one, and the fact that you've compromised on it isn't really a compelling argument to me. Tvoz |talk 00:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have excellent points and argue them well. I guess context is needed. To explain about the discussion that has been going on, abortion was put in the lead many times, by itself, with no explanation with the quote that Paul was an "unshakeable foe" of abortion. Some editors thought this gave a misleading impression on his position, and user JLMadrigal would insert a sentence or two about how Paul was pro-life but according to the 10th Amendment didn't believe in federal intervention in the process. BenB4 would then put in additional sentences on specific legislation, which amounted to an entire paragraph in the opening on abortion, which was not appropriate. At that time, the political positions section had two full paragraphs on abortion, a half of another paragraph, and a mention in another paragraph! As a compromise, I moved the paragraph which appeared in the opening to the Political Positions section and removed it from the opening, because both sides cannot agree on what to say about it, except at length. When I called it an "abortion-centered laundry list," I was referring to the mentions in four paragraphs of BenB4's version of the Political positions section. I did not mean your edit at all.--Gloriamarie 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine - and as I said on your talk page I am not up to date on the back-and-forth here that you describe - but maybe that gives me an advantage of being able to read this with fresher eyes. I'm not looking to add to the lede - it's too long already - I'm looking for the lede to reflect the article, and for it to not pretend that his abortion position doesn't exist which could make it appear that the article is being edited with a POV. Two words - or one hyphenated one - is all I'm adding, and when folks want to know more about that position they go down to the section where it is discussed. And then even more I assume would be found in the separate article Political positions of Ron Paul - I didn't look there yet for this. Not saying the words "pro-life" in the lede - the article summary - I think is an overreaction to whatever it is that transpired before, and doesn't make sense coming in fresh. Tvoz |talk 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for your fresh eyes. I think the best solution would be to say that he is "pro-life but usually does not believe the federal government should intervene." I'm not sure if that will be acceptable to other editors, though. I don't think editors will be happy with just saying "pro-life" in the introduction, because it goes a bit beyond that. I'm not saying he's not pro-life; he has, however, voted on legislation in such a way that in most years, he gets rated highly by pro-choice NARAL (for leaving decisions up to states).-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriamarie (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Gloriamarie, please. Read this link to his campaign site - there is no ambiguity here, and there is no way that NARAL supports this position. This isn't even a controversial edit - here is a quote from that link:I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. That's not saying "leaving decisions up to states", that is saying explicitly that the federal government should not be able to interfere with the states' efforts to prohibit and/or restrict abortion. His intention is one-way , and to his credit, he is not unclear about it or waffling - but some of these edits here are. "Pro-life" sums it up quite nicely, is short, simple, and to the point - exactly what you want in the lede. You can try for all the nuance elsewhere, although frankly I don't see this as such a nuanced position - but that's just my opinion. As for the article lede, I see no reason for any qualifiers, given what his own web site says his position is. Pro-life. Tvoz |talk 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said that he wasn't pro-life. I disagree that that is not leaving things up to states-- states could then decide whether to allow it or not allow it. However, he has taken positions on some bills at the federal level that most pro-life politicians have not, indicated in his NARAL rating here, higher than most pro-life politicians on a year-by-year basis. That used to be mentioned in the article. Compare this to John McCain, who has scored a 0% every year, due to supporting more federal measures on the matter.--Gloriamarie 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify: it may well be that the effect of that bill would be that some states decide to allow abortion, although the part about life beginning at conception - making abortion equal to murder - I think might put a damper on that, and might open the door for the feds to step in as one could say a legitimate role of theirs is to prevent murder - but even if an effect of the bill would be to have some states pass abortion-rights bills, the point of this discussion is "What is Ron Paul's position on pro-life vs pro-choice?" and I think it is unambiguously pro-life - again, he is not unclear or waffling about it at all, but turning oneself into a pretzel to explain the possible effects of his bill seems to me to be begging the issue. The nuance can be down belowand/or in the longer article. The lede is a list of some of his prominent positions, and there's just no argument that this isn't one of them. NARAL's rating is irrelevant here - it can go somewhere else as an interesting effect of some of his past votes. But he makes his position clear - why would we want to equivocate on it? Tvoz |talk 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves." -Ron Paul (at [11]) -- there are others too. My point is that although there are a lot of quotes by him supportive of the pro-life position, you could find an equal number of quotes supportive of this more nuanced position. Rinkuhero 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The "unshakable foe of abortion" quote comes from Paul's own campaign web site.[12] ←BenB4 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz that Paul's position on abortion appears to be less nuanced than some of his other positions. It does seem that he typically votes on measures that limit federal involvement in abortion/privacy matters on the basis that it is a matter for the states to decide, but his personal position is clearly pro-life. Accordingly, I don't understand why it is a problem to indicate that Paul is pro-life within the summary. Jogurney 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul get detailed about abortion in this interview, August 16, 2007 - Ron Paul interview battles Air America Randi Rhodes Show, found on ronpaulaudio.com: [13] He indicates that the definition of life becomes problematic early in the pregnancy and indicates that because of this problem the state should decide not only whether to allow or prohibit it but to decide at what point in the pregnancy to prohibit or allow it. I think this detail should be noted in the article. It shows that he doesn't view at as a simply an issue of prohibit or allow. Operation Spooner 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a quote on that, by any chance?--Gloriamarie 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Part the 2nd

Since I have been invited by BenB4 to reenter this never-ending debate, I will give it another shot. Sure Paul is pro-life. He is also anti-federal. The two define his position and cannot be separated. If his position on abortion is mentioned in the lead it must be qualified. BenB4 wishes to simply label him as anti-abortion in the hopes of turning away pro-choice voters across the board. But Paul would have potential pro-choice support in pro-choice states because they would not be affected by a hands-off federal government. They simply need to finish reading the articles. Paul considers individual states to be the arena for the abortion battle. Again, if mentioned in the lead, his position needs to be clear enough for readers to dissociate him from the neocons who wish to prohibit abortion to all states - regardless of the tenth amendment. JLMadrigal 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

After trying to keep up with the back and forth over this, I'm feeling some nostalgia for this earlier attempt at a compromise:

Paul describes himself as "an unshakable foe of abortion"[9] and opposes capital punishment, stating that the individual states must be allowed to decide such issues in accordance with the 10th amendment.[10]

I think it captures his stance on abortion fairly well because it communicates both a Constitutionalist and moral basis for Paul's opposition to abortion. Both of those things are present in pretty much every statement Paul makes on abortion, as far as I can tell.

So remind me: What was wrong with this again? --Proper tea is theft 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that solution, but "these issues" rather than "such issues" would make it clearer that that phrase is referring to both abortion and capital punishment.--Gloriamarie 15:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Two things:
  • It conflicts with the fact that he has voted in congress to ban abortions;
  • It conflicts with the fact that he wants his own amendment to the Constitution that would make the 10th Amendment irrelevant. ←BenB4 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's going to be a compromise on this without some acknowledgment that Paul sees abortion as a problem (social, moral, and legal) to be solved through decreasing the power of the federal government (I hope that I have worded this correctly). Assuming that you don't 100% reject this summary of Paul's position, is there any way that you could you suggest some alternate wording that would acknowledge this in some way? Perhaps it could be more general than the wording that invokes the 10th amendment.--Proper tea is theft 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would probably be able to go along with that if he wasn't trying to get embryos defined as people at the federal level. Legislative findings and declarations have the full force of law, and I added two sources, which were apparently removed more than a week ago, which said that defining life to begin at conception would make abortion prosecutable as murder. ←BenB4 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see your sources, but I did see another user's comment that they were not reliable ones. That is probably why they were removed. Just fyi, banning something at the federal level only means that federal authorities can prosecute that-- states would not be authorized to do so. As one example showing this quite well, medical marijuana is banned at the federal level and enforced by the DEA. States do not prosecute that. States have passed their own laws going against those federal laws and legalizing medical marijuana; even though it's a federal crime, they do not prosecute or make arrests and in fact have their own way of handling licensing of marijuana as medicine. It is the same for illegal immigration and any other number of federal crimes. Localities and states do not prosecute. It is possible that the "life begins at conception" statement would have no effect other than ceremonial; I'm not sure if that's true, but it certainly cannot be assumed that abortion would automatically treated as murder.--Gloriamarie 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you should keep out of this what you think the motivations of the editors are, JLMadrigal - I don't know if you're right or wrong about BenB4's motivation - I am looking just at the facts presented here. My reading of Ron Paul's position papers and his campaign site indicate a clear pro-life stand on his part - as I said above and Jogurney agreed with. This is a biographical sketch of a man who has certain convictions, positions, etc. That his position can be used or interpreted by one group or another in wildly different ways is not our concern here. In fact the man has clearly and unambiguously said that he is pro-life, and the lede is a summary, not a place for explication of the nuances of how his position can be interpreted. HE is pro-life, not pro-life with a caveat about the states or about the Constitution even. And Ben is right that a so-called simple statement including the 10th amendment is disingenuous (that word again) in light of his own proposed amendment. So don't go there in the lede - you can't possibly present the subtleties in the lede. Do it below, do it in the other article. I'm sounding like a broken record already - and I don't know BenB4 and have never interacted or edited with him before. So please don't make any assumptions there either. I'm coming back to this article, having stopped editing it a while ago for this very reason - there is way too much partisanship here, on both sides. Leave your politics at the door, folks, or we'll never get anywhere. This is getting tedious, after only a day. Sorry for the lecture, but I think this is ridiculous. There are so many politicians who equivocate all over the place that when you have one who makes a clear statement of his position onsomething - like it or hate it - you don't know what to do with it. Kind of ironic. One last thing - saying that he is pro-life will both attract voters and repel voters - so, again, that is not our concern and not relevant to the editing of this article. Can we please move on? Tvoz |talk 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just re-read the above - I am talking about the lede, not the part below and I rjust realized that JLMadrigal is referring to the part below - let me take another look at that. My comments were talking about including the words "pro-life" in the lede where I put them yesterday. Sorry if i was too hasty - I'll be back when I read the whole thing in context. Tvoz |talk 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok: I've gone over the article again, and tried a different approach to some of it that I hope will satisfy some of the concerns about making the political positions section too focused on abortion. Essentially what I did is pull out the Sanctity of Life and We the People Acts and moved them both to Legislation where they more properly belong, with only a footnote reference to them in the Political positions section. I reinstated "pro-life" in the lede which I think is essential, and also moved "states rights" up to be next to it. (Pro-life is first in that list only because of the syntax of the sentence - can't say "he supports pro-life" and this seems the shortest, simplest way to go. I don't object to that sentence being rearranged so pro-life isn't first, as long as it doesn't get unwieldy.) I reworked the pro-life portion of political positions to consolidate the points made there that were redundant, and to cast it in what I believe is a fair and accurate way - as I discussed above, and as Jogurney concurred, there is really no question about his pro-life convictions. He has been upfront and clear about them, with multiple reasons for his reaching his conclusions. It is incorrect to imply that his anti-abortion stance is based on his also heartfelt belief in states rights - that is ignoring the forest for the trees. His pro-life beliefs are just that, and his method of addressing the problem, as Proper tea points out, is to get the Federal government out of it. I believe, however, that the two bills (SoL and WTP - especially SoL) go quite a bit farther than just supporting states rights, and I am not willing to agree that his position is just in support of the 10th amendment. So I've tried to skirt that debate by stating what we know to be actual facts, supported by citations - his own statements and the bills he has submitted. And I tried to be mindful of the concern that the section not be weighted too much toward the abortion issue, but I think it is not realistic to say that it's just one more issue. It is one of the major issues of our day, and the end result of what appears to be Paul's position (true about many of his positions, in fact) would certainly change the course of events and social policy in this country. Whether you agree with him or not, these are issues that people will come here to look for information on, and we have to try to objectively present his positions and his actions and let readers conclude what they will. Campaign spins are irrelevant and the pretzel-twisting doesn't work - on either side of the issues. I hope this re-working will allow us to move along to the next thing. Tvoz |talk 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A full paragraph on abortion/pov tag

Whatever happened to summarizing? This belongs on the political position article. If you want a full paragraph on abortion there should be a full paragraph on every single major political issue. This section is undue weight and should be thinned and merged into one of the other paragraphs. Easy and clear example of undue weight. Turtlescrubber 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, but the section has been a compromise among different factions. What about moving it to the Legislation section, which has a description of related legislation? I agreed to it as a compromise, but I think it does border on undue weight; I think giving it its own subsection makes that even worse, though.--Gloriamarie 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a political position - legislation is legislation. But I'll reduce it to one footnoted word if we have some semblance of consensus (which of course doesn't mean unanimity - this is wikipedia, after all). Tvoz |talk 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE refers to the quality of individual sources, not weight in the sense of how much text is devoted to a topic. Given Turtlescrubber's recent edits, I strongly suggest that he familiarize himself with WP:POINT as well. The insertion of the pro-life "nuance" is discussed at length above. I would be happy to say only that he is opposed to abortion, but others insist that we qualify that with his states' rights position which is not consistent with his congressional votes or legislation. ←BenB4 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Refers to the quality of individual sources"? You think Undue Weight only refers to the quality of individual sources. Did you take a whole 4 seconds to glance at the page? You should read the whole policy page before trying to lecture anyone.Turtlescrubber 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with it. It refers to "minority views" and nothing else. Are you saying that Paul's position on abortion is a minority view? ←BenB4 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[reply to turtlescrubber's initial comment]Well, that's not really what undue weight means here - that's when you give too much attention to one side of an argument and don't present it fairly. I don't see where you conclude this is POV - what, POV that there's more to say about his views on abortion than his views on a national ID card? I could easily accept just saying he's pro-life, perhaps with a footnote with the rest of that paragraph, but you had people here going ballistic about that too, wanting a somewhat incomprehensible mention of the 10th amendment, (as if readers would understand that in the way they do the 1st amendment) - so this was an attempt to satisfy both sides of that dispute. Give me consensus on this and I'll happily reduce his abortion stance - which to my eyes isn't so nuanced at all - to the word pro-life, because that's what he is. But watch what happens if I do that. Tvoz |talk 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that JLMadrigal is the only one at this point who would be unsatisfied with simply saying he is opposed to abortion or pro-life. ←BenB4 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than scrubbing all of that explanatory stuff which adds perspective , I moved it into a footnote like this - this method is used on other candidates' pages to satisfy the concerns of people who have strong feelings on something but don't have consensus - I see no harm in doing this here. Tvoz |talk 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do actually think the paragraph should be included to explain the position rather than only saying "he is against abortion," which seems cut-and-dried but does not separate him from most pro-life politicians, who wish to abolish it at the federal level. I listened to the radio interview posted above by user Operation Spooner, and Paul reiterated that he did not want to abolish abortion at the federal level and wanted to leave it to states. Here's a transcript of the exchange.--Gloriamarie 05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Liberals too often don't give us freedom of choice in economic policy, and I give freedom of choice and everything else for women on economic policy, which is half of everything you do in life. But, this idea about whether you can kill an unborn child or not has to do with the definition of life, as an OB doctor let me guarantee you, there's a lot of legal ramifications about the eight- or nine-pound baby right before birth, if I do harm, I get sued, if you're in a car accident and kill that fetus, you're liable. If somebody's involved in violence, you get arrested for murder. And the legal life begins at conception because of inheritance rights, so it's a very difficult problem at times. Most people don't like the idea of dumping babies in a basket that weigh five pounds, and at the same time, because of the difficulty, once again, I think this is best handled at the state level and not have a federal mandate that either abolishes it completely and totally or legalizes it completely and totally, I mean this whole idea that a federal court could come in and deal with a very, very difficult issue and draw up medical criteria for the first, second and third trimester is absolutely bizarre. So I would say that this is difficult, there are certain circumstances that are difficult, that local people ought to have laws, they deal all the time in other examples of violence, first- and second-degree murder and

manslaughter and all kinds of different things, that different states sort these things out. To me, it has nothing to do with choice, it has to do with whether life exists. If that life...or.."

Host:"What about a zygote?"

Paul: "That's where the difficulty is, and I think the definitions become complex, and therefore you don't want one answer for every single person, but you know these people who want to promote the abortion talk about zygotes and they forget that one minute before birth they're willing to say that that baby has no life, no rights to life, but you know if a baby's born, one minute later if the teenager throws it away, do you think she should be charged with murder or a crime if she can throw her child away?"

:Host:"In the same way, getting to the position you take on cross burning, which oddly enough I happen to agree with, burning a cross I suppose on your own property, as long as you're not in violation of some local fire-abatement standards is probably legal, but burning it on somebody else's property is a violation of that person's rights, and I would make that same distinction for the person who drove into the car of the pregnant woman."

:Paul:"Well yeah, a crime is.. an act of violence has been committed, the fire example could be used as far as flag burning too, you know. You don't have a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and cross burning, and of course that has... you lose all respect for the concept of freedom of expression, so that's why- you know this idea that we resort to the federal courts and the federal Congress to solve these difficult problems is just not the proper way as far as I'm concerned. If you want it that way and everybody agrees with you, change the Constitution and set up a monolithic government, and then, uh, if conservatives get in charge then you're faced with the conservatives who are in charge at the national level, if the liberals in charge, then the conservatives fight about it, but I just think the republican form of government, where there's local government, is much better, let individuals solve most of these problems that come up in our lives."

Are you paying attention Mr. B4? I have inserted the following compromise sentence into the second paragraph:
"Paul is pro-life in a broad sense, opposing both capital punishment and abortion, but he believes that, for the most part, regulation must be handled at the state level until and unless the Constitution is amended."
Deal? JLMadrigal 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not consistent with trying to define life as beginning at conception in federal law. Also, he is now on the record as supporting capital punishment if not the governments implementing it. ←BenB4 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it has to be mentioned, since that is how he usually states his position and he says explicitly above that it should not be abolished federally at the federal level. The Sanctity of Life Act gets a large mention now in the Legislation section. Saying that his stated position somehow specifically conflicts with his legislative actions within the article cannot be done unless a reliable source has criticized him for this. Until then, I think that his own stated position has to be included and not in the footnotes. --Gloriamarie 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not our job as editors to act as stenographers and report what "he usually states." If you want to say he's in favor of states' rights, you have to mention the federal actions which contradict that, or you are in violation of the foundational WP:NPOV policy. ←BenB4 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is our job as "stenographers" to report what reliable sources say; if you can find reliable sources that say his actions conflict with his statements, then that can be specifically mentioned; if not, you are conducting original research and violating the NPOV policy.--Gloriamarie 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be true if I was proposing to insert a statement saying that his actions and his statements conflict. I am only asking that both be included on equal footing. ←BenB4 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
They're certainly not on equal footing now, with one side only being mentioned in the footnotes and the other side getting unequal time with descriptions of the two acts in question in the Legislation section (not that I object to that placement, but there is no "equivocation" sentence on that legislation as you're trying to insert in the Political Positions section). I don't see what you're objecting to-- it can't be said that Ron Paul usually says that he is against regulation at the federal level and has in the past voted that way as well (see below for a few instances)? That is certainly backed by reliable sources. The word "usually" would take care of any exceptions, and the two acts in question are detailed in the Legislation section.--Gloriamarie 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

JLMAdrigal - sorry, but can you read? He is not pro-life in the "broad" sense, and he'd be the first to tell you that. He is pro-life in every sense. He is clear about it. He doesn't waffle about it. You and I may or may not agree with him - not that it is relevant either way - but I can't stand by and watch you twist his clear position into something that you either find more acceptable or you think others will. This is not a campaign piece - it is a biography. He is pro-life. Those are his beliefs. The way he wants to get the rest of the country in line with that core belief takes several tacks - one of which is proposing a law that defines life as beginning at conception. Please explain to me how this was not explained in my edit. I agree that part of his position is to make this the states' responsiblities but the SoL Act and any comstitutional amenment outloawing abortion would put a damper on that I would say. The latest version of the footnote works for me. I might even agree with your wording, but not with "in the broad sense" - and frankly I think it is making his clear statement of his convictions murky and convoluted. Tvoz |talk 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be mentioned in the article-- and yes, I can read, in case you want to ask me too. --96.225.76.200 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that better words could be used than "in the broad sense," but please assume good faith and don't assume what other editors' motivations might be. He may be "pro-life in every sense" to you, but that usually denotes attempting to ban it at the federal level and he has voted against measures doing that, and for that reason he has much higher rankings from NARAL, etc. than other pro-life politicians do. As one example, he voted twice against making it a federal crime to assault an unborn fetus/child. He also voted against prohibiting minors from being transported to neighboring states for abortions. If you follow the abortion discourse at all, that's a favorite way of many pro-life politicians to try to de facto ban abortions. Some of those bills each had close to 100 co-sponsors, most of whom are pro-life politicians and wish to abolish abortion at the federal level (as Paul states above, he does not want that). To try to say there's no distinction at all is puzzling.--Gloriamarie 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not only puzzling, it's disingenuous with respect to his actual position. From what I've seen here it appears that one or two folks are trying very hard to paint Ron Paul as black/white in order to support their own POV of the candidate - specifically, as being anti-abortion as they themselves define it, rather than as Ron Paul himself does. This isn't a bloody blog and shouldn't be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.53.186 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell research

Should we not include his opposition to Federally-funded stem cell research? The political positions article is vague, only talking about how he characterizes the two sides of the issue, but not stating his position on the subject. This is disingenuous, and leaving it out here is as well. Tvoz |talk 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The section here is supposed to be a summary of Political positions of Ron Paul; I would add it there first and then come back to discuss it here. This does mention that he votes against most federal funding. The political positions section in this article has gotten way out of hand with going into minutiae. For comparison, John Edwards does not mention stem cell research at all, and is less than half the size of this section. Barack Obama doesn't have a political positions section, and stem cell research is only mentioned by saying that he and Alan Keyes had opposing views, but not saying what those are. Mitt Romney's does mention it, but he has made a big deal about that and his subsequent conversion to pro-life positions in his campaign. If his position is not stated correctly in the other article, please fix it.--Gloriamarie 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict - reply to original comment] You missed my point, Gloriamarie, or perhaps I didn't make it clearly. The Political positions of Ron Paul article has a section on stem cell research which if I recall correctly just quotes Paul on how he characterizes the two sides of the argument - pro and anti Federal funding of it - and does not clearly indicate which position he takes. That is what I referred to as disingenuous - if we're talking about the issue and talking about how he sees the two sides of it, I think we need to clearly spell out what his position is. As for this article - the editors here have chosen, for whatever reasons, to go into minutiae on his positions - and for some reason have left this one out. I think if all of those others are in, so should this one be as it has been a major issue in recent elections, and it is odd to have been left out. As for the other candidates' pages, as you know, each one has chosen to handle political positions (and other things) differently - so if the ones you mentioned went into the kind of detail that this one does on dozens of issues and left out stem cell research, I'd question it there too. In fact Obama , Clinton and Romney have sections in their "Political positions" articles, and I've asked why Edwards doesn't - it will shortly. They have chosen to not go into such detail in the main article on many issues. I haven't checked the other candidates' articles yet. Tvoz |talk 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Now responding to the edit - I brought it to talk rather than changing it because I don't usually edit the Political positions of Ron Paul article and don't have the facts in hand, which I assume others here and there do. So they are in a better position to include his stand fairly - I can research it, but thought someone here would likely be able to fix it faster than I can, as it goes on a pretty long queue for me. Tvoz |talk 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realized what you were referring to once I posted and then went back- I'm very sorry about that. I am not opposed to it being here if it is in the other article, since this section is supposed to be a summary. Do you have any ideas for ways to help this section get back into more of a summary mode? That's a good idea, I may even do it myself or mention it on the talk page there.--Gloriamarie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
NOt a problem - I just didn't feel like rewriting my reply as I was poised to post it. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea for how to help the six-paragraph Positions section get back into more of a summary of the forty-three section Positions article. It starts with ex and ends with pand. ←BenB4 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Lets put the whole article in there!Turtlescrubber 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the paragraph on abortion and the paragraph on the We the People Act as "summary sprawl." Why do you believe that information should not be included? ←BenB4 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A good solution could be to change the We the People Act paragraph to a list of legislation he's sponsored or supported, with links to articles if appropriate or brief explanations. That would cover a lot more ground.--Gloriamarie 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not opposed in principle, but he's sponsored 76 and cosponsored 354 bills, just in the 108th Congress.[14]. Maybe that should be a separate article with its own summary section here? ←BenB4 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but it would be a large project and quite a task to decide which bills should be included and which shouldn't.--Gloriamarie 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have a legislation section, and that's where his legislation should go, not political positions. I moved the Sanctity of Life and We the People Acts there - it makes more sense that way. And yes, he has sponsored numerous bills - I think people can go over them and if there are others that are notable, or have gotten any press, or there's some way they epitomize his positions, then we should add them to that section as well. If worse comes to worst, and the legislation section becomes too large, we can fork it off to its own article in tried and true wikipedia style. I don't see this as a problem. Of course I haven't looked yet to see if any of my edits have remained... Tvoz |talk 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The We the People Act hasn't actually gotten any press; it never got out of committee and no editor has found reliable third party sources mentioning it yet. The Sanctity of Life Act has gotten that sort of attention, though.--Gloriamarie 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it did get some write ups. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the sources are reliable or the bill is accurately described: [15][16][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48319][17][18] ←BenB4 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gloriamarie - note that I said "some way they epitomize his positions" - WtP pretty clearly explains his point of view and he introduced it three times to my knowledge, so I think he thinks so too. Lots of bills don't get out of committee, but that doesn't make them unnotable. Tvoz |talk 03:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-introducing the bills doesn't necessarily mean anything for one particular bill over another, because he actually re-introduces most of his bills every single Congressional section. I just added an education bill he's introduced six straight times. That's why there are so many introduced each session. Sure, getting out of committee doesn't make them un-notable, but having no reliable sources reporting on the bill could be perceived as showing that something is not notable (since Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say).--Gloriamarie 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So do you think that the education bill is notable or are you making a different point? Tvoz |talk 04:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't making a statement on the notability of either, just saying that the fact that he re-introduces the bills does not inherently give notability because he seems to re-introduce all of his bills.--Gloriamarie 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant because you added the education bill to the article, I assume you think it's notable even though no citations were given. (I don't object, I just thought you were saying that only bills with press should be included.) Tvoz |talk 05:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That bill actually has gotten written about by some organizations, I just have not yet added it to the article and in fact made its own article where it's more appropriate to discuss it.--Gloriamarie 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"intertwined"

Well, that lasted five days. ←BenB4 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. It's the best compromise to date. Are you good with it Ben? JLMadrigal 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
see section below. Photouploaded 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we didn't exactly have a source saying it, but it seemed better than an straightforward statement implying that he never voted or introduced legislation or an amendment at the federal level. ←BenB4 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would "linked" be a better way to say it?--Gloriamarie 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. We just need to avoid implying he's never taken federal action against abortion. ←BenB4 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

"His [i.e. Paul's] pro-life and states' rights positions are intertwined." What does this even mean? "Intertwined" according to whom? This is just bad writing, it has no sources to back it up (never mind explain). I think that if someone were to come to this article, not knowing anything about Paul, and they were to read this sentence, it would make no sense to them at all. Photouploaded 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He says that he is personally pro-life and does not want a federal solution for it, wanting the states to decide whether to abolish it or allow it. That sentence is the result of some tenuous compromising (see the many discussions above) but of course if you can think of a better way to say it, feel free. A full paragraph on that is in the Political positions section if you look down further.--Gloriamarie 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have read as much of that as I could stomach, and I still maintain that it's a weasel-worded statement, whether it's sourced to him or not. There is absolutely no reason not to make his personal and political pro-life aims apparent in the lede. Abortion is a top ethical and social issue, his views should be made clear. Paul's self-reported spin on things isn't a substitute for NPOV. Photouploaded 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It says he's pro-life-- to go into too much more detail is not appropriate when there are many other positions that also need to be mentioned. The intro already leaves out many things, and at least one user complains below that the intro is too long the way it is. There is a reason not to go into the detail you apparently wish in the lead, and that is because it would bring down the quality of the article. The political positions section in the article is a summary of Political positions of Ron Paul, and the opening sentence is in turn a summary of that summary section. It can't go on at great length about any one subject.--Gloriamarie 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the intertwining comment is perfect and needs to be left alone. Photoupload, I suggest you read the whole article before barging in and trying to rewrite everything. Better yet, just stick to uploading photos. 80.74.247.74 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal opinion that it's "perfect" isn't a useful argument. Requesting clarification of one sentence is not "rewriting everything". You end with a snide comment. Useless. Photouploaded 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
so you don’t see the irony in your "reasoning"? I didn't end with a snide comment, I actually ended with some useful advice, to both you and the community. If you are unable to comprehend simple sentences then I suggest you resist changing Wiki entries. Requesting clarification comprises of rewriting the first paragraph and political position sections does it?? No wonder I never learnt anything from my teachers when I asked "can you explain this?". You may find my comment useless (as we have seen, because you didn't understand it) but at least I am not giving useless Wiki updates to pages which gives more work to the real editors who then have to go back and fix everything you ruined. 80.74.247.74 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now it's worse. The article states that he says they are intertwined, but that word does not appear in http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html -- the given source. ←BenB4 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If it said: "He says they are 'interwined,'" then yes, that would have to be a direct quote. However, he repeatedly says they are closely linked and "intertwined" is just another way of phrasing that. Previously, it wasn't sourced at all. I also phrased it that way because it's based on his words, and I thought that was better than a blanket statement that they are intertwined. You can take out the "he says" part if you think that makes it more subjective.--Gloriamarie 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Boiling down Paul's pro-life viewpoint to half a sentence effectively sanitizes his stance. The mantle of "states' rights" is certainly convenient when it comes to the Sanctity of Life Act, which if passed would have effectively rendered Roe v. Wade null and void. How is it appropriate to only mention his pro-life views in terms of his states' rights views? In my opinion his personal pro-life stance is an entity of its own, and it should be reflected as such in the lede. Photouploaded 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That would often be true in the case of other politicians; however, with Paul even many of his opponents admit that he has philosophical consistency, this has been noted often in news stories, and he often votes against laws that would regulate things at the federal level, including an amendment to ban gay marriage, proposing a law that wouldn't allow the FDA to regulate vitamins as medicine, and federal drug enforcement against terminally ill medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized medical marijuana by referendum. One of the things he says most often is that he does not wish to regulate things at the federal level, and when asked about abortion, he almost always specifically says he does not think it's appropriate to either abolish it or legalize it at the federal level. Perhaps it might help to take a look at some of the sources listed for the article and familiarize yourself with what Paul has said on the issue.--Gloriamarie 19:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Paul's views on abortion in the lede

Abortion is a top-tier ethical issue, and Paul's position should be reflected clearly in the lede. I propose adding the following to the lede:

Paul describes himself as "pro-life";{1}{2} he believes that "life begins at conception",{3} and he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.

What are your thoughts on this? Photouploaded 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a good edit at all. We already had acres of discussion on this on the talk page (see above), and the intro is a summary of a summary section. The Sanctity of Life Act is thoroughly discussed in the Legislation section. To elevate it above all his legislative bills, including ones that actually made it into law, and to have so many direct quotes, is giving abortion undue weight in the intro. Civil liberties and free speech are a "top-tier ethical issue" in my mind, but there's nothing in the lead about how Paul is one of the few people to often vote against bills restricting freedom of speech (there are many examples).--Gloriamarie 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Abortion

the wikipedia article states that ron paul supports state control over abortion "unless" the Constitution is amended. the present powers that be are not likely to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion,so the next best thing is to allow the individual states to decide and keep abortion out of the United States Constitution altogether. this is not a compromise. what can ron paul do about this? he cannot make a decree outlawing abortions.

ron pauls campaign website, ronpaul2008.com lists his view on abortion as such:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
Life and Liberty
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.26 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In general we describe people how they describe themselves (WP:ID) and saying that any implication that he is pro-life requires a nuance concerning his states' rights position ignores the fact that he has voted to ban abortions in Congress and has introduced federal legislation that would define life as beginning at conception. ←BenB4 06:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, BenB4. Furthermore, I think the veil of "states' rights" needs to be lifted, here. Paul's attempts, at the federal level, to restrict and/or or deny access to abortion go far beyond any dedication to states' rights. They need to be addressed as what they are. We need to describe Paul's pro-life views and actions, simply and factually, without baggage or spin. Photouploaded 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason we can't say that Paul is pro-life; but there's also no reason not to also say what he says when he talks about it, which is that he believes it's best left up to the states.--Gloriamarie 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life ref

In a previous version, the article section titled Political positions had one sentence on Paul's pro-life views, followed by a ref containing an entire paragraph of information on Paul's pro-life views. This strikes me as an improper use of the references section. If there is so much information on his pro-life viewpoint, it should be incorporated into the article at the discretion of the editors. It should not buried in the References section. If the entire article were written like this, the References section would be large and unwieldy. I have since moved the info from this large, bulky reference into the article, and requested citations where they seem to be missing.

Of particular interest is the phrase, "Paul believes that Paul believes that, for the most part, regulation must be handled at the state level, until and unless the Constitution is amended." What is the exception to this belief, that requires stating "for the most part"? Can we get a ref for the part about the Constitution? Thanks. Photouploaded 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this has now been moved so high up on the page, probably no one will see it to be able to respond. For a history on the footnotes section, take a look above at previous discussions; that was a compromise on user Tvoz's part.--Gloriamarie 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My pro-life summary

Let me first applaud Tvoz for moving the two acts to Legislation as that has apparently defused a lot of the issue. Reading the whole of the above sections (apologies if my combining them confused anyone) and comparing against unresolved issues in the current article, I get these, with some overlap:

  1. Paul supported PBABA why: states' rights or pro-life? Former seems to demand context, latter seems to demand none.
  2. Paul makes pro-life statements like "murder" of unborn: Same dichotomy.
  3. The 2 bills (SOLA and WTPA) and the Pro-Life Amendment: Too much coverage or too little?
  4. Are Paul's "libertarian" states' rights views and these pro-life federal activities in conflict? I.e., why can feds ban PBAs or amend definition of "life" if it's up to the states?
  5. Is Paul "pro-life" with nuance (intertwined, linked), or without? I.e., how to summarize in lead?
  6. Does Paul prefer the 10th Amendment or the proposed Pro-Life Amendment?
  7. Is the PBA ban improper federal encroachment if Roe v Wade is also?
  8. Is Paul's solution really less federal power?
  9. Are legislative findings laws and do they link irreversibly to abortion being murder?
  10. Does he ever support capital punishment or governments using it?
  11. He voted against criminalizing fetal assault and crossing state lines for abortions: pro-life?
  12. Include his stem-cell position, or is that improper balance?
  13. Can states' rights be "unlinked" and the veil lifted?
  14. In Political Positions, how much should be main and how much footnoted?

I think it will inform consensus edits and answer these questions if we remember that Paul believes his position consistent and if we attempt to determine that position. We have "I am strongly pro-life"; yet his website downplays "talk about being pro-life" in favor of actually acting to protect the unborn, which implies that the label itself has been misused. So there IS some kind of nuance necessary (5). Then on the other hand "this is best handled at the state level and not have a federal mandate", while he clearly regards PBABA, SOLA, WTPA, and the Pro-Life Amendment as permissible exceptions to state jurisdiction. One might argue a contradiction: PBABA presumably infringes the state's "right" to permit PBAs; and SOLA and the Amendment, its "right" to exempt killing of fetuses from murder laws. (WTPA, however, returns the right to the state to make its own decisions about "abortion rights".)

Please review "Freedom Under Siege" where Paul explains the paradox that one can't "legislate morality" yet all law is founded in moral principle. His resolution is that legislators should NOT impose minority morality (e.g. persnickety regulations over porn) but MUST impose broad-consensus morality (e.g. banning murder). Thus PBABA harmonizes, because he believes Congress by medical fact-finding (PBA is never necessary for maternal health), and USSC in Gonzalez v Carhart, have established that PBA is evil enough and widely objectionable enough to ban federally. Roe v Wade, however, is considered an overreach of a lobbyist minority's morality (7). (BTW, fact-finding is NOT law; only the statutes, not the preambles and resolutions, are law: Constitution Article 6.) His support of PBABA is thus wholly pro-life and can be disconnected from states' rights, because it doesn't abridge Roe's "abortion rights" (1).

SOLA and the Amendment seek to define personhood to protect the unborn. But he also admits "you don't want one answer for every single person" when the debate moves to zygotes: states' rights kick in. He cites liability for fetal death by accident or violence or abortion all in the same breath, and then rejects "a federal mandate that either abolishes it completely and totally or legalizes it completely and totally". If these 2 laws were to say abortion is always murder, then they would abolish abortion completely: since he thinks they don't, they must be readable as saying abortion is not always murder (or else we are leaving NPOV and accusing him of a contradiction). Well, the fact is (IIRC, IANAL) that laws defining murder rely on the then-existing definition of "person" and are not automatically changed when personhood is broadened. Rather, the states must make new law in light of the newly-existing legal or Constitutional definition, which law might then define fetal death as manslaughter in some cases and accidental in others. Ben's two cites that misequate personhood law with "abortion being murder" (and both relate to state not federal law!) quote a pro-lifer, who has personal interest in advancing the equation, and a PP leader, whose statement is too full of "could"s to be meaningful (and the link was bad too). The second article even admits admits the law "does not address criminal penalties", and neither does Paul's legislation. So in sum, the laws do NOT link abortion to murder as they stand (9). They also do not dictate how states will afterward legislate what constitutes murder in light thereof, and therefore do not infringe states' rights either to permit or to restrain abortion (4).

Proceeding from there I can conclude also: Paul's personal statements about abortion being murder inform, but do not enter into, his legislation (2); Paul's bills are properly placed in Legislation, but the two paragraphs can be combined without loss (3); Paul supports the Constitution with whatever amendments it has at any moment, and its amendments are taken as mutually noncontradictory (i.e., as amended, the states would have rights to determine how to handle criminally the deemed personhood of the preborn) (6); each of his proposals does restrict federal power (i.e., its power to enforce "abortion rights") (8); and the nuance need not be so strong as "linked" or "intertwined" (though I like those) because there is a separability (13).

To side issues I add: If he has some sourceable record of favoring capital punishment in some way, put that in the Political Positions article (10); same disposition for any sourced description of his opposing new criminalization of abortion-related activities (although they might appear in this article's summary with another sourced compromise disclaimer, viz., "Paul also votes against many new federal crime laws, such as ...") (11); and the current SOLA text makes enough passing implication to Paul's opposition to killing fetuses for stem cell research to be sufficient (12).

Finally, the abortion paragraph as footnote seems to say the same thing 6 times (he is pro-life). The SOLA reference can be dropped or minimized because already present; others can be combined. Since I already advocated joining the "federal regulation of marriage" clause in with the abortion issue, I think they can remain their own paragraph as such (14), and the "don't ask don't tell" sentence fits better there than in paragraph 1 as well.

I also have two nitpicks of my own: SOLA "negates", not "overturns", Roe ("overturns" is technical); and it outlaws "new" fetal stem cell research (research with existing cell lines is permitted). So here we go:

Proposed Resolution (my best shot)
  1. Lead: 'Paul reconciles being "strongly pro-life" <teamliberty>, opposed to federal death penalties <American View>, and favorable to states' rights <Randi Rhodes>.' "Reconcile" implies "link" or "intertwine" as well as recognizing there is some potential disparity between these three positions, which we explain in the body. (I guess we need to mention capital punishment in the body then.)
  2. Legislation: 'In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would provide that human life exists from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade.[77][81] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[78][79] Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.[80][81]'
  3. Positions: 'Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion"[FN] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[American View]* Paul also opposes federal regulation of "voluntary associations" [FN] like marriages or civil unions, believing marriage is not a state function and should not require a government license. [FN] Medically, he recognizes homosexuality is "too complex to give a [simple] answer", [FN] but he has affirmed that, if Christians restrict the Constitutional or civil liberties of others, it can have blowback against the rights of Christians. [FN][FN] He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent," to focus on behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[113][114]' See my cites above under "Marriage". *The key sentence harmonizes the American View paragraph and the legislation. PBABA does not regulate medical decisions because PBA is found medically unnecessary. SOLA and the Pro-Life Amendment also do not regulate decisions: they affirm personhood and leave the states free to regulate. WTPA also removes regulation of maternal-fetal decisions.
  4. Footnote: 'Paul says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception. Paul's pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and because he wants to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[FN][FN]'

Now take your best shot! John J. Bulten 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like intertwined better than reconciles, the latter implies compromising more than just tempering. ←BenB4 01:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, in context it would be "Paul intertwines". And Ben, thank you so much for removing the POV tag! If there is anything we 40,000 supporters can do to facilitate understanding, let us know!

I'm going to go through the rest of the talk page with my comments though first, and then proceed to make the changes as well as improvements in grammar, style, wordiness, etc. John J. Bulten 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet popularity

Why do we need an entire section devoted to his Internet popularity (especially since this is a subset of his campaign article)? Yes, I agree his popularlity is notable, but an entire section? And the section essentially follows this format: Paul is popular on website A. Paul is also popular on website B. Furthermore, Paul is popular on website C. Additionally, Paul is popular on website D. Can't this be summarized in a single paragraph--Daveswagon 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually had the same feeling for a while now. He does have a decent sized Internet following, which is probably how it got into Wikipedia (cf. self-fulfilling prophecy and WP:BIAS :P), but I'll leave it up to other editors. Narco 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} I'd rather see that go than the description of his legislation, for goodness sake. ←BenB4 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

...I took out a couple things like how many MySpace friends he has. To be blunt, we don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.201.56.15 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, in a section called "Internet Popularity," that may very well be relevant.--Gloriamarie 07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon was pointing to the very part that came to my mind, actually. It's not that it's not relevant as much as it's not of sufficient importance for inclusion in the main article. I can live with the Internet popularity section as it stands right now unless something earth-shattering happens to his campaign that would relegate things like YouTube to the main campaign article. Narco 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles like Hillary Clinton's don't make mention of every straw poll she is leading, so why should Paul have every website mentioned that he tops?--Daveswagon 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care either way whether this section is in the main article; I'm willing to go with the consensus. An argument could be made that his "Internet popularity" has gotten him more attention than he ever had before, so it is one of the most noteworthy things about him. An argument could also be made that it is part of his campaign so it belongs in his spinoff Presidential campaign article.--Gloriamarie 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He just passed 29,000 YouTube subscribers. John J. Bulten 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me from a limited check that his internet popularity is due to his following among the neo-nazi right (eg www.stormfront.org[www.stormfront.org]) and from the hits generated by the many people (myself included) who checked out who this apparently dangerous neo-facist was having seen him on these dangerous sites. I have no doubt that he is neither a serious threat or a serious election candidate and as such his apparent internet popularity is irrelevant.--Gramscis cousin 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article just for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.37.164 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent link, 67.134.37.164. Gramscis-- if you want a place to insert your hogwash opinions, please do the Wikipedia community a favor and start your own blog, rather than littering your comments and lies on Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks!146.82.18.10 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Political positions section

'Note: if you have arrived here from the dispute box, the alternate version is shown on this diff.

Why was the summary of the legislation Paul has introduced and the list of agencies he has said he would abolish removed from the political positions section? ←BenB4 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a summary. Turtlescrubber 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe his positions can be accurately described without a brief summary of the Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act, which are far better indicators of his positions than his speeches. Therefore, I have added a {{POV}} tag. I note that those summaries stood for weeks without objection -- why now? ←BenB4 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Why now or why then, that's beside the point and is quite irrelevant to this conversation. How about because people hadn't noticed the slow sprawl. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the article in a few weeks, and when I returned, I was surprised at how bad the Political Positions section had gotten. It focused on only a few issues, including two full paragraphs on two single pieces of legislation. It was not written in a summary style. Just because something has been bad for a few weeks does not mean it should continue to be.--Gloriamarie 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Including his statements about himself when they conflict with the legislation he has introduced is a gross violation of the foundational WP:NPOV policy. There are other sections which are longer and WP:SUMMARY does not mandate a maximum length. I can point to featured articles with summary sections more than twice as long, for example Plug-in hybrid#History. Unless you can show that a policy or guideline supports your action, I shall be reverting. ←BenB4 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"Summary style" is pretty self-explanatory; the section focused on abortion and other seemingly minor issues such as capital punishement, etc. to a great extent (when that has not been a large part of Paul's legislative career). For example, it mentioned one vote against funding same-sex adoption, while not mentioning that he votes against almost all federal funding. In contrast, look at Jeff Flake's article, which goes in depth at how he goes against spending, while barely mentioning abortion... because that's what Flake's known for, and it's the same case with Ron Paul. Deciding whether his statements about himself conflict with introduced legislation-- without a secondary source to back it up-- is original research and not something that's done on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The article that the positions section is supposed to be "summarizing" has a total of 43 substantive sections. How can you say that abortion is a minor issue? What other issue has resulted in a dozen bombings in the U.S. over the past few decades? Likewise with capital punishment and gay rights issues. You may think that hard currency and the abolition of the income tax are more important, but the people who decide what goes into U.S. news articles do not agree. ←BenB4 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Abortion is a major issue for Americans in general, yes. But it's not the only one. What about education? Social Security? Healthcare? Ron Paul has never made abortion a large issue until this year, when he started speaking out about it more. He has spoken about other issues at much more length.--Gloriamarie 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
His opposition to federal involvement in education is in there, "allowing workers to opt out of Social Security" is in there, his positions for defederalizing health care and opposition to universal health care are in there. Perhaps he has only been talking about abortion this year, but the bills concerning it are from 2005. ←BenB4 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That barely touches his beliefs on those issues. What about the numerous tax credits he's proposed for those wanting to contribute to public education? What about the fact that he's said he's one of the few (perhaps the only) member of Congress who has never voted to spend funds from the Social Security account on other projects? What about free market health care? "Defederalizing" doesn't say much, and I don't even know what that means. He does NOT have an opposition to "universal health care" but just to socialized health care; he believes that with a return to free market health care and getting the gov. and insurance companies out of it, poor people would be able to afford coverage at even less of a price than they would pay now with "full coverage."--Gloriamarie 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Have his proposed tax credits ever made it into a bill? We already say he opposes spending. I don't know what defedealizing means either; someone else put it in. He has specifically said that he's opposed to universal health care. Where has he ever said he wants to get the "insurance companies out of it"? ←BenB4 09:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
His tax credits have been proposed in every single Congressional session since 1998; one of the bills had 60+ sponsors at one time (the Teacher Tax Cut Act, which would give every teacher a $1,000 tax cut). But they have not been passed into law. He has not said he's opposed to universal health care, only socialized forms of health care. He thinks everyone should have access to low-cost health care and thinks everyone would in a free market in which insurance companies are not subsidized by the government (as one example of this, employers are given a tax credit if they provide health insurance, while individuals are not; this creates an incentive on the part of employers to buy health insurance plans where otherwise, individuals would be able to choose and not be kept in the same job due to fears of losing insurance.) He would give tax credits to individuals for health care expenses (this is detailed in Political positions of Ron Paul#Health_care) rather than companies. HMOs are actually a federal government mandate from the 1970s; he would repeal that. [19][20]This is where he says he would get insurance companies out of the equation:

"For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program."

One would never know any of this from reading this article.--Gloriamarie 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the revision contains "He supports revising the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy to expel members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues," which is absolutely not supported by the cited source. And "Paul votes against most federal spending," for which there is no source even though one was requested months ago. ←BenB4 06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul does indeed support revising the military policy to expel members with sexual behavior issues regardless of whether they're straight or gay. If you want a cite, go watch the interview Ron Paul did at Google's headquarters. 24.14.76.94 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've watched that, twice. The current DADT policy, which he says is "decent," ejects gays from the military if they simply say they are gay. Is admitting to be gay a behavior issue? Is admitting to be heterosexual a behavior issue? He has not said he wants to revise it, he says it's "decent" as-is. ←BenB4 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"I think the way it's enforced is bad." "everybody should be treated equally and they shouldn't be discriminated against because of that [homosexuality] alone." "he was kicked out for no real good reason at all. I would want to change that. I don't support that interpretation." He says that the "don't ask, don't tell" part is good, but the way the policy is enforced is bad and should be changed to focus on behavior.--Gloriamarie 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
See below. ←BenB4 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"Paul votes against most federal spending" is one of the easiest statements to back up with sources on Wikipedia. There are numerous sources already included in the article which explicitly mention this. Here is one example. (Click on "Other Facts.") Here is another. Here is Paul himself saying it.--Gloriamarie 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but The National Taxpayer's Union grades all congressmen on their responsible tax and spending policies. Ron Paul won NTU's "Taxpayers' Friend Award". In fact, out of 535 members, Ron Paul came in second. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=96 24.14.76.94 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I looked up the Google video. Ron Paul is asked if he was elected President, will he revoke 'don't ask, don't tell'?
This was his reply:
"I answered this question on national TV and I started off by being very - well, not very - but at least sympathetic to this idea. 'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't sound all that bad to me and I think that's what you're referring to. It doesn't sound all that bad because I think as an employer which I've been, I've talked to people and I've never asked them anything and I don't want them to tell me anything.
"But the important thing is what I said was I don't see rights as gay rights, woman's rights, minority rights. I see only one kind of rights, the individual. The individual has their right to their life and liberty and everybody should be treated equally.
"So when it comes to the military, I talked about disruptive sexual behavior and quite frankly there's probably a lot more heterosexual disruptive behavior in the military than gay disruptive behavior. So I would say that everyone should be treated equally and they shouldn't be discriminated against because of that alone which means those words aren't offensive to me. 'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't sound so bad.
"I think the way it's enforced is bad because literally if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military and I met one just the other day in my office who was a translator and he was kicked out for no real good reason at all. I would want to change that. I don't support that interpretation."
It's about 35:15 into the interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg 24.14.76.94 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get that he wants to revise the policy? If he doesn't say it, then the assumption that he does is original research. ←BenB4 07:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He says in the words above^ that he wants it to apply to heterosexual behavior as well; the policy does not currently apply to heterosexual behavior, and actually is not based on behavior. Therefore, by saying that that's what it should cover, he is saying it should be revised while not explicitly saying the words "I would revise the policy." By saying that everyone should be treated equally and no one discriminated against, he is also calling for a change in the policy, which currently singles out gay military members only. He thinks it should be based on behavior, heterosexual or homosexual, and should remain "don't ask, don't tell," in that people of both orientations should keep quiet about their personal lives and not inquire into others'. No original research is needed on this one. He also said this in a debate and in the audio you linked to further up the talk page.--Gloriamarie 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The words "apply" or "revise" or any of their synonyms do not appear in what he said. What do you think he is going to revise it to, that you get kicked out if you say you're heterosexual? ←BenB4 08:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, he specifically says in the case of the Arabic translator, that the policy is enforced in a bad way and should focus on behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) rather than just orientation as it currently is.--Gloriamarie 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He says he wants to change the way it is enforced. But that it is a decent policy and as an employer he never asked and didn't want to be told. So he's not opposed to prohibiting disclosure of homosexuality, but he wants to make the penalty smaller. We can say that. ←BenB4 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was rather clear. Regardless of orientation, any sexual behavior that causes problems on the job is grounds for dismissal from the armed forces. Neither gays nor straights are targeted, just people who can't be trusted to make a decent judgement call while in uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.53.186 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There already are UCMJ laws that do exactly that, and they've existed before Paul's parents were born. DADT says you get kicked out for what you say, not your behavior. The article correctly represents that he thinks it's a decent policy but he wants a weaker penalty for it. ←BenB4 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, he doesn't want a weaker penalty for the same thing, he wants a penalty for a different thing altogether; he does not want expulsion for just being gay, and instead wants a penalty for behavior, from both gay and straight. That's a harsher penalty for one thing (behavior) vs. less of a penalty or no penalty for another for which there is currently a very harsh penalty (orientation).--Gloriamarie 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(back left) I'm not sure you understand that there already is a penalty for any type of sexual behavior. The DADT penalty is not for orientation, it is for saying that one has a homosexual orientation. He has called that "decent" and said that when he was an employer, he never asked about orientation and didn't want to be told. The only context where he has talked about a lesser penalty was the expulsion of Arabist translators under DADT, where he said expulsion is too harsh. Saying that he wants penalties for any kind of sexual behavior is like saying he wants wetness for water. ←BenB4 06:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that, but it's irrelevant to what he says. Free speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn't stop members of Congress from introducing bills that are clearly unconstitutional and later get struck down as so. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't report on the bills, because something already exists that contradicts them or makes them irrelevant. What you say is your interpretation of what he says; I interpreted it as meaning that he likes the idea of not talking about private things in the workplace (and he did specifically mention this as applying to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, which is different than current DADT policy, as opposed to what you're implying), so he likes something that would be called "don't ask, don't tell" and would literally consist of not asking and not telling. However, he has clearly said he thinks that expulsion should only be based on bad behavior, and there should not be a policy that only focuses on gays, it should focus on both. Your last sentence didn't make sense; he said that that's what he wants. Other politicians may say they want "universal health care" without taxes going up or quality of care going down, and it's Wikipedia's job to report that without commentary (unless it exists from reliable sources), regardless of whether it's actually possible in the real world.--Gloriamarie 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Returning to the agencies he would abolish, the list from Colbert Report is at http://www.maymin.com/node/86 and instead of NASA and DHHS it lists Department of Energy and ICC. It also lists NATO, UN, NAFTA, WTO, UNICEF, but these are not federal agencies. Sourcing of any others would be helpful! John J. Bulten 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


There is a problem in the sentence, 'Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care,[145] the welfare state (or nanny state),[148] foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties,[149] and federal regulation of marriage, education,[150] and the Internet.[151]' Ron Paul does NOT oppose the internet, that doesn't even make sense. He does indeed oppose federal regulation of the Internet which is what this wikipedia article said in the past and which is what the cited source is suggesting. Someone please change this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinflowers (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Justin, this is actually grammatical and tight, but it may be a minor problem that one might proceed quickly and misread it. It could be "Paul opposes ... federal regulation of such institutions as marriage, education, and the Internet." This properly summarizes the sources, which are expanded on in the positions article, and the other wordier versions were unnecessarily narrow. John J. Bulten 02:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
PhotoUploaded added two "of"'s, which is better. John J. Bulten 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this poll important?

It seems a poll conducted by a company called InsiderAdvantage which was conducted around 2 days ago places Paul at around 6 percent in new hampshire, but in the absense of a Wikipedia article on these pollsters, I wasn't sure of the notability, or if it should be included at all. Here's the cite web stuff and a sample sentence: By the beginning of October, an InsiderAdvantage poll placed him at 6 percent.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_insideradvantage_republic.php | last= Dienstfrey | first = Eric | publisher = InsiderAdvantage | title = POLL: InsiderAdvantage Republican Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Michigan | date = 2007-10-4 | accessdate = 2007-10-4}}</ref> Homestarmy 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Parental info

Just wanted to explain the recent change that I made to the biographical info on Ron Paul's family. I removed the info on Paul's paternal grandfather, referring to him as a "German Lutheran". While I believe this info to be correct, I felt that it was poorly cited. If anyone wants to add it again with better citation, feel free.

I also changed the phrase which suggested that Ron Paul was born to Margaret "Peggy" Dumont. The listing of "Peggy" as a nickname may be accurate, but was not found in the sources. However, by the time of Paul's birth, his mother's name was not "Margaret Dumont," but "Margaret Paul". Using her maiden name in this context is akin to saying that "Cassius Clay fought his last bout in 1981" rather than "Muhammed Ali."

This is a widespread error in Wikipedia biographies, possibly due to the fact that genealogical tables (such as the one cited in this article) are concerned with recording births, and often do not note later name changes. However, biographical references to a subject's mother should generally use her married name, unless of course she retained (or is widely known by) her maiden name. Please see the Manual of Style section on maiden names for more on this. Lnh27 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if your deletion seems overpicky, but I notice when you cited MOSBIO you didn't bother to adopt its recommendation that would yield Margaret "Peggy" (Dumont) Paul. I added "Peggy" to disambiguate actress Margaret Dumont. Also, in many bios use of mother's maiden name at birth of children is not an error, because in their context the assumption is that the husband's name has been taken and would be redundant. In Wiki I understand that one cannot so assume, but I don't think the use of US style in a US article to the exclusion of other styles rises to the level of "widespread error". Will see what I can source. John J. Bulten 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to by overly picky, and I appreciate your work on this article. But I thought the "Peggy" should have some source, since not all women named "Margaret" are known as "Peggy". I couldn't find a good reference on it during a quick Google search. As for the MOS examples yielding "Margaret (Dumont) Paul" or "Margaret Paul (née Dumont)," this seemed to be for use in more detailed references (such as an article on Margaret Paul herself). I don't have an objection to something like "née Dumont" being used if it would work better here. My thinking was based on the fact that the article by Carol Paul (and most other references I could find) refers to him as being the son of "Howard and Margaret Paul." This likely reflects the names his parents were commonly known by, which seems to be a reasonable standard for a brief mention. Given that, I thought it sufficient for the maiden name (as well as Howard Paul's middle name) to be available in the cited genealogical table. Perhaps there is a better method, but I do wish there was a clear standard for such cases. Lnh27 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick note regarding the choice of 'Margaret "Peggy" (Dumont) Paul': why this rather than the more common form of "Margaret Paul (née Dumont)"? I still think it best to use the names they were generally known under, and leave things like maiden names and nicknames to cited sources. An interested reader can easily check these without adding unnecessary complexity to the main article. Lnh27 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I think the RFC is no longer needed. Eiler7 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reflowing or footnoting odd sections

Reviewing the talk archive as 1of3 recommends, I note there was some good previous consensus for footnoting the racist comments themselves. It appeared the scale tipped toward keeping them in the body, but now that I added the white/Asian/Israeli comments (to demonstrate it was multi-racism) and someone else added the LA riot/terror comment, it may be wise to reconsider. Seems like "For instance" can introduce two clauses, and the rest would be appropriate in the footnote. With that, it's even possible to make it one paragraph, move it to under the 1996 campaign, and break the long "Campaigns" section into "1996 campaign and controversy" and "Campaigns as incumbent". The controversy only arose in the 96 campaign and was not significantly reaired afterward until the 01 interview. It's also the shortest section except for military/medical (which could easily be combined into "Family and medical career"). Thoughts please? John J. Bulten 21:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your last suggestion sounds like a good idea-- I had thought of that actually myself and thought I might implement it soon. It would best fit under a "1996 campaign" section with the existing information about Lefty Morris. I did take out some of the new information, because it was getting overloaded with so many of the quotes; however, it's possible that putting them in a footnote could be OK with me, depending on how it's done. I'm interested in what others would think about that solution as well.--Gloriamarie 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! Since you tightened the section I went ahead and closed the circuit by supplying a footnote and adding a bit more text (also noted a couple style quibbles). The other rearrangements might happen soon too. John J. Bulten 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Have now combined the sections into "1996 campaign controversy" and "Campaigns as incumbent". I also prefer 1of3's reorg to lengthen the military/medical section. John J. Bulten 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul, Jr.

I thought it might be interesting to mention that Ron Paul, Jr. was the Texas high school 100 yard butterfly champion and later was on the University of Texas swim.74.130.104.62 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Bruce Sanders, October 8, 2007

Dunno, but while we're on the subject, "Sr." in bold in the lead is implicitly correct per MOSBIO, unless there is evidence that his son is not precisely "Ronald Ernest Paul". In the absence of such evidence (I've looked) and the presence of frequent reference to Jr. and Sr., Sr. is presumptively correct. See also John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson; but Barack Obama would need Jr. added. John J. Bulten 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
When has there ever been "frequent reference to Jr. and Sr."? Jr. is not famous as far as I know and is mentioned only once in this article. It seems to me that this only comes into play when both Sr. and Jr. are well-known or it is used as part of the name. I have never seen him referred to as Ron Paul Sr., and it's not even established that his son is a Jr. or has the same name in the first place. A search of "Ron Paul Sr" turns up a grand total of two websites. This is not something that should be done in this particular article. John McCain's actual birth name includes a III, not Sr., Joe Biden's actual birth name includes a Jr., and Bill Richardson's actual birth name includes a III, so none of those examples are the same as this case. Unless there is some type of confusion between a famous father and son with the same name, Sr. should not be used. --Gloriamarie 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical career section

The Medical and Military Career section isn't very long even though it combines both aspects. Should the paragraph documenting his medical school/residency be moved to the Medical Career section rather than Early life/Education? I think it would be more appropriate there, especially considering the difference in length between those two sections. The Early Life one is pretty long in its current state.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. 1of3 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1988 campaign

Does anyone know if the button in this article is an offical campaign button (i.e., would it count as fair use of an item meant for publicity for appearance in this article)? It would definitely add a nice element to the Campaigns section under Early Congressional Career.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I remember a discussion that took place over whether Ron Paul is Episcopalian or Baptist; the New York Times said Episcopalian, I believe, and now NPR does too, but this article was changed at one point to say Baptist.--Gloriamarie 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A printout of the NY Times article one day after its publication said the same thing it does now: "Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one." Even if he has a lapsed but valid Episcopalian membership (a conceivable speculation, but not much more useful than if someone was baptized Catholic but never attended), the doctrinal difference is sufficient that the preponderance of evidence (Baptist attendance) precludes listing Episcopalianism as current. Former would be fine. John J. Bulten 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Many people consider themselves to be a different religion than the church they attend. NPR says Episcopalian; it's quite possible that someone attends a different church than they consider themselves to be a member of, or are a member of. Perhaps Episcopalian/Baptist or simply Protestant would work better, but NPR plainly lists his religion as Episcopalian, not Baptist, while the Pew Forum says Baptist. I think it should say Protestant, since there are differing sources.--Gloriamarie 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

YouTube stats

Should YouTube stats really be in the lead? I mean, the "What the Buck" guy has almost twice as many subscribers. 1of3 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think actually providing the polling number is far superior to making a nonquantative statement of relative scores. John J. Bulten 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Joking aside, actually this symmetry might give us a compromise on the 4% poll number. WP:LS says, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." So we might wisely agree on the more generic statements in both places; here it would be, say, "He has several times more YouTube subscribers than any other presidential candidate", where "several" means from 3 (Obama) to 50 (Brownback). John J. Bulten 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New introduction needed

The introduction has turned into a resumé. It seriously needs to be trimmed. An introduction should be short and precise. You can write his resumé later in the article text. Carewolf 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying it's too long? It's well within WP:LEAD guidelines, which allows up to four paragraphs, so that really isn't an issue. Wrad 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No it is the paragraphs are too long, with more paragraphs all the information might be easier to parse. Carewolf 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The structure is: biography, positions, campaign. Why is it hard to parse? ←BenB4 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro is a bit too long for my taste, but the article has gone through a Good Article review with nothing being said about the intro being too long. I think it's an appropriate length for a pretty long article.--Gloriamarie 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD it should be "three or four" paragraphs. I'm concerned about the gold standard stuff in the lead, which you just expanded. If all the gold and silver that has ever been mined was reserved for currency, it wouldn't be enough to back just the money circulating in the U.S. alone (leaving none for manufacturing.) I don't think we should be giving the idea lead billing since it hasn't been remotely practical for decades. ←BenB4 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's practical. Read the Minority Report, "The Case for Gold," Ben. Defining the "dollar" in terms of gold does not require a large amount per dollar. It would use the current value. But that's beside the point. It's a position unique to Ron Paul among current candidates - as is his position regarding state's rights and abortion. JLMadrigal 12:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I "expanded" it by adding a grand total of about two words. That's not nearly what PhotoUploaded has done above with the paragraph.--Gloriamarie 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
At the current value, there is not enough mined gold and silver together to back the money circulating in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world. If you use a smaller amount per dollar, the price goes up and manufacturing is impeded. ←BenB4 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, there is $7.3 trillion circulating in the M2 money supply (only US money, M3 contains foreign holdings) and 4×109 troy ounces of gold, which works out to more than $1800 per troy ounce. If that was put into effect, it would adversely affect manufacturing and the rest of the world would have no gold at all. However, it would make people who have been investing in gold very happy. ←BenB4 18:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of that is debt to China and other foreign countries that may have to be paid up eventually, wreaking havoc on the economy, too. Keep in mind that silver would also be in play. No less than Alan Greenspan has argued the case for a gold standard, and Ron Paul has said that Greenspan told him privately a few years ago that he still believed what he wrote in 1967 applied in today's world and hadn't changed his mind about gold being the solution. If I can find that original interview, I might add it to the article; it's an interesting anecdote.--Gloriamarie 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the M3 money supply has all the foreign holdings, the M2 is just cash on hand plus cashable savings. At today's prices, there's only $18 billion dollars worth of silver in existence. I don't doubt Greenspan thinks it's a superior system, but the link you gave doesn't discuss feasibility at all. I do not know whether it was feasible in 1967. Gold was only $35/oz. back then, but the economy was a lot smaller. The problem I have with the gold standard is it takes a recovered natural resource and locks it away in a bank vault where it drives up the price of the industrial uses. ←BenB4 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What the hell does any of this have to do with Ron Paul's stance on the gold standard? That's what the article is about, not our personal take on regurgitated factoids from Econ 101. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.53.186 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't feasible, it shouldn't be in the lead, that's all. ←BenB4 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's feasible or not, in your opinion, is irrelevant to whether it should be in the lead. He talks about this a lot, usually in the context of a sound money supply.--Gloriamarie 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That there isn't enough gold and silver mined out of the ground to back the money circulating in the U.S. is not an opinion, it's a fact. And if something is just not possible, that makes it less important, and per WP:LEAD the lead isn't supposed to contain unimportant things. ←BenB4 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the point is that it wouldn't be the same as it is today, nor should it be, according to him. Who says that the amount of money must remain the same to fund current lifestyles? Paul says there is too much money put in circulation by the government, most of it issued only to cover its debt and interest payments, and the subsequent inflation hurts the poor and is basically an "inflation tax." That's discussed in Political positions of Ron Paul. Why not mention it in the summary of that article?--Gloriamarie 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is part of what makes his ideas so unique, but perhaps it is overemphasized. What do others think? Wrad 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
BenB4 says that a gold standard "would make people who have been investing in gold very happy." If the dollar were pegged to gold, everyone who held dollars would be "very happy," because they would all be "investing in gold." JLMadrigal 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Simply pegging the dollar's value to that of gold is not what the gold standard does. Just like the Chinese government pegs their Yuan to the Dollar, it doesn't mean it's a fair trade at the pegged rate. The government can still print more money. The gold standard means that the paper money represents a certain amount of gold reserved in a vault somewhere. ←BenB4 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That discussion probably belongs on personal talk pages, not here, unless it has to do explicitly with this article.--Gloriamarie 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ben, I must disagree on the "factual" nature of your view that "there isn't enough gold and silver mined out of the ground to back the money circulating". If perhaps you mean that the value of precious metals in dollars is markedly less than the total number of circulating dollars, that is a fact, and is no more relevant than the fact that the value of dollars is markedly less than the total number of dollars in bank accounts (cough cough). If silver became a standard again and gold were market-driven, supply and demand would shortly regulate their value better than any Fed-up chairman can. This happened repeatedly in the colonies whenever fiat money was rejected, as Ed Griffin observes in Creature from Jekyll Island. If you do not understand the reasonableness of this view, I would still ask you to refrain from judging its acceptability for the lead, because Paul and many others find it perfectly reasonable. I think adding "hard money" back to the lead is sufficient. John J. Bulten 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By "supply and demand would shortly regulate their value" you mean that their prices would be driven up several times, passing the increase along to consumers who buy electronics that depend on the metals' use in manufacturing. Pfft. ←BenB4 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, since in a Paul presidency the inflation which currently causes those electronics to rise in price each year would be tempered, and since so many small businesses would be able to get started with lower taxes and less regulation than in the current market, due to competition prices across the board would go down for consumers, who would also have more money to spend without the burden of high income taxes. Nevertheless, that's probably a discussion best reserved for personal talk pages :) --Gloriamarie 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My latest round of nitpicks in lead

Goals: Lead should be reasonably streamlined (as others agree); political positions summary should summarize (I had synchronized the lead of the positions article to match the summary in the main article plus two sentences from the main lead, and hope to keep them synchronized); it and its own summary should follow the subarticle's outline (foreign policy; economic policy; social/liberty policy); and concerns of individual editors should be addressed. Given that, here’s some rationales to my largely restoring some changes (and thanks to those who have otherwise upheld them). Please object at will.

Delete “10th-term” from lead: much as I like it, it’s implicit in the later breakdown in this graf, and technically it’s also dated.

Delete UN and NATO withdrawal from lead: currently they are in the positions summary and subarticle lead but NOT anywhere in the subarticle! Must not be important enough for the main lead, then, eh? Sometime I will repeat the summary sentence in the subarticle somewhere.

Delete Patriot Act from lead: Similarly, when I first synched, Patriot Act was in main lead but not in either the positions summary or the subarticle lead. I moved it from main lead to both of those.

Delete never unbalancing budget: exactly same case as Patriot Act.

Subsume "smaller government" into "reduced government spending".

Subsume "sharply lower taxes" into "abolition of federal income tax".

Subsume "abolition of the IRS" into "abolish most federal agencies" with IRS-specific link.

Delete "opposes illegal immigration" as redundant. (Who doesn't oppose illegality?) The intent is carried mostly by my import "opposed amnesty for illegal aliens".

Tighten the pro-life in lead again: it had gotten way too overworked. Instead of "ties" this time I just used "Paul calls himself 'strongly pro-life' while also advocating states' rights." Have fun!

Upgrade some items into main lead that were present in one or both summaries and extended in subarticle. However it looks to me like the main lead's positions graf in both my versions is both briefer and better-packed than the supposedly shorter, clearer version someone else reverted to. (I might also add that such reversion restores many unnecessarily poor footnote styles. I might also add that reverting to some version of the problematic "can't break 4%" in the lead is both a misleading implication and, again, potentially dated; the current version "polls lower" with national and statewide links is fine.) John J. Bulten 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to "have fun" when you are saying it is more important to discuss NAFTA in the lead than NATO and the UN. The lead was hammered out with a number of careful compromises long before you arrived on the scene. I am reverting. Here is what you should do, per WP:BRD: describe the changes you want to make here on the talk page, and gain consensus for them first. Once people agree that the changes should be made, then implement them. Do you think that WP:BRD is appropriate to follow here? 1of3 14:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi 1of. Keep in mind the structure. We have a Political Positions subarticle; its lead; its summary in the main article; and the summary of the summary in the main lead. Reread what I said: the prior editors mentioned NATO/UN in (essentially the same) one sentence in the subarticle lead, the summary, and the main lead, but nowhere in the 90K subarticle. On the other hand, those same prior editors had two paragraphs on opposition to FTA's in the subarticle. Applying the principle that summaries must summarize, it seems appropriate to 1) add NATO/UN to the subarticle (not done yet), for which I have no more than the one sentence, but for which you might be able to contribute; 2) unless there is a significant amount to say about NATO/UN, delete it from the main lead; 3) restore my other edits as proper summary functions (although in a couple cases adding the items to the subarticle would still be needed because of prior editors' respect for the items in summaries).
I'm not saying discussing NAFTA in lead is more important than discussing NATO and UN, which is a hard judgment call that I might flip either way. Rather, I'm saying that the prior editors didn't find them more important, which is an easy judgment call with demonstrable evidence already mentioned. I took a careful survey of the political position article to meet the goals mentioned above. I already described the changes and rationales carefully above. So here's my take on "what you should do":
  1. On NATO/UN, so far you are defending the position that something meriting 0-1 sentences in the subarticle is worthy of 1 full clause in its summary's summary. So please supply the necessary paragraph to the subarticle.
  2. I pointed out 9 other items above where your favored text fails basic logical structure tests of nonredundancy or summation (not emotional or perceived-importance tests but logical tests). You reverted them all. I respectfully recognize the extent to which well-hammered-out compromises contributed to this wording: but insofar as they did, they failed to clean up these logical errors and failed to result in coherent summaries. The version you defend jumps from topic to topic inexplicably, removes several new footnotes without bothering to rekey them to your text, and ends with that clunky version of the pro-life thought which is anything but a well-hammered-out compromise. So please indicate here one or two other instances of how I have betrayed any "careful compromise". And please indicate here one or two other instances of how your wordier version is superior. You might quote me the relevant hammerings-out.
  3. I only skimmed the BRD article but I believe it ends with "bold again". Changes I want to make: exactly what I made, plus (if there's some reason in the subarticle to support it) adding NATO/UN into that if you like. Maybe someone will beat me to it. You'll note above I have completely skipped arguing whether NATO/UN should be added due to its importance (I have argued only about its inclusion being illogical); it is up to you to defend your proposition that NATO/UN is important (it may well be), which you can easily do by writing that graf for the Positions subarticle. Thanks. John J. Bulten 03:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, 1of, now that I've read your reversion carefully I'm disappointed to report that, in good faith, I could not see a single improvement that was made anywhere in the scroll. When you haphazardly undo all sorts of clear improvements (including a good disambiguation by PhotoUploaded, just for one), and you charge me with making your fun difficult, and you put words in my mouth, and you appeal to unverifiable authority, in good faith, I am unable to distinguish your contributions from those of a disruptor. I trust that my harshness will be vindicated by any other reasonable review of your reversion. Can I get an amen? John J. Bulten 04:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a single improvement? Just in the first paragraph, your version says he's a "2008 U.S. presidential candidate" when the primaries aren't even over. I could go on. Need I?
I did just replace many of your improvements. Most that didn't change compromise-derived sections are very good. I don't want to discourage you, but we do need to respect compromises. Your thoughts on the discussion of NAFTA/NATO+UN are a good example. This is an international encyclopedia and I am quite sure that many many more people care about US participation in NATO and the UN than do about NAFTA. As Commander in Chief, Paul would be able to abrogate from the NATO and UN treaties and withdraw without congressional support, unlike his domestic proposals which he would have to get passed by Congress. 1of3 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well now you're up to two specifics to justify your massive revert. Now that I've read BRD, it says to compromise with one at a time, maybe two-- not to gain a consensus with other people; consensus alone is not valid and worn in. It also says "be ready to compromise".
- As you can see by my not taking a position, I don't mind NATO/UN appearing in the main lead if there is significant discussion in the subarticle. You have not addressed that. Please do.
- Your wordy text, "a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election", links to the article "United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008". I left out the word "Republican" there because it just appeared in the previous clause; but again, that alone does not justify your revert.
Essentially, your rationales do not answer my concerns that a summary's summary should refer to something in the subarticle, and that there is no difference between a Republican who is "a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate" and your 11-word version. BRD suggests you should (like me) compromise to meet these concerns.
Proposed compromise: please restore my version; add NATO/UN to the subarticle; then from that base, add NATO/UN and "Republican" (a second time) to the main lead; and make any other changes which you can justify as improvements here without appeal to unverifiable authority (appeal to "consensus" is invalid, says BRD). Alternatively, please decline to make the fixes and permit me to move on further. If you're putting 40+ other changes on hold because of 2+ concerns, that's a bit of a bottleneck. Please restore the changes which are unobjectionable, and please object to those which are. John J. Bulten 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1of, thank you for restoring some of the changes. I have restored several more, but only where I can defend them as being noncontroversial (mechanical) or new (nonconsensus). That means that my remaining recommendations are:

  1. Please indicate if you believe my latest change contains any nonmechanical changes or changes that ignore a previous consensus. Please provide backup cites if so. The remaining changes I'd like to make (but which you might consider as controversial) are as follows:
  2. Delete redundant italicized text: "is a 10th-term Republican"; "Libertarian Party nominee".
  3. Condense "Republican ... and a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election" to "Republican ... and a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate". (If one wants to argue that a candidate for nomination is not a candidate for president, this novel interpretation will have to be carried across many other articles.)
  4. Rearrange the second lead graf to match the organization of the subarticle and its summaries. Per the list below, in addition to the rearrangement, I combined 3, deleted 5, and added 8, resulting in a couple fewer words overall. So:
  5. Delete NATO/UN, Patriot Act, never voting for unbalanced budget, and opposing illegal immigration (who doesn't?); these are covered in the longer summaries. However, if you want NATO/UN in lead, I trust you're working on some expansion of this for the subarticle.
  6. Add references to borders, amnesty, NAFTA, hard money, the Fed, the draft, habeas corpus, and judicial activism, which have had more notice from the prior editors than your favored issue.
  7. Subsume the 3 pairs of issues I mentioned in my first post above, which are too redundant for the lead.
  8. Restore neutrally brief pro-life phrasing, 'Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" while also advocating states' rights' unless something better comes along.
  9. Restore blackout quote, "guard their hero's image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media". This seems a useful media validation, but I did not restore it yet because it could occasion concern.
  10. Polling: change "has yet to poll higher than 4% among Gallup samples of Republican voters" to "polls lower among Gallup, Bloomberg, and InsiderAdvantage phone samples of voters leaning Republican" (or perhaps just "polls lower among phone samples of voters leaning Republican"). As repeatedly stated, "has yet to poll higher than 4%" is biased, dated, "dare-me" language, and neglectful of primary-state phone polls.

(Subarticle's recommended order: nonintervention, Iraq, borders (+), amnesty (+), free-trade, NAFTA (+), taxes, income, reducing, agencies-IRS, hard-money (+), Fed (+), draft (+), habeas-corpus (+), drugs, guns, judges (+), pro-life, states'-rights. Your current "consensus" order: free-trade, taxes-1, reducing-1, nonintervention, NATO (-), UN (-), Iraq, Patriot (-), reducing-2, taxes-2, budget (-), agencies-IRS-1, income, immigration (-), guns, drugs, agencies-IRS-2, pro-life, states'-rights.) OK, now you can tell me what on the above list you still disagree with (providing more documentation than you have so far). Thanks again for working the issue so far. John J. Bulten 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The documentation for which you ask is contained in the talk archives. I've been reading this page for months and I think most of your questions are answered there.
I wonder what more you want said about "wants to withdraw from NATO and the UN" -- that's in the subarticle's lead, with sources. You think it should be expanded in the subarticle before it can appear in the main article lead? What more is there to say? It's a radical position in that it's not shared by any other candidate, and I'm not sure there's more than a sentence in it.
  1. I think your latest change is okay. I corrected a grammatical error, and there's more I would like to make clearer, but I'm not sure how productive it would be to take a fine-toothed comb to it at this point.
  2. Why do you want to eliminate "10th-term"? Do you think people are going to quickly do the two subtractions, divisions, and an addition to derive it from the term years? That seems to me to be a lot to ask when the same info fits in less than a dozen characters.
  3. I don't know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there is a difference between a candidate for a party's nomination and a candidate for the corresponding office. Why blur the distinction?
  4. I don't see any reason to rearrange text in this article to conform to the arbitrary order of another. I think the current version flows pretty well, and I don't think the subarticle's order is particularly logical.
  5. I am opposed to your suggestion to "Delete NATO/UN, Patriot Act, never voting for unbalanced budget, and opposing illegal immigration" for the same reason that the dozens of people have hammered out their inclusion over the past several months. For the details I refer you to the talk archives.
  6. "borders, amnesty, NAFTA, hard money, the Fed, the draft, habeas corpus, and judicial activism" are covered in the political position section. I think they are less important than the stuff in the lead. Those positions on all but the Fed and hard money are not particularly unusual, and in most cases they are downright common.
  7. I do not understand what you are proposing here. Would you please spell it out?
  8. I am not opposed to this change, but I believe you will find it extremely controversial and I recommend you stick with the compromise, if for no other reason than that it took so long to achieve.
  9. "guard their hero's image" does not sound like neutral language to me. I would not be opposed to something like "protect his image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media"
  10. I think actually providing the polling number is far superior to making a nonquantative statement of relative scores.
Thank you for talking about this. 1of3 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, once again my poignant, witty reply vanishes into cyberspace and must be retyped due to my miskey. OK, briefer this time. On 1, 2, 8, and 9 I can proceed as you describe. But 8 is not a compromise text, it has been changing in hodgepodge fashion every two days.
3: But why press the distinction? Particularly, my phrasing (supplying "Republican" from context) is conceptually identical to the article title linked. If you press the distinction in the text, it is illogical to retain the "blurred" distinction in the link name, which should in your view be redirected from a more proper titling. To defend your revert, please create such a properly titled redirect and use that. We don't unblur every possible distinction. (Note this is not an argument from WP:OTHERSTUFF, which would be a potent supplemental argument.)
4: To defend your revert, please provide a reasoned, logical order for Paul's positions, without reference to "I like this order and don't like that one". I'm ready to overhaul the subarticle and if you want that order to change, now's the time to get in. Right now it's still "foreign policy; economic policy; social/liberty policy". BenB4's previous outline "what he supports, what he doesn't, and other stuff" is totally lost and there is no other real coherence to your version.
5: Compromise: let's put in NATO/UN, write two sentences in the subarticle, and drop the others. Particularly, "opposing illegal immigration" is a tautology, not a position, for obvious reasons; I think it is well replaced by my clause on amnesty. Remember that summaries must summarize. If you have one sentence on NATO/UN in the lead and refuse even to repeat it once anywhere in the subarticle, that is against a pretty clear policy.
6: Compromise: let's put in Fed/hard money, the amnesty clause, and drop the others. On both of these I favor the shorter version anyway. Recall that I'm not arguing from perceived importance (although you are); I'm arguing from what has significant space in the subarticle (demonstrating the consensus where it really counts, not in the summaries), which you haven't commented on much.
7: 'Subsume "smaller government" into "reduced government spending". Subsume "sharply lower taxes" into "abolition of federal income tax". Subsume "abolition of the IRS" into "abolish most federal agencies" with IRS-specific link.' That means, the second item in each pair necessarily comprehends and includes the first, so the first can be deleted and the second retained essentially as is. This is not "hammered-out compromise", it's plain redundancy.
10: This is my most emotionally charged item. Rather than repeat everything else I've already said here (QV), I point out your illogic briefly by observing that your providing the "quantitative" polling number would demand the comparable language, "While he polls as high as 81% in Republican straw polls,". (For comparison, Thompson has gotten 86%, McKinney 83%, and Romney 80%.) Since this language would never withstand NPOV scrutiny for the lead, neither should the other. My previous vitriol against this patently biased accusation, which fortuitously didn't make it to this page, will be repeated if you have difficulty understanding this. PhotoUploaded and others find the phrasing "polls lower" quite appropriate. To defend your revert, please explain why the poll-baiting 4% language is not just as bias-charged as my satiric proposal; and why his 5%-6% primary-state phone-poll showings are not also to be included.
So if you can take 5 and 6 as above and help me understand your logic on the others, we might be getting there. I hope this is sufficient, because I don't wish to keep explaining foundational principles of logic; but I will if necessary. John J. Bulten 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And new info: using only Republican-leaning polls and ignoring moderate polls is another form of cherry-picking. Just today Paul scored 8% and 10% back-to-back in NH and MI phone polls of moderates here. He got 22% of NH blacks (6 out of 27, significant MOE) and 20% of MI Hispanics. Should we say "Paul has never polled higher than 22% among InsiderAdvantage polls of primary-state minority moderates"? Of course not. May as well say "Hillary (God love her) has never polled lower than 29% among Gallup polls" and ignore her 5% Zogby showing. Can we please drop the 4% from the lead? John J. Bulten 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. You want to change "a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election" to "a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate." But he is not yet a candidate in the presidential candidate, and won't be until he wins the nomination or decides to run independently. Why should accuracy take a back seat to anything else? And we certainly should say which nomination he is running for, because a lot of readers remember him as the libertarian's candidate.
4. Okay, I'm not going to argue about this: if your re-ordering takes fewer characters to present the same information, I will support it. If it lengthens the article, I'll oppose it. This is one of the things that matters least.
5. I don't think we should be dropping things that have been in there for years now, and I don't think other editors would approve either. There are plenty of people who are not opposed to illegal immigration and plenty of people who want to lessen immigration laws, so saying he that he is can not possibly be considered tautological. Plus, it's one of the things Paul brings up a lot. You are not going to convince me that we should drop such a profound change as withdrawal from UN/NATO because it only appears once in the subarticle, and the fact you are trying to makes me think less of your other arguments.
6. I'm not sure you understand what he actually wants to do with "hard money." He doesn't want to go to "the gold standard" -- something which is impossible anyway because there isn't enough gold even for just the U.S. All he wants is to remove all sales and other taxes on transfer and ownership of precious metal, which would allow banks to issue what would essentially be depository receipts for gold and silver which would resemble currency. That is not Hard money (policy). His opposition to fiat money is just tilting at windmills, and he knows it, which is exactly why he doesn't want immediate conversion to hard money. So I think saying he is opposed to the Fed is really overdoing it in the lead.
As for amnesty, I'd be more inclined to include that he wants to remove birthright citizenship for children of illegals, which is a much more radical proposal showing the depth of his opposition to illegals. A lot of people oppose amnesty.
7. I'm okay with replacing "smaller government" with "reduced government spending" but "sharply lower taxes" and "abolition of federal income tax" are two very different things. I think "abolish most federal agencies" should be followed with "such as the IRS, DHS, DoEd, etc."
10. Including national polls is reasonable since he aspires to national office. Including state or straw polls is not appropriate for the lead. 1of3 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How to stay diplomatic? If I point out what I perceive as your factual and logical errors, that won't help us reach consensus any, will it? And if I don't, how can I appeal to your sense of facts and logic? I need to back up a step and ask you instead just to answer directly from among potential compromise alternatives.
3. FEC accurately says Paul declared "candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election", with no qualifiers "Republican" or "nomination". I can yield that saying "Republican" twice would not be redundant because of Paul's past. My concern is that if you oppose my wording in the text but not in the link, it would be petty (and "backseating accuracy") to argue that the link does not need a change also. So please either change text to something like "U.S. Republican presidential candidate, 2008" (the link name, abbreviated), or create a redirect to something like "Candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2008 presidential election".
4. Thank you. Yes, I did this one and it is shorter.
5a. I already offered a compromise and added NATO/WTO to the subarticle in anticipation of permitting NATO/UN in lead; maybe you didn't notice that when you reference "the fact" I am trying to convince you to drop them. This one should be able to stand essentially as is.
5b. If you like Patriot Act and never unbalancing the budget, my concern is that they are not represented in the main Political Positions summary; please either add them there neatly, or delete them from the lead (as I'd prefer spacewise).
5c. My concern is: the phrase "opposing illegal immigration" implies that supporting illegality (advocating crime) is a permissible alternative, which WP cannot imply for both legal and neutrality reasons. To address my concern, you should state what you mean, whether it be "supports current immigration law", "opposes lessening immigration law", "opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship", whatever. But not your other phrase "opposition to illegals", which is more flawed than the current version. Please change this phrasing to something meaningful (e.g. just delete "illegal immigration" from current).
6. Recall that gold brought Paul into politics and is what Gammage says Paul is all about. Paul has tried to abolish the Fed and restore a system "where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". My concern is: "Whether it's feasible or not, in your opinion, is irrelevant to whether it should be in the lead. He talks about this a lot" (above, 09/23 02:50). "Argues for hard money and against the Federal Reserve" is almost too tame. Please restore this language (preferably in lieu of "unbalanced budget"), or some alternative to it which relates to both hard money (Paul's political entree and 35-year crusade) and the Fed (where Paul argues a much more profound change than mere withdrawal from NATO).
7a. Thanks, "smaller government" is out.
7b. Of course they're different, but "sharply lower taxes" is something "a lot of people" favor. My concern is that lower taxes are quite obvious in the more explicit and radical abolition of individual income tax. Please either cut "sharply lowering taxes and", or justify wasting words on it (which you haven't yet).
7c. So you want to add the agency list to the lead. The proper way to do this, rather than list a bunch of IUI's (inappropriate unexpanded initialisms) and TLA's, is to copy the Colbert/Maymin footnote to the lead in addition to the IRS-specific footnote. Otherwise we bog down the reader with acronym expansions or get inappropriately selective about which ones to include in the lead. Since this is the stylistically superior version of your edit, I am proceeding with it.
10. One might argue that phone polls are unreasonable but straw polls are reasonable, because in the real cycle, people vote, not phone! One might argue that national polls are unreasonable but statewide are reasonable, because this is the primary cycle, not the election! (I just heard that argument.) One might argue that "Hillary has never Gallup-polled below 29%" or "Paul straw-polls 81%" are reasonable. You've seen my mammoth list of concerns on this one. But in the interests of BRD and diplomacy, I'll merely (a) replace the vulgarly offensive "higher than 4%" with "highly" and (b) leave you the wide swath of potential responses in attempt to deal with my concerns.
11. You say "not war hero" and add "but not in" (the War). Of course GloriaMarie didn't say "war hero", and one could argue "during" and "internationally" are already not "in", but as long as you're making that an issue too, you should select a word that meets your concern without injuring hers: "served as a nontheater flight surgeon during the Vietnam War".
My friend, you were the one to invoke BRD. That means it's appropriate for you, the reverter, to figure out how to "apply agreed-upon changes" in the "bold again" stage. I'm doing 4, 5a, 7a, 7c, 10a, 11; so on 3, 5b, 5c, 6, 7b, 10b, I am giving you the leeway to make changes that address my concerns and new footnotes, and I'm giving you agreeable alternatives in each case. WP advice is "Consider their different views too"; "Expect others to compromise in return"; "Completely understand the implications when someone explains". If you don't do it right, hey, it's my turn to revert. John J. Bulten 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for acceptable changes to 3 and 11, but what do you intend to do about 5b, 5c, 6, 7b, 10b? Leaving "4%" in alone does not address my seventeen or so concerns about its nonneutrality, so I am reverting it to the generic and safer "highly" temporarily until we can compromise. Please let me know in 24 hours rather than "lose tempo". John J. Bulten 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since 1of3 has declined to make the edits re my open concerns in reasonable time as I offered per BRD, I am going ahead with those changes as per my best judgment. I trust they will not be reverted cold again because 1of3 has not continued the "discuss" or "bold again" cycles. John J. Bulten 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Culling of footnotes

As a newbie I have probably been overusing footnotes in response to demands for proof; others may have also. In general I strive to be lossless so frequently I retain too much info. Wanted to let everyone know I intend this weekend to trim back many of these, spurred on by FA candidacy. Particularly, (1) something footnoted both in the lead and in similar text in the article can be cited only in the second case; (2) of two footnotes that make the exact same point, the less useful can be dropped; (3) of multiple footnotes from the same point in the text, some can be redistributed; (4) dead or unhelpful links can be dropped or replaced. On the other hand, in any case where a point has been or can be reasonably disputed, at least one strong footnote should remain. Any help or comments are welcome. John J. Bulten 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom" at US House of Representatives homepage accessed on June 8 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Paul/Archive_5&oldid=1153700005"