Talk:Ron Paul

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

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? ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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. ←Ben^B4 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)

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)

LOL WUT

Why are there so many links on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.120.214 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to?--Gloriamarie 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

probably the intro which is almost half blue (now i'm waiting for some idiot to do the math and tell me it's less than 50%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.181.220 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I dispute the removal of the mention in the lede of Paul's attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade with HR 300. The current sentence reads:

"Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life", advocating states' rights regarding this issue.

I find this misleading, because he does not merely "advocate" states' rights, he sought to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely by introducing HR 300 (which would render Roe void and allow states to determine whether abortion should be legal). I propose adding something to the effect of the following, which would clarify his actions on the issue of abortion:

Specifically, Paul introduced HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation in regards to abortion. Paul states this was done, in part, to overturn Roe v. Wade.

At the very least, the current sentence should be changed because does not even make sense. The meaning of the current sentence is:

"Paul advocates states rights in regards to the issue of his description of himself as being pro-life."

Abortion is a top-tier ethical issue, it registers high in terms of national attention, and the position of this man should be made very clear on the issue. The current sentence is vague and misleading, and it must be rewritten. Photouploaded 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo, would you mind if we used your version here and no POV tag until we get this settled? And would you mind interacting with Talk:Ron_Paul#My_pro-life_summary? John J. Bulten 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Note: I am very busy now, and only have time right now for a few fluffy edits (which I do to relax). I will have time to give this issue the time it deserves within a day or so. Photouploaded 11:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The basic question is apparently whether some version of "pro-life, states' rights, linked" is sufficient, or whether some version of "legislation (SOLA, WTPA, PBABA, Amendment), description, and intent" is necessary. In favor of the former I observe:

1. The latter has not been in the lead since Tvoz moved it to Legislation 09/13; it only recently popped in twice by Zeke and Photo, and out twice by me (due to Photo's previous demurral).
2. The second lead paragraph is a summary's summary so should not be overly specific.
3. Only Iraq and Patriot legislation are mentioned otherwise, which are very notable acts; Military Commissions, which was previously mentioned, didn't survive the cut because less notable. (Same for my insert of capital punishment, which I won't press.)
4. Reviewing talk, my perception is that JLMadrigal, Gloriamarie, Tvoz, Wrad, Rinkuhero, Operation Spooner, Proper tea is theft, Turtlescrubber, 221.145.53.186, 80.74.247.74, and I would not necessarily include the latter, but would stick with some form of linkage. Gloria really carried the banner on why more than a couple clauses on abortion in the lead would be undue weight; 80.74.247.74 also affirms her.
5. BenB4 (209.77.205.2 looks like the same person) "would be happy" with brevity in this section re states' rights nuances; he also favored including the legislation, but that's (presumably) because he says he wants something that does not conflict with the legislation.

Hmm, couldn't really find much in favor of including this specific legislation in the lead, except Photouploaded, hints of BenB4, and the gentleman "Zeke pbuh" who instigated Photo by recopying the Legislation section back into the lead yesterday. Seems to me that the compromise between the two positions above, and which the consensus of editors has been trying to word rightly, is the concept of "strongly pro-life, states' rights", and leave the user to determine linkage. Seems like a very short sentence, plus repeating the link to the fine footnote which appears now near the end of the Positions summary, would do the trick. I of course would go back to something like "Paul is strongly pro-life, while also advocating states' rights." The "strongly" gets enough thrust through for the lead; the footnote gets the "life at conception", SOLA, negating RvW, and states' rights all well-linked to the lead; and the use of "while also" neither forces nor prohibits the user's linking them. Note I remove "calls himself" and quotes because we can unbiasedly call people what they call themselves. I would repeat, however, that reopening a POV tag is unnecessary when this exact issue was relatively resolved a month ago and lay dormant until yesterday. John J. Bulten 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying this:

Paul is strongly pro-life. He advocates states' rights to determine the legality of abortion, and the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

There is no reason to avoid clarifying that his views on "states' rights" on the legality of abortion means overturning Roe v. Wade. Paul is unabashedly pro-life. It strikes me as ridiculous to insist that his personal spin on it (... "he links these positions") is vital for inclusion. Anyone can see that his personal pro-life views inform his political actions, that even being a diehard advocate for states' rights doesn't cover an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is there a problem with the above sentence? Please be specific. Is this all right? Photouploaded 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Affirming "states' rights to determine the legality of abortion" is exactly what he does! (I merely rearranged clauses, adjusted footnotes, and preferred "affirming rights" to "advocating rights".) This is excellent IMHO. It may even pass other editors' muster as well. I will back out on this argument and see if anyone else wants to chime in.

If you happen to live in a pro-death state :D, I understand he would permit that state to be free to abort itself, though he would encourage state legislative battles against such an idea, and I think he would permit Congress to pass laws about minors crossing state lines, off the top of my head. John J. Bulten 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV" claims should not be used to censor wikipedia and whitewash articles. Ron Paul has publicly stated that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He has publicly stated that he introduced this legislation in order to help overturn Roe v. Wade. Personally, I am against abortion (but think it should be legal), and I agree with many of Mr. Paul's views. However, his very strong stance on overturning Roe v. Wade and his strong actions to modify the laws to overturn a Supreme Court decision are important, notable, and factual, not POV. Remember: relevant and sourced negative or positive factual information is not POV just because you don't want anyone else to hear about it. --Zeke pbuh 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive fix?

I've noticed the first 3 or 4 are used very little do we want to consider joining them? Gang14 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduce congressional salary?

"He proposed legislation to decrease Congressional pay by the rate of inflation." - that sentence doesn't make any sense. Somebody feel like researching what he actually did? Did he perhaps stop raising Congressional pay to match the rate of inflation? Or did he actually propose pay cuts? --75.68.148.143 11:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good questions, here's another: Did he think Congress should suffer pay cuts as the public suffers from inflation? I honestly don't know, does anybody else? All of these sound like him... Wrad 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't source or verify this, but IIRC, the idea was: If the Consumer Price Index goes up 5% one year, then Congress's salaries go down 5%. Hope someone can verify -- and does anyone think that the Federal budget, deficit, etc., might be different if this were in place? Unimaginative Username 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think members of Congress would be "suffering"-- remember the debacle from earlier this year when Pelosi asked them to actually work on Mondays? Wow, going from a three-day work week to a four day work week (for the same executive salary) and actually working must have been really arduous for those suffering members of Congress. This sounds like a great idea, and I wish it had passed. If Congressional pay decreased at the rate of inflation, maybe Congress would be motivated to actually work on stopping inflation for once.66.56.206.68 01:06, 17 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)

myriads

Yes, John, you seem to be technically correct that a myriad is 10,000, so if you are talking about many 10,000s, "myriads" may be technically correct. And also completely not understandable by readers, since the common usage of the word is to mean "a whole lot" and it is always used as "a myriad of". Why would you choose to use an obscure usage to make your point? This is an encyclopedia, and I'd recommend using terms that are accessible to our readers. Not doing so is self-defeating, and, forgive me, strikes me as just a bit arrogant. Do what you want with it. Tvoz |talk 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the usual definition of "myriad" is how you used it, Tvoz. It seems silly to take it out because it may have an obscure double meaning.66.56.206.68 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues in the lead section

To me it seems that the first sentence of the third paragraph is quite biased: "During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has placed in the top tier in Republican straw polls and fundraising receipts,[5] but commands significantly lower support in phone polls of Republican voters."

Firstly, there is no reference on how he placed in straw polls. An examination of the linked article about 2008 straw polls seems to indicate that the statement "Paul has placed in the top tier in Republican straw polls" is a little bit much. The only ones he has placed in what could be called the top tier are straw polls of only a couple hundred people or fewer. In any case, considering that this sentence is the first sentence in the article about his Presidential campaign, it seems wrong to highlight straw polls, which are generally recognized as not an accurate indicator of much of anything, especially when they're small.

Now, about the fundraising receipts, the only time you can say that he has placed in the top tier is the latest 3rd quarter results, and even then he was behind Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain. He certainly hasn't consistently placed in the top tier, as the preceding "During his 2008 presidential campaign" leads one to believe.

I would suggest something like "During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has usually placed in the second tier in Republican straw polls, fundraising receipts, and telephone polls; he currently averages about three percent support in national polls. Supporters argue, however, that increasing fundraising returns indicate increasing support and that he should be classified as a top-tier candidate, counter to the conventional wisdom of most political analysts."--Michael White^T·C 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are actually raising a factual accuracy problem and I have tagged "top tier" as such. The problem is that the sources don't support "second tier" either (because there is no reliably-sourced definition of a tier, for one thing) so the statement will need more work. 1of3 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1of3 is a suspected sock, so I will not be speaking directly to him again and I feel free to revert his edits. I am removing the dubious tag because "top tier" is a purely mathematical conclusion made by reliable sources from the data available-- just as "not top tier" has been derived from the phone poll data; I will support this later. John J. Bulten 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What a convenient excuse for you to avoid answering the question of which supposed "reliable sources" use the term "top tier." Convenient because the answer is none, at least that are cited by the references given in that statement. 1of3 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed John J. Bulten and user 1of3 are both sockpuppets. I'll still talk to them though. Turtlescrubber 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User Michael A. White: actually, Ron Paul has more cash on hand (once debts are factored in) than all Republican candidates except Giuliani and Romney and $1 million less than Thompson, and in the case of Romney, most of that is a loan from his personal fortune to his campaign.[2] This should obviously be mentioned. He has done well with fundraising receipts-- coverage of his 3rd quarter numbers by the media was typically along the lines of "jaw-dropping." Rather than going on and on about two little words on the talk page, why not just take top-tier out and say "While Paul has done very well in Republican straw polls and fundraising receipts...."66.56.206.68 00:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I have at least these two issues causing me to believe this article is biased:

1. Paul's national polling number has been removed from the lead, where it has been for months. The person who removed it said the number was his "most emotionally charged item" but instead of recognizing that emotional involvement leads to bias, my attempt to replace the number was repeatedly reverted.
2. The newsletter controversy is now under a section with a heading giving no hint of it, and suggesting that it was only an issue in 1996. At least one source which supports important parts of it and shows that the issue was raised times since 1996 has been removed. The offensive quotes have been placed in a "ref" next to two other references. Footnotes are for references; that is why the tag that creates them is called "ref". Footnotes are not for uncomfortable text which supporters wish to hide. 1of3 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the polling number, but unburying the newsletter controversy is a much more difficult undertaking. 1of3 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

its fine.....--68.126.62.96 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues addressed and tag removed. 1of3 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to give Ron a better photo, but somebody keeps reverting...

What's the deal? --Starks 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to indicate that this photo is permissible for us to use; that's the deal! Have you read our information on copyright permissions?--Orange Mike 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a better photo, but Miguel anaranjado is right about the copyright infringement issues. Turtlescrubber 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: Change the photograph of Ron Paul

Change the current photograph to this: http://a534.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/30/l_342e67365b4535684ff9940b19fcf04d.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilist23 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read our information on copyright permissions? --Orange Mike 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

newsletter?

• Did Ron Paul write this? Answer: No. That's why we can't say he wrote this, list all these terrible things, then at the end admit "he didn't write this." We agree that Ron Paul said it was his newsletter with his name on it, but no one disputes it was written by someone else. ergo, we can't say Paul wrote it.
• OK, so these excerpts from Charles "Lefty" Morris, during the campaign his political opponent. OK, then it was repeated by the spokesman for a democratic congresswoman, in a newsletter to democrats regarding the current election this year. No disrespect to "lefty morris," but are these "objective sources?"

We agree they can be mentioned, and maybe should be. But why cut out the part about "lefty" morris? And there's a disclosure on that Atlanta progressive article. That's why that notice is there, they are telling you this isn't an objective source. (What I mean is, notice at the bottom it says the author is a partisan democrat etc etc) (Dont' interpret my comments as anything against partisans or democrats -- I'm just saying we can't say "objective sources say this newsletter said all kinds of racist things" and leave out the part about "written by his democratic opponent")

• The difference between the two sources is the reason for the "questionable information about a living person" ... First, "lefty" says Paul said 80% of blacks were criminals. Next, the 2007 guy says paul said "95% of blacks are criminals" ... and so on, if you compare them side by side, you start wondering "I wish I had an actual copy of this newsletter." For that reason, we should not be publishing these wild claims. Simply saying at the end, "oh by the way, Ron Paul didn't really write those things" isn't good enough, it casts "false light."
• Obviously, there was some "crap" printed in this newsletter in '92, we agree on that, we know that, but we just don't know what. Next, we agree and we know that Paul didn't write it. (that's point two) and that Paul admitted it was stupid to let some idiot write in a newsletter with his name on it. And that his colleagues dismiss any hint of racism in anything Paul has said or written.(if needed) All that is fine to include.

That's why we have to trim down that section, don't make false or unverifiable claims, stick to the facts, and present what we know to be true. Thanks and good luck.SecretaryNotSure 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources cited confirm that the newsletter included the excerpts quoted. Which portions of the sources are you saying disagree? The quoted excerpts and Morris's statement? 1of3 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is The Atlanta Progressive News really a reliable source? The particular column cited is filled with criticism of Ron Paul for somehow not being as antiwar as Cynthia McKinney, and the article was added to this entry by BenB4, who has been banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet (and, for full disclosure, you have been accused of also being a sockpuppet of). This particular paper does not seem to me to be as reliable as other sources which could be used (such as the New York Times, etc.).--Gloriamarie 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference in the "85%" and the "5%" maybe I misread something. I thought one said 95%, well actually it does, but that's not the major problem.

The main problem is, where are the sources? One is listed at the "houston chronicle." Did you notice the URL isn't going to the Houston Chronicle? That could be from anywhere, anyone could have written that.

The other source says: Richard Searcy is a Staff Writer and Columnist with Atlanta Progressive News. Searcy was previously a press spokesperson for US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

That's a disclosure, meaning "This is a partisan thing, don't quote me."

OK, so now our two sources are no good, that leaves... nothing. So why is this libelous material still there?SecretaryNotSure 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. We all agree there was such a newsletter, and there was 'something' in it. We think it was called the Ron Paul Survival Guide but no one knows for sure, no one actually seems to have one of these things, all we know is that the name Ron Paul was on it there somewhere.

Next, everyone pretty much agrees (am I wrong?) that some guy wrote that. Some guy meaning "someone other than Ron Paul." So... why are we saying that Ron Paul said this or Ron Paul said that?SecretaryNotSure 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. By the way, I put in a few suggested and suggested rewordings. Each one of them was simply set back to the same text as when we started. I'm putting in the effort here, coming up with better phrases and wording, giving everyone some suggested wording. It's easy to just press the "revert" button, that's not getting anything fixed. This isn't a one man effort, this is a team effort, get in there and come up with some better wording, at least attempt to address some of the issues.SecretaryNotSure 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle URL is an Internet Archive link because apparently they take their stories down after ten years. I added another good source: "The Congressman Who Voted Against a Congressional Medal for Rosa Parks," in Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (Summer, 1999) No. 24, pp. 38-9, but that's not on the web unless you have JSTOR access to it. Sources don't need to be on the web to meet the criteria for reliability. Here is a very interesting 1996 New York Times column which quotes the comments about Barbara Jordan at length, and remarkably, Paul does not claim that someone else made them(!) -- "As for his remarks about Ms. Jordan, who was black, Mr. Paul said he was laying out a philosophical difference." WTF? 1of3 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked up those articles, and they also contradict the Houston Chronicle and do not back up some claims made in the Atlanta Progressive News. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education says it was called the Ron Paul Political Report, mentions only the Barbara Jordan remarks and the criminals in DC remarks, not anything about Bill Clinton, and it also fails to mention the very pertinent fact that Paul denied writing the comments and his denial had been concluded to be accurate and accepted by journalists at Texas Monthly a full four years before publication of that article. Therefore, it also may not be the best source to use. The New York Times article you mention above also calls it the "Ron Paul Political Report" and says nothing about any comments besides ones on Barbara Jordan. Finally, this was formerly in this article and was taken out at one point, but the reason Paul did not deny making the allegations when they first came up is because his campaign aides convinced him not to, and he also felt he had a "moral responsibility" because they appeared under his name. Since, as evidenced by your comments above, you and other readers may have missed this point, I may restore the full quote to the section to clear that confusion up.--Gloriamarie 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ron Paul Politcal Report was renamed The Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993. By the time that the Chronicle and Journal articles were written, Paul had given no indication that he was not the author. 1of3 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, the "internet archive" is not a source. It could have originally been from anywhere. It could have been edited, or the Houston Chronicle could have retracted the story. All we know is we dug it out of some archive. For all we know, this is the archive of some story that was on "Lefty's" website. "Lefty" might have cut out some parts of the story, so even though it "says" it's from the Houston Chronicle at the top, it could be from anywhere, written by anyone.

Is there any way we can take a look at the other reference, can you print it here or somewhere? Does this reference say that Ron Paul wrote these things? Or are we just repeating some rumor that was a repeated rumor from some other rumor?

One of the easiest mistakes that "infests" wikipedia, with all due respect, is simply assuming anything said by someone they never heard of before is "a source" without any regard to who that source might be, how reliable it might be.

I see what you mean about normally, "secondary sources" are better than primary sources, however, here the secondary source is telling us what the primary source said, not simply telling us how to interpret it.

At the very least the comments about this "controversy" should be put in the context that they occured-- partisan politics. Why not mention "lefty" Morris. Or, do some people not want to mention that all this comes from "Lefty?" Why not?SecretaryNotSure 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle did run that article as it appears on archive.org, and although both Texas Monthly and the New York Times agreed that Ron Paul did not write the articles in question, the Chronicle has never returned to the subject, as far as I know. A big aspect of that article is that Lefty Morris was trying to paint Paul as a racist, and the Texas Monthly follow-up mentions that this just didn't work because voters in the district trusted Paul-- this would also be important information to include. I agree with John J. Bulten's earlier consolidating of this into the Campaigns section concerning Lefty Morris, calling it "1996 Campaign and Controversy".--Gloriamarie 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That NY times link is interesting. From 1996. I thought all the stuff on the internet "was archived" from then. I presume if the publication hasn't retracted the story, maybe it will still be there. This is more evidence that the "webarchive.org" link is not that reliable -- I'm sure someone wrote that and I'm sure it's not 100% lies, because it's not... but exactly how much, that's that the question.

OK, from the NY Times article, we find out Ron Paul was critical of Barbara Jordan, the polititian from where he later ran for congress. So?

There's also a dangerous mixing of comments, some written by him, some by some crazy person or persons, who knows. So you string together all these racist sounding things, then say "and he criticized Barbara Jordan, who is black..." it's a complete mixing of god knows what. There's a reason why this only appears in obscure journals.

I want to clarify my comment about how wikipedians make a mistake about "sources." Normally, multiple sources about something are multiple people reporting on something. Like, some car accident or a trial or plane crash or some debate, they each ask the witnesses or they each independently look at the event, and then write about it, those are multiple sources. In this case, what we seem to have is "one guy" who picked out a few lines from maybe 7000 articles published over 20 years in this newsletter? No one seems to have checked if this is true, no one seems to have any copies of any of these newsletters?

No, these are not "multiple sources." Even if some blog or some website or newsmax.com or someone were to publish a thing tomorrow, it would be no more current than simply repeating what they heard, the same half urban legend. That is, unless they actually did do some investigating and find the newsletters, find out who wrote what, then ask Paul about if he wrote this, and if he has any comment, etc. But other that that it's just repeating the same thing they heard from the same place. That's what the Atlanta progressive newsletter is, just repeating what they heard and telling the faithful "see how racist this guy is" i.e. what we would call "pushing a POV."

By the way, did you notice the name of the newsletter keeps changing? Is it "Ron Paul Survival Report?" or "The Ron Paul Political Report?" or "Terrorist Update" Each source we have, so far, calls it something different.

How do you answer the false light and the undue weight argument? (i.e. paul said this, paul said that, and in the last sentence it says actually paul didn't say these things)

Sorry so wordy, take some time to ponder, but remember, stuff that is questionable and negative shouldn't be permitted to sit there.SecretaryNotSure 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I found the current issue of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education at http://www.jbhe.com/ . The front page article is Barack Obama is the Superior Choice for African-American Voters. Which is fine, except, the point being this publication is endorsing the Democratic Party's candidate! This is not some neutral observer.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Ron Paul, need I mention, is a member of the Republican Party. And here are the sources:

1. The campaign of the Democratic candidate in '96, Charles "Lefty" Morris
2. A story in an unknown archive about the claims of the Democratic candidate,
3. A story in the Democratic newsletter written by the Democratic congresswoman's press agent
4. (I'm presuming) the same claims repeated in the JBHE, a publication promoting the Democratic candidate.

(I am not saying anything bad about the Democratic party or anything like that... I'm speaking of simple neutrality and POV)

Do you see a pattern here? This article is the bio of a living person who is a Republican candidate. All the stuff in question here comes from the Democratic Party. What more do I need to say?SecretaryNotSure 04:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are ignoring the 1996 NYT article and the fact that when asked, Paul never denied the comments. Paul acknowledged the comments, originally saying that "he was laying out a philosophical difference" and then later saying he didn't write them, but one of his employees did. The excuse he gave for why he didn't originally say he wasn't the author was that his campaign aides "said that's too confusing." Given ample opportunity, he never denied the comments were published in his name, so the facts are not even in question, let alone possibly defamatory or libelous. 1of3 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all photographs published by the govenment considered public domain?

If so, why aren't we allowed to apply this principle to Ron Paul's photograph? --129.2.131.127 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a picture from the campaign, not Congress. All someone has to do is call his campaign office and get an email saying they are releasing it under the GFDL, a commercial Creative Commons license, or into the public domain. Then copy that email into the image text and it will stick. 1of3 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)