Talk:Ron Paul

Medicare

The last sentence of the Military and Medical Career section should be revised. Medicare is an "insurance" program for people over 65. Generally speaking, there aren't many 65+ women having babies. Including Medicare in this context is irrelevant and weakens the argument.

An OBGYN deals in large part with child birth, but not exclusively. Women over 65 still have reproductive organs, even if they aren't using them.

It says "Medicaid and Medicare" and there are many, many women having babies on Medicaid. Medicare actually also applies to people younger than 65 who have certain developmental disorders.--Gloriamarie 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the "Criticism" Part?

It seems like every candidate has a spot for criticism of the candidate, except Ron Paul. What the hell?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.39.221 (talk • contribs)

Can you suggest any notable criticisms/controversies other than disagreements with his views (which every politician has).--Daveswagon 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Many political articles do not have controversy sections, for example: Barack Obama and John Edwards. This just depends on the editors themselves and to have a Criticisms section is not part of a political article template or something.--Gloriamarie 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, controversy sections are okay but criticism sections should be avoided on all bio articles. Just my opinion. Turtlescrubber 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Censorship?

I hold great contempt for MySpace, but I saw this video. Anyone with a MySpace account care to verify this? In fact, if the source of that which was pasted was found, I have phished accounts that can be used to back it up, if Wiki requires. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewspeakdictionary%2Ecom%2Fnewspeak%2Ehtml 68.1.79.246 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a result of Myspace's battle against spammers. --69.210.9.100 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Myspace isnt to bright if this is how they are battling spammers because there are worse spammers then saying ron paul is running and that you suppost him Gang14 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else heard anything about this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gang14 (talk • contribs)

This issue is a hoax as far as I've determined. If you type up your own support info for Ron Paul on Myspace, even including your own links and things you've got no problem. The videos I've seen are being blocked due to their structure and the nature of the included links. It is indeed MySpace's anti-spam blocking, but the term "Ron Paul" is not what gets blocked. 209.159.98.1 15:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Why was the picture switched from the newer one that has been used for awhile? The one that currently is at the top was previously in the Congressional career section. The newer picture should be used.--Gloriamarie 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be deleted now ([1]), possibly because it was orphaned.--Daveswagon 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this back as the main photo after after having confirmed copyright.--Ronpaulnation 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Good work.--Gloriamarie 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I think it is quite clear that this article is being whitewashed by vocal supporters. As discussed above, the removal of well-sourced criticism as "hearsay," the refusal to include the fact that he opposes gay marriage and abortion even though he admits he does, and the exclusion of his political positions in the intro are all serious problems. They will need to be resolved before I will consent to removal of the NPOV tag I am placing on this article. BenB4 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. If it is biased, it is probably biased against Ron Paul, rather than for him. For example, the racial comments in his newsletter that were written by a staffer whom he immediately fired are mentioned in this article, even though they are irrelevant and the section was originally biased against him and did not include his response to the comments or his frequent criticisms of the idea of racism. If anything, this article may be biased against Ron Paul, however, I think it is fairly balanced. I personally haven't seen much criticism of Ron Paul, except for the usual criticisms of libertarians, except for personal attacks on Ron Paul supporters and personal attacks are not permitted to be included on Wikipedia. If there is any criticism of Ron Paul which you can find a reliable source for, feel free to add it. Life, Liberty, Property 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "malicious ghostwriter staffer" explanation is that there is no documentation other than Paul's word. What is the name of the staffer? What does he or she have to say about the article? Why was there no explanation that the newsletter was being ghostwritten before that article was questioned by the Houston Chronicle? Why is any mention of gay marriage scrubbed from this article by admitted supporters? The criticism by libertarians which were removed by a supporter were sourced (well, one of the two paragraphs was reliably sourced, the other was sourced to a blog but unlikely to be controversial because it represented what some libertarian challenger was saying about him.) That kind of critique is allowed under WP:BLP. I have felt "free" to add several passages which have been removed by supporters. BenB4 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you see a problem with it or not is irrelevant. Both The New York Times and Texas Monthly have said that Paul's explanation makes perfect sense because the writings are not in his style or language and are of views that he has not espoused at other times. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but for using reliable sources to write articles.--Gloriamarie 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "ghostwriter staffer" was Eric Dondero I believe.

Why do you feel gay marriage needs to be mentioned on the main article and not in the Political positions page? Why do you assume his stance on this is something "bad" that Paul's "supporters" are trying to hide?--Daveswagon 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number of news stories in the past several years, it's a much more important issue than abolition of the income tax, which is covered in detail. BenB4 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the income tax effects a much larger portion of the population than same-sex marriage does.--Daveswagon 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that.

I am removing the NPOV tag because Paul has stated that the federal government has no right to define what marriage is. Feel free to add this cited information from the "Political positions" page if you think it deserves to be on the main page. His pro-life abortion stance is clearly explained and cited on the main page.foraneagle2

The citation that the above user continually inserts here and in Political positions of Ron Paul to say that he "opposes gay marriage" does not say that he opposes gay marriage. If you can find actual cited proof that he opposes gay marriage, it can be cited in the Political Positions article. Most politicians' articles say nothing about their stance on gay marriage, especially Republicans. I'm not sure why you're implying that this is such a controversy.--Gloriamarie 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference says:

• "I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman....
• If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act....
• "I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.
• "If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state."

On July 22, 2004 he said:

• "I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state....
• "Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." (emphasis added)

How can you possibly say he is not against gay marriage? BenB4 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I read the speech and he's talking about state's rights. Basically, he's saying that each state should decide what marriage is and isn't. So, based on this speech alone, it's not fair to saying he's against gay marriage. In fact, I can't even tell whether he's pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage because he doesn't even mention his opinion. Read it again, it's all about state's rights.

How about this one, then?

• "Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter....
• "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages....
• "The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable....
• "It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government....
• "Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality...." (emphasis added) BenB4 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those quotes is about state's rights.

No, attributing "fear" to the spread of same-sex marriage rights is not about states' rights. Claiming that allowing gay marriage is "giving up" is not about states' rights. Equating "secular" with "pro-gay" after you have stated that marriage is a religious matter is not about states' rights. Restricting gays from the marriage rights that everyone else enjoys is not "freedom" and calling it freedom is not about states' rights. BenB4 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He's attributing "fear" to federal power overruling state's rights. Every single one of those quotes has some sort of qualification:

• "not a government matter"
• "one state, all other states will be forced to accept"
• "federal level"
• "states’ rights ... tyranny of centralized government"
• "relentless federalization of state law"

You're unintentionally proving my point about not recognizing that there are a third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) ways of looking at things. Can you provide a single quote (that's not taken out of context) where Ron Paul unequivocally says he's in favor of federal intervention of marriage? Just one quote, please. (So far, every single quote you have provided is about state's rights.) Thanks.

Those quotes all qualify. What if he had said: "Americans understandably fear that if slavery is abolished in one state, all other states will be forced to recognize the citizenship of blacks"? What if he had said: "Americans understandably fear that if women are allowed to vote in one state, all other states will be forced to grant them sufferage"?

It doesn't matter whether he's talking about states, counties, or cities: he clearly says that it is "understandable" to "fear" being forced to accept gay marriage. He clearly says that marriage is a religious matter and that being "pro-gay" is "secular." He clearly says that outlawing gay marriage is equivalent to "freedom." BenB4 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he says that it's understandable to fear federal intervention into a state's rights issue. But I thank you for acknowledging that all those quotes are qualified by states' rights issues. As for your hypothetical questions, "What if he had said..." I would guess that Ron Paul would say that they're still state rights issues. But Wikipedia isn't about guessing. Nor is Wikipedia about hypothetical "What if situations". Nor is Wikipedia the place for original research. Every single one of your quotations about Ron Paul has some sort of qualification regarding states rights issues.

Can you provide us a single quote (that's not taken out of context) where Ron Paul unequivocally says he's in favor federal intervention of marriage?

I think you are completely wrong. I don't think any reasonable person can think those quotes do not obviously show his opposition to gay marriage. I note he voted yes to ban gay adoptions in Washington DC, and if that doesn't settle the matter, I don't know what will. By the way, please follow the instructions you are shown when you edit talk pages to "remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)." BenB4 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you just changed topics from marriage to adoption.67.184.23.112 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not resolved. There has been no suitable explanation of why:

• well-sourced criticism has been removed as "hearsay";
• there is no description of his stance on gay marriage at all;
• the summary of his political positions has been repeatedly removed by admitted supporters.

Please do not remove dispute the dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. BenB4 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What was the "hearsay" criticism again?--Daveswagon 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This in particular the Peden quote. BenB4 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have quotes of support for Paul in this section, why would have we have quotes attacking him? What does this have to do with the facts of his Congressional campaign?--Daveswagon 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap! That whole section is written like a hagiography. It's a quote from his congressional opponent. BenB4 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Poppycock! Two wrongs don't make a right.--Daveswagon 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that there should be a description of Ron Paul's personal beliefs. This is a biography, not a political ad. However, because of his peculiar variety of politics, it is especially important to separate those personal beliefs from his political views. Saying "Ron Paul opposes gay marriage" may be accurate, but it is misleading to imply that he would ask the federal government to pass legislation enforcing his belief. I think that a "personal views" section (removed after the discussion above) would be very useful because of this unique problem.--Taz80 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. I would support saying "Paul personally opposes both abortion and same-sex marriage, but political supports an end to any federal intervention for or against either issue." Or something like that.--Daveswagon 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(It's good practice to sign your posts.) That sounds fine to me, and if it can be easily woven into other sections, then that's the way to go. I just think that it is important to distinguish controversial personal positions from political platforms throughout the article.--Taz80 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try telling that to BenB4.--Daveswagon 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? You agreed with -- and even thanked me [2] for -- text saying he opposes, "gay marriage as well as federal definition of marriage. He thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and is personally opposed to abortion, which he believes should be regulated only by the states." But that was deleted repeatedly.[3][4][5]. If we can agree to leave that summary in the lead, and agree that critical comments attributed to newspapers and other reliable sources shouldn't be removed, then I would agree to remove the NPOV tag. BenB4 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am kidding, although I do wish you'd extend the same logic to the same-sex marriage issue that we agreed on for abortion.--Daveswagon 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please understand that I am not disputing your sources about Paul's opponents' comments. I just feel those comments contribute very little to telling about Paul or (in the case of that section) Paul's Congressional campaign. In some of my last few edits, I removed similarly useless but positive comments, so I hope we can move in that direction instead.--Daveswagon 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He opposes gay marriage, however, he does not believe that the federal government has the right to make a ruling on it. See the 10th Amendment.

I have inserted the following:

Likewise, while he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, and may even have sought to prohibit it if he had the Constitutional authority to do so, Paul considers the lack of federal jurisdiction to be an overriding factor and has thus been bound from bringing federal legislation on the matter. He has consistently relegated state and individual matters which are outside of the realm of a limited federal government as defined by the United States Constitution.[33]

and removed the NPOV tag. Are we finished with our gay marriage squabble? JLMadrigal 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate for Political positions of Ron Paul, and I don't think it's supported by evidence that I've seen. Where is the reliable source saying that Ron Paul would ban gay marriage at the federal level if he had the chance? He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which did just that. That's speculation. It doesn't belong in the article without citation. When asked about the subject, he has said the government shouldn't even be in the business of regulating marriage licenses-- that's the opposite of regulating certain types of marriage.--Gloriamarie 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the insertion, omitting the speculation. Is it acceptable to everyone? JLMadrigal 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutly not! I will revise it so that all you supporters can see what I consider to be a fair description. BenB4 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the unsourced paragraph on gay marriage with direct quotes from his speeches. I also tried to remove bias in other places and conform the article to the Manual of Style. BenB4 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A little off-topic here, but this is one of my grammar peeves: Please, it should be "might even have sought to prohibit it", not "may have". If you say "may have sought..." it means "possibly he did seek to prohibit it", rather than "possibly he would have under other circumstances".

This is orthogonal to the question of whether that speculation should appear at all. I agree that it should not appear, unless you can find a quote of Paul saying "I would have considered banning gay marriage at the Federal level", or evidence of similar quality to that. --Trovatore 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Political positions leftovers

I trimmed the following from the Political positions section as it was merged in from another section but still doesn't really belong. Perhaps can be worked in elsewhere.

Records from the Federal Election Commission show that Paul accepts money from political action committees (PACs), although much less than most of his counterparts in Congress. Dr. Paul consistently received PAC money during the 1998(5.7%), 2000 (4.5%), 2002 (1.8%), 2004 (5.8%), and 2006 (2.1%) congressional electoral cycles.

In a special report, the group Clean Up Washington listed Paul as taking the seventh-least amount of money from PACs of all members of the House, as well as one of the members of Congress accepting the least amount of money from lobbyists and as ranking fourth in taking the most percentage of contributions from small donors. Their data studied contributions from the 2000 election cycle to midway through 2006. Of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, he has accepted the least percentage of PAC money.

Paul can be "maddeningly uncooperative" to his Republican colleagues because he will not give in to pressure to vote for bills that he views as spending taxpayers' money in a wasteful manner or for bills that he feels violate the Constitution. Once when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exhorted every Republican to vote the party line, he invoked a "Ron Paul exemption," saying Paul could vote as he pleased. Fellow fiscal conservative Jeff Flake said in 2006, "When I'm the only no vote, I can usually rest assured he's on a plane somewhere." Paul recounts that once, a bill passed 432-3. He thought the bill was based on a bad principle, and he had convinced the two members of the House sitting next to him to join him in casting a "No" vote while they waited.

DARFUR

Paul actually opposed the bill that sent U.S. aid to civilians in Darfur, and called for an end to the conflict with peacekeeping by African, Arab and Muslim nations. That was not reflected by the edit that I corrected which said that Paul opposed U.S. "intervention". His actions against this bill should not be equated with his answer on CNN regarding a U.S. intervention in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan. #1 his Darfur actions were real, not hypothetical, and #2 no military intervention was involved. The bill he opposed was aid, foreign peacekeepers, and a call for the end of the conflict. It wasn't a declaration of war. read it here: http://clinton.senate.gov/features/darfur/documents/2004.09.23_Comprehensive_Peace_in_Sudan_Act_of_2004.pdf

Adam Holland 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After you read that, read Paul's statement on the floor of the House during the debate on the House amendments.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=582

Adam Holland 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "intervention" necessarily equals "war". I think ordering troops into the region, whether American or not, is still intervening.--Daveswagon 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been continuing this discussion on our respective user pages, and I just wanted to post on this space my reasons for including Paul's Sudan policy. (Before I do, in response to the above, you should already know that the US Congress does not have the power to order foreign peace-keepers into Sudan. Read the bill, okay. Now, my reasons for inclusion of this subject:

1) The issue of "non interventionism" is central to Paul's campaign. Paul's actions with respect to Darfur go to his definition of "intervention" including humanitarian aid. This broad definition is interesting to those trying to parse out "non-interventionism" as opposed to isolationism and does not appear elsewhere in the article. 2) Paul's opposition to the Darfur bill was a real world action by Paul that could have prevented aid to millions of people in Sudan, were he successful. It's not just an answer to a question or a campaign talking point. This is his real world policy in action. 3) The issue of Darfur, although under the radar now, would likely arise as a major issue should Paul be nominated, and WILL likely be an issue regardless (partially because of #4). AND 4) Senator Clinton played a huge role on the bill that Paul opposed, and is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, as you must know. So this is an instance where they have already debated, as it were.

DAVESWAGON, on my user page, asks:

I'll clarify my question: Why can't we simply say "Paul opposes foreign intervention and aid" instead of saying "Paul opposes foreign intervention and aid in Sudan, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Israel, etc..."--Daveswagon 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

MY ANSWER to daveswagon: for the four reasons stated above. Here's the thing: Paul actually played a role in the debate and crafting of the Darfur aid bill in 2004. Question: has he taken ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER on any of the issues you cite? I don't mean anything as important as opposing them in Congress, I mean ANYTHING. He was actively involved with opposing Darfur aid in Congress, where it counts, not on a blog or a TV interview. If he had been successful, Darfur would not have received our humanitarian aid. If you have other similar examples, I agree with you that those should be included in the main article as well. If you only have debating points, answers from interviews or position papers, maybe the cases you cite could be included in another single sentence. Clearly, if he hasn't taken action on those issues, they're inclusion is not as important.

Adam Holland 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. His stances: Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000), Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999), accepted position that Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful. (Dec 2000), voted NO on request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan.[6][7]--Daveswagon 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IF you are saying that these votes are important, you're correct. They each illustrate different aspects of his anti-foreign aid beliefs. It makes it clear that the issue of foreign is MORE important than the article currently reflects.

Are you arguing that, because he's voted this way, his opposition to Darfur aid is less noteworthy? I'm not sure I follow that logic. Let me ask you outright: what is it about Paul's Darfur policy that makes you want to exclude it from the page? Is it that you think it's not noteworthy -- just another of his positions? Or is it, as it seems clear from your previous edits, that you think it is an unpopular position that you would like to conceal?

I'm not trying to exclude his Darfur policy. If we say "Paul opposes foreign aid" then it's included. That's what I want.--Daveswagon 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes as much sense as saying "Paul is anti-war" and claiming that should exclude specific references to Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that the opposite is true. His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included PRECISELY BECAUSE they illustrate the broader policy, not to mention their importance as issues, in terms of both the "real world" and the campaign. Similarly, Darfur is illustrative of the broader issue, is important in its own right as an issue, will play a role as a specific campaign issue, and highlights a difference with other candidates (specifically Sen. Clinton, whose bill he opposed). For those reasons (already stated above and on your talk page), I disagree with your desire to delete this subject or meld it with a question he answered in a CNN interview about a hypothetical war with Taiwan (!).

Paul's Darfur actions merit a mention and a link to Paul's own website, where he publishes his speech to the House on the subject.

Ron Paul is not anti-war.--Daveswagon 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Are his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan anomalous, or are they illustrative of some underlying, broad principle, such as "anti-interventionism". The point is that nobody would know what he meant by that term, or by opposition to foreign aid, if they didn't know how he dealt with specific issues. THAT'S HIS RECORD! Are you saying that his record isn't important?

Adam Holland 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What could "no foreign aid" mean other than "no foreign aid"?--Daveswagon 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It might mean "no foreign aid except in an emergency" or "no foreign aid except for allies" or "no foreign aid except for natural disasters". The point is that the definition of what Paul means by "no foreign aid" is clarified by how he's put this into action. It's precisely the exceptions and extreme cases that define a position. By including the Darfur information, the article defines "no foreign aid" as including instances where millions of people risk starvation. An extreme case...and therefor illustrative of Paul's position.

By the way, wasn't your alleged concern about not including specifics to illustrate broader policies contradicted when you characterized Paul's position with respect to Sudan as opposing "intervention" and lumped it with an answer he gave to a reporter's hypothetical about U.S. intervention in a war between China and Taiwan. I mean, what's YOUR broad underlying principle? If you believe that specific examples of how Paul's beliefs play out in policy are undeserving of inclusion, then why did you make that edit?

Pardon me for saying so, but based on that edit, I believe that this is about what you believe looks good for Paul. Why not let his actions speak for themselves rather than attempting to conceal them? He's proud enough of his speech on the subject to publish it on the web!

Adam Holland 01:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You think saying "Ron Paul opposes all foreign aid" makes him look good?

I removed the Taiwan sentence an hour ago, by the way.--Daveswagon 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I definitely don't. But I know that NOT saying "Ron Paul opposes aid to Darfur civilians" makes him look better than saying it. That's the point of your not wanting it included. And that was the point of your conflating it with a non-existent "Taiwan issue". Why would you have done that if not to burnish Paul's image?

Adam Holland 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These issues are related because Paul opposed both of them on the grounds of being interventions into foreign affairs that have no relation to the U.S.'s national security. He makes no mention of specifically opposing aid to civilians in the speech you linked to just like he makes no mention of opposing Taiwanese independence/democracy in the CNN video. To claim that politicians support/oppose ever detail of the bills they vote for or against is silliness, especially considering the notoriety of the riders they put on these things.--Daveswagon 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the bill? The only U.S. action it authorizes is provide aid. The rest is calling upon the international community for action, calling for a peaceful resolution, and stating that Sudan has done wrong.

I have no idea what this has to do with Taiwan. Can you explain?

Adam Holland 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adam Holland 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Bill:

(5) the United States and the international community should—

(A) provide all necessary assistance to deploy and sustain an African Union Force to the Darfur region; and

(B) work to increase the authorized level and expand the mandate of such forces commensurate with the gravity and scope of the problem in a region the size of France;

(6) the President, acting through the Secretary of State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, should—

...

(C) encourage member states of the United Nations to—

(i) cease to import Sudanese oil; and

(ii) take the following actions against Sudanese Government and military officials and other individuals, who are planning, carrying out, or otherwise involved in the policy of genocide in the Darfur region, as well as their families, and businesses controlled by the Government of Sudan and the National Congress Party:

(I) freeze the assets held by such individuals or businesses in each such member state; and

(II) restrict the entry or transit of such officials through each such member state;

(7) the President should impose targeted sanctions, including a ban on travel and the freezing of assets, on those officials of the Government of Sudan, including military officials, and other individuals who have planned or carried out, or otherwise been involved in the policy of genocide in the Darfur region, and should also freeze the assets of businesses controlled by the Government of Sudan or the National Congress Party;

(8) the Government of the United States should not normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to, and takes demonstrable steps to implement, peace agreements for all areas of Sudan, including the Darfur region;

That's humanitarian aid?--Daveswagon 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be dealing with humanitarian aid if that is the bill in question. I oppose the inclusion of this because the political positions section is too long already after its recent merger with another section, and this can be extensively covered in Political positions of Ron Paul.--Gloriamarie 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This process is broken. First you misrepresent Paul's opposition to this bill as not wanting the U.S. to "intervene and equate it with an answer to a hypothetical question about war between Taiwan and China. Then, a 180 degree turn, you say that it shouldn't be mentioned because it, since it only deals with foreign aid, a specific mention was redundant. Now, another 180, it should be deleted because it deals with MORE than foreign aid.

You have started with the conclusion that this should be deleted, then used a series of contradictory reasons to justify the deletion. The process is broken...

Adam Holland 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job of confusing me with statements like "The only U.S. action it authorizes is provide aid".--Daveswagon 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My first position is that it doesn't belong in the Political Positions section of this article, which is already too long. My second position is that if it can be supported, it belongs in Political positions of Ron Paul. From what Daveswagon posted above, it doesn't seem this bill had much to do with humanitarian aid.--Gloriamarie 01:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul voted for the War in Afghaninstan?

The article says: "Paul believes in a strong national defense and voted for the War in Afghanistan in 2001..." Is that correct? I can't find anything on this, but his speech before the war certainly sounds like he opposed it.--Daveswagon 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow I feel like voting for the guy and I am in Australia!

Yes, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan. I believe he also championed the idea of letters of marque and reprisals.

From the Candidates@Google Talk (5:02 into the talk): "Well we really didn't declare war against Afghanistan and I would have voted against authority to go into Afghanistan, take it over, and nation build. Besides that effort was designed for some economic reasons of oil and gas pipe lines and things, that's why they had to take over Afghanistan. But I did vote for the authority to go after the Al-Qaeda believing that targeting the individual and the group that seemed to be very likely the people who brought about 9/11. The authority given and the money given was totally abused, we went into nation building. Where is Osama bin Laden? He's in Pakistan, Pakistan is a military dictatorship that we support and now we subsidize and they have nuclear weapons. So it makes no sense what so ever with this ridiculous foreign policy that we have. So no I would oppose and never intended for the president to misuse that authority. So what happened? We ignored Osama bin Laden and said let's go to war against Iraq. So that is the kind of irrational policies that I'm trying to fight." --Bruce 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes it sound like he did oppose action in Afghanistan.--Daveswagon 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "I did vote for the authority to go after the Al-Qaeda..." is supporting action in Afghanistan (specifically, actions to go after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan). What he did not support was the abuse of that authority and associated money to be used for nation building instead of going after A-Q. --Serge 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And that doesn't refer to the letters of marque and reprisal? Wasn't the authorization to go after the Taliban (which supposedly had access to bin Laden)?--Daveswagon 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Ron Paul favored letters of marque and reprisal over war, but since that idea didn't go anywhere, he voted for the war in Afghanistan.

OK, I found the legislation. It was the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Paul did vote for it.--Daveswagon 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He supported it, but he thought it should be have been handled better and could have been done more effectively (i.e., bin Laden could have been captured).--Gloriamarie 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure was hard to find, thanks and here is the associated roll call. --Bruce 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Way

Here's one the problems faced by libertarians and third-party candidates. Often times, their views present a third way of looking at things that don't conveniently fit into conventional schools of thought. Gay marriage is a case in point. Most people think that either you're pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage. And that's it. There are no other possible view points. In fact, the very idea that there could be a third way of looking at issues doesn't occur to some people. As best I can tell, Ron Paul's view is that marriage is not an issue that the federal government should decide. It's a state issue. He is neither pro-gay marriage nor anti-gay marriage. He has a third way of looking at things that does not fit into the two conventional camps.

He says that "Americans understandably fear" national legalization of gay marriage. Frankly, I think it would be more understandable to fear nationwide recognition of drivers' licenses issued to senior citizens under the Full Faith and Credit Clause than marriage licenses, but I am probably more part of the "secular, pro-gay left" willing to "give up" than a religious person who wants to "save freedom and morality." BenB4 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And if Paul said "Americans understandable fear chocolate ice cream" then it means he supports the execution of anyone caught with Rocky Road. Sheesh.--Daveswagon 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4: "National legalization" are the key words. Again, he's talking about state's rights. He opposes federal intervention into the issue and believes each state should decided for themselves what their own policy will be.

Yes, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he just doesn't think this should be handled at the federal level.--Gloriamarie 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Brown?

Does anyone know Dr. Paul's position on Brown v. Board of Education? 75.35.108.23 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an official stance has been made. We know he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and many of its regulations on the state Educatino Boards, but in the context of BvBoE I don't think there's an official stance. 209.159.98.1 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

I fixed the opening slightly regarding federal involvement of marriage but I still don't think it's right. Why are we mentioning marriage twice? Are we mentioning any other issue twice in that paragraph? 67.184.23.112 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to accurately represent his position. I think saying he "is opposed to gay marriage" is sufficient, but supporters tell me that the nuances are oh-so-important. The way you "fixed" is was to make it say the same thing twice -- being opposed to a federal definition of marriage is the same thing as wanting no federal jurisdiction over marriage: if you can't define it, you can't govern it, and vice versa. BenB4 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was already saying the same thing twice. Are there any cites of him being opposed to gay marriage? 67.184.23.112 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"- so clearly, your position on for instance gay marriage, you'd be supportive of that? I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Ron Paul in interview with Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Yes, any time he has been asked, he has said that there should be no federal intervention. This does not belong in the lead, anyway.--Gloriamarie 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay adoption

Seeing the new edit, I looked at the political positions page and linked to the source claiming that Ron Paul voted to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. Turns out that the vote cited for this claim is H.R. 2587, which is later mentioned in the article as not doing that at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like either the ACLU or wikipedia's editors are misrepresenting the contents of H.R. 2587. Granola Bars 05:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He voted for an amendment to that bill that would have prohibited gay adoption[8], but it failed 213-215.[9] OnTheIssues.org is not run by the ACLU. BenB4 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The amendment would not have prohibited gay adoption; it just would not have provided federal funds for it. That is quite a difference.--Gloriamarie 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit! He voted for the final appropriations bill. You can't have it both ways. ←Ben^B4 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that roll call where he voted "yes" is from July 1999. This roll call is from October 1999 on the same bill, and this one is from yet another roll call on the same bill a few weeks later. He voted "no" both times, the same vote as Dennis Kucinich. In any case, a glimpse of the text of the bill can find that nowhere is the word "gay" mentioned as related to adoptions, and the bill merely provides federal funding for adoptions but does not specify a specific kind. Please tell me where a "ban of gay adoptions" is in that bill.--Gloriamarie 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Largent's amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption was to H.R. 2587 "Making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities...." which passed in July and was vetoed by President Clinton because of concerns about education funding. The bill you are referring to is H.R. 3064, "District of Columbia Appropriations Act," an entirely different bill introduced in October after H.R. 2587 was vetoed. The fact is that Paul voted for the amendment prohibiting same-sex adoption. And I have never said he voted to "ban" gay adoptions. It is indisputable that he voted against them. ←Ben^B4 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is indisputable that he voted against federal funding for adoptions.--Gloriamarie 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section, article

I had attempted to add a controversy section (and then link to the new Ron Paul controversies article), but Anappealtoheaven has reverted my edits. Does anyone care to weigh in on this? I thought this would help reduce the article size.--Daveswagon 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind!--Daveswagon 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is marked for DELETION and needs to go. We have editors (Daveswagon and BenB4) who are conspiring to make changes to multiple sections clearly in a biased attempt to reflect badly on the candidate; making use of political positions "out of context" to prejudice the reader within the introduction and then they are using this "Controversies" section to eloborate on controversies that were not of Dr. Paul's making to slam the candidate with someone elses unfounded accuzations and putting words in the candidates month. This is unacceptable. These individuals are also editing political positions to undermine the candidates actual positions in an attempt to spin readers into and incomplete and false perception of the man and his views. I would strongly request that other editors review the edits of these two individuals as changes are made to content. Anappealtoheaven 05:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Which positions do you think are taken out of context or otherwise present biased views? BenB4 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am not involved in all of this, but maybe it is a response to attempts to take all critical info off of this page. I think both sides can give on this one. Turtlescrubber 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Anappealtoheaven regarding BenB4. He certainly seems to have a political bias. He repeatedly misrepresents Ron Paul's opposition to federal intervention on gay marriage into opposition to gay marriage itself. He refuses to acknowledge the distinction between these two positions. Several times, I asked him for cites and he was unable to provide a single one. If he keeps up his biased edits, I'm going to put a neutrality disputed tag on this article. 67.184.23.112 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to say only that he opposes federal regulation of marriage as long as we also state that he voted against gay adoption. That shows that he does not let his libertarianism trump his faith. I have not changed my position that he is opposed to gay marriage because he has said federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty" and "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." ←Ben^B4 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He did not vote against gay adoption, it was funding for gay adoption and was an amendment to the bill that was taken out later, so it was not central to the bill. Ron Paul says he votes against a bill if there is anything in it that is unconstitutional. This is in the realm of original research on your part, without an article referring to it or a citation to the actual bill and what it was about.--Gloriamarie 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly did vote against gay adoption. And saying so is not original research because OnTheIssues.org says the same thing. When you prohibit a government from spending money on a certain kind of adoption, then it does not happen because, e.g., clerks aren't even allowed to fill out the necessary forms. And adoption is a lengthy process involving many tens of thousands of dollars of social workers' time to match and approve a placement. Therefore, defunding same-sex adoption amounts to a de facto ban on them. If you don't believe me, search on "Largent amendment" and H.R.2587 and see what other people have to say. ←Ben^B4 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue at all. However, Ron Paul pretty much votes against all government spending, so it's entirely possible that he voted against them for that reason. -- Mattworld (talk to me) 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reduce size of Political positions section?

Given that there is a very healthy Political positions of Ron Paul page that is well linked from this page, perhaps we can reduce the Political positions section on this page to a simple summary, so interested readers can follow the link to the full blown discussion on the other page. -Gomm 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the other frequent editors of this page please acknowledge this goal? Users like BenB4 in particular seem to want to expand this section rather than scale it back. This is getting ridiculous, especially considering Hillary Clinton's political positions section is only five sentences long.--Daveswagon 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Awards and honors" section?

Not to diminish Paul's achievments, but I don't think the Awards and honors section is notable enough for inclusion (nor do many other candidates seem to have such a section in their articles). Most of the groups that gave Paul these awards have very specific agendas, so it's not terribly surprising that Paul would win their awards (like from the Mises Institute, for example). I think a few of these should be worked into the article elsewhere and the rest should go.--Daveswagon 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Affiliations

According to the Liberty Political Action Committee, Ron Paul is no longer associated with The Liberty Committee.

65.37.163.132 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

I think the confusion arises because "the Liberty Committee of Falls Church" is not the same as the Liberty Committee in the US Congress.--Gloriamarie 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Summarize mainlinks

The political positions and 2008 election need to be better summarized, as they do have their own articles and mainlinks. Please see WP:SUMMARY if you have any questions. Please post here if you disagree. If no one objects, I will take a hatchet to these sections as they are sprawling all over the page and have turned a good article into a middling article. Sprawl is hard to read. Turtlescrubber 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the newsletter section should also be shortened, as it's large size gives the section undue weight. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Daveswagon 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if it can be done in a manner to please all sides. It has taken a long time to settle on wording that all parties involved have agreed is suitable (the current version). Political positions is at this moment completely out of hand and needs to be summarized badly.--Gloriamarie 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it might be best to go slowly, piece by piece, so if anyone objects it should be easy to fix. I think the summary for the positions article is fine as it is, but will probably add another paragraph worth of text to make everyone happy (while erasing the subheadings of course.) Turtlescrubber 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rough summary completed. I think it should be moved further up in the article, right above the 2008 presidential section. Any opinion? Turtlescrubber 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be much further up.--Gloriamarie 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag added/Newsletter Controversy

I think that this should remain in the article but I think the current size of the section gives the newsletter undue weight. To start, one partial solution is to remove the blockquotes (leaving the quotes but removing the formatting). Full disclosure, I hate blockquote formatting. Another is to put the quotes in the footnote references. A third is to selectively remove some of the quotes and text. We could also do a combination of all three. Thoughts? Opinions? Turtlescrubber 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

edited version below

I would say that we should accurately summarize the quotations and then put the exact quotes in the footnotes. That should make this easier to read, take up less space but still convey the same info. Turtlescrubber 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think it should also be a subsection of the Campaigns section rather than its own section if it's going to appear above the Campaigns section.--Gloriamarie 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." needs to stay in, and I would like to know exactly what was said about Barbara Jordan. ←Ben^B4 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need to have that kept in it's fine. However, what do you want to know about Barbara Jordan that the sources can't tell you? I don't understand. Turtlescrubber 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remarks in the Ron Paul Survival Report Newsletter

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle alleges that Ron Paul made comments about race in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985), including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan. The article quoted the newsletter as stating that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." And also further remarking that a low percentage of blacks "have sensible political opinions" and commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking."Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

What do people think of this version? Turtlescrubber 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone likes it so much I threw it into the article. Turtlescrubber 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned at the top that Paul said they weren't his words. Someone just reading the first paragraph wouldn't have the whole story. That is why previously we had the quotes in the footnotes.--Gloriamarie 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum after seeing the edit removing the quotes from the footnotes: it was decided, similarly to the Tony Rezko situation in Barack Obama's article, that mentioning the quotes themselves when Paul had denied that they represented his views was giving undue weight to the controversy, so the quotes were removed to the footnotes. This was a consensus reached on the talk page. I see no consensus for changing it back.--Gloriamarie 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Under no conditions can I agree to that. Paul said he didn't write the words but admitted he takes "moral responsibility" for the article, unlike the Obama situation. And there is no such lengthy quote in the Barack Obama article footnotes. Moreover, the direct Houston Chronicle URL doesn't work any more, so people shouldn't be replacing it back in the article. ←Ben^B4 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that the entire section was whittled to two paragraphs under the subheading "Newsletter remarks" under the campaigns heading. For one thing, there was no campaign in progress at the time of the remarks. ←Ben^B4 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gloriamarie is correct. Consensus was to move the comments to the footnotes section in order to avoid giving them undue weight while still preserving visibility. There is no consensus for a change, but I'm sure we can revisit the issue if you like. Best regards. Jogurney 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a legal brief. We don't put multiple paragraphs of material in footnotes. They are called <ref> because they are for references, not prose. Finally, I disagree with the opinion that including this controversy which has been repeatedly covered in the national press is giving it undue weight. Paul took responsibility for the statements published under his by-line. That is be cause he knows just as well as we all do that even if he didn't write them himself, he hired the ghostwriter and made a conscious decision to forgo the supervision of that employee, and that reflects on his judgment. The statements are profoundly disturbing and under no conditions will I agree to relegate them to footnotes, no matter how many supporters clamor for it. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and there is no consensus because I most certainly dissent. ←Ben^B4 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So there is no compromise available to us at all. Everything must be exactly your way or thats it. No to moving the quotations to the footnotes, no to summarizing the quotations, no to past consensus on the page, no to listening to other editors and no to everything else. This is one of the longest sections on the page but barely registers in the life and political career of Ron Paul. You are being obstinate and totally opposed to any sort of compromise or open discussion. You opinion now matters a lot less because it seems that all you are interested in is pushing your pov. Turtlescrubber 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If trying to hold the article to the standards of the encyclopedia is obstinate, then so be it. At least I'm paying attention. The links to the Houston Chronicle in the version you inserted today don't even work anymore. ←Ben^B4 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure proved your point with that one. I guess its all settled. Turtlescrubber 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote your own link to what Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a democracy because its "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." I'm not sure what your point is. Consensus on the article means what most editors agree to on the talk page.--Gloriamarie 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I believe that the normal way to handle content disputes on wikipedia is to look for consensus (which was done several weeks ago regarding this item). Once a consensus is reached, it can be reconsidered, but a new consensus is needed for chsnge. One editor cannot ignore prior consensus on his/her own. In short, if you would like to move these comments into the body of the article, you have the burden of establishing a consensus for doing it. Also, please assume good faith, instead of labelling those that disagree with you as "Paul supporters". Best regards. Jogurney 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Turtlescrubber's rewrite works best. There is no need for the full quote and it gives undue weight. I also don't think the full quote should be in the references (to Ben's argument), just reference the source for the full quote / story. Also the POV tag should be removed from the article if this is the only section in dispute - use a section tag {{POV-section}}. However, I don't see this as a violation of POV policy (using Turtlescrubber's rewrite) as both points of view are presented and the tone appearers balanced. Morphh ^(talk) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You think accusations that Bill Clinton fathered illegitimate children appearing under the candidate's name give undue weight to the controversy about the article they appeared in? Why? I most certainly do not agree. ←Ben^B4 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, The Houston Chronicle does not ever call it a "controversy", so Wikipedia can't legitimately call it a controversy unless a few reliable sources do. Texas Monthly said Paul's opponent thought it would be a big deal, but it turned out not to be in the course of that election. Secondly, the Chronicle does not cite those quotes about Bill Clinton, so there would not be any point of even including them in the footnotes.--Gloriamarie 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I found a corroborating source (Searcy, R. (June 3, 2007) "The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know" Atlanta Progressive News) so we wouldn't have to refer to the article about the article over and over. But that got deleted. By the way, what the article actually said about Jordan was:

University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.

There is plenty of additional corroboration from The Austin-American Statesman ←Ben^B4 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of including the quote about Bill Clinton. It's not featured in any of those sources to my memory. Do these sources call it a controversy? The New York Times did not call it a controversy.--Gloriamarie 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Section removed until compromise is reached

Lets work this out, right here and right now on the talk page. I have been working on this section and asking for input but nobody seemed to care until it was put into the article.Turtlescrubber 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I didn't get a chance to take a look at it before you put it in. It's hard when not everyone is willing to compromise.--Gloriamarie 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thats okay. I was also unaware that there was a previous consensus version of this section. As I have said before, this info should be in the article, I am just looking for the most npov version possible. Taking up so much space throws the page's balance out of the window. So I am fine with the original consensus version too. My edits were made to meet both versions in the middle and try to find a lasting version. Turtlescrubber 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Four people do not comprise a consensus of editors on this article. ←Ben^B4 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when it's four against one (you), it most certainly does. Turtlescrubber 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON. Consensus means the absence of dissent, and I do not consent to having major controversies whitewashed and the lead biased by admitted supporters. ←Ben^B4 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus"... Some if not most of the editors who have weighed in on the subject of the lead-in have said that some of the political positions given are insignificant and most have said that they should not be included. Interesting page, thanks for the link.--Gloriamarie 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you called his position on abortion insignificant. I disagree, for reasons that I have explained in detail but are obvious to anyone who's lived in the US for a couple months. ←Ben^B4 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you obviously didn't read WP:CON. Give it another shot. Especially the parts on supermajority and unanimity. Turtlescrubber 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is just because I'm new at this, but I don't understand why any and all versions of this section have to be removed until a consensus is reached. I think I grasp the basics of consensus-building. But what's wrong with leaving a minimal adaptation while we discuss more fleshed-out versions? To not even have any reference to the racially charged comments (ghostwritten or not) or his alleged ties to the Minutemen/Patriot Movement groups -- especially when this page doesn't offer much else in the way of criticism -- seems to be a mistake. A reader would conclude that Wikipedia editors don't recognize any such worthwhile criticism, and considering the fact that we're trying to agree to what version of the criticism we want to include, I feel it's safe to say that's not true. Maybe for the time being, we could include at least a sentence or two, and perhaps a footnoted link to dKos, considering its popularity, if not, say, Orcinus or Off the Kuff? Maxisdetermined 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested removing the section in order to minimize edit-warring and reversions. I've seen it done on other articles and it seemed to work well. That said, I wouldn't oppose putting some "placeholder" comments back into the article until consensus is reached. Best regards. Jogurney 00:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I never heard about the Minutemen group you're referring to-- I don't believe this is widespread criticism from mainstream sources. The links you're giving are to sources that do not qualify as reliable sources-- they are one-person blogs.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, Orcinus has (at least) two bloggers, including an author with some mainstream credibility, David Neiwert, and seems to attract a respectable readership (100+ comments on at least two Ron Paul-centered articles). That said, one of these articles has been cross-posted on Firedoglake, which from what I can tell has (at least) 6 editors and perhaps a larger readership (226 comments on this article, about twice what appears on dKos's "Ron Paul: In His Own Words").

And you've never heard of the Minutemen, or just not Ron Paul's alleged connection to them? They're decidedly controversial. Though I must clarify: Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a strong established connection to the Minutemen, beyond inviting founder Simcox of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps as honored guest to a fundraiser (this is in Off the Kuff, which links to this Galveston County Daily story). On the other hand, he has a stronger connection to the patriot and militia networks popular in the 90s; this is documented at the above links (inc. dKos).

I'll agree with you that these stories haven't exactly made the rounds in evening news. Since they have been raised in at least one prominent blog (dKos), however, I feel it's important that we at least mention them alongside the "racist" critique. And to clarify my own position, I don't have any interest in attacking Paul or his campaign. I just came to this page and noticed the lack of any serious criticism. I later learned that someone had removed previous criticism, awaiting a consensus on its ultimate form. I'm just suggesting that the alleged ties to rather extreme groups could eventually be appended to any criticism here. And again, I think we at least some kind of "placeholder" (as Jogourney said) until consensus is reached. I could look through previous versions and draft something as basic and NPOV as possible (no more than 2-3 sentences) later, if no one else wants to. Maxisdetermined 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of these Minutemen in passing, but it's one of those things where they may be either controversial or heroes to you, depending on how you look at things. I don't see anything about them being racist within their Wikipedia articles, just that they think the feds aren't doing a good enough job patrolling the border and enforcing existing laws. None of the sources on the Ron Paul newsletters say that he is racist, either, (and in fact some make a point to say the opposite) so I'm not sure what you mean about the racist thing. I don't think it merits inclusion with just a mention on Daily Kos. (The Firedog link you give, by the way, loses credibility because it quotes the newsletters and purports that they are Paul's words without mentioning his later denial.) 100 or more comments is not rare on posts or articles about Ron Paul, because he has a very large Internet following. I can find many blog posts on the evils of, for instance, Hillary Clinton written by Joe Sixblog, but that doesn't mean their assertions merit inclusion in her Wikipedia article.--Gloriamarie 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I reverted edits that included such relatively minor issues as school prayer, capital punishment, and abortion in the beginning paragraphs of the article. The edits also gave an uncited, misleading impression of Paul's support or non-support for certain issues, such as school prayer (he is for it as freedom of speech, but not for state-sponsored forms of it), same-sex adoption (one time, he voted for a bill with an amendment that provided federal funding for adoptions by people unrelated to each other, this does not mean he's opposed to gay adoptions and as far as I know he's never addressed the issue, and Medicare and Medicaid (he has said that these programs would be "propped up" in his government and he is not opposed to them as in he wants to take away all funding immediately, in the same way he is opposed to the income tax, but just philosophically opposed and he would prefer a free market system). Abortion should not be mentioned in the lead and no other politician's article includes it. That is included in the Political positions section. Abortion should be included over any of those other issues, and I am also opposed to any positions being mentioned in the lead paragraphs.--Gloriamarie 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Paul-supporter BenB4 is trying to drum up Republican support for Paul by making mention of his "conservative" stances on abortion, gay rights and other issues wherever possible.--Daveswagon 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am trying to summarize his important positions as we discussed at length above. I happen to believe that school prayer, capital punishment, and abortion are in no way minor issues. Compare how many headlines they get compared to the number of stories about the congressional pension system which is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If I wanted to appeal to Republicans, I certainly wouldn't insist on including his position on capital punishment and the War on Drugs. I am simply trying to make a neutral article following WP:LEAD, something I increasingly am coming to believe is not possible for ardent supporters. ←Ben^B4 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of the fact that this is a summary of Ron Paul, not his political views.--Daveswagon 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I have so far:

Paul supports free trade, tighter border security, gun ownership, school prayer, and a return to free market health care. He opposes abortion, capital punishment, NAFTA and the WTO, the income tax, Medicare and Medicaid, universal health care, the War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. He voted against same-sex adoption. He is pro-life and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, arguing that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue," but voted to ban partial-birth abortions.

Are there any problems with that? ←Ben^B4 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with Gloriamarie. The Political positions page is the proper venue. The last sentence is contradictory without a broader understanding of Paul's political philosophy. (see my earlier deleted edit.) JLMadrigal 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD which says it should be "summarizing the most important points." How do we do that for a politician so far from party lines without summarizing his positions? If his political positions are important enough to have their own article, why are they not important enough to go in the lead? I appreciate that you don't think the last sentence is nuanced enough, but it is factually accurate and shows that his opposition to abortion trumps his libertarianism. ←Ben^B4 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"...his opposition to abortion trumps his libertarianism..." Negatory. A large percentage of libertarians oppose abortion, and an even larger share oppose partial birth abortion in which living babies are drowned, &c. The partial birth ban was an effort to undo the most catastrophic effects of the RvW dilemma - which was an unconstitutional supreme court decision. The legislation neither trumps his libertarianism nor is contradictory. Through RvW, the federal government has unconstitutionally claimed jurisdiction. Not for the intro. JLMadrigal 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So for whatever reason, a large number of libertarians are opposed to abortion, and a large number are opposed to restrictions on abortion. That bifurcation is exactly why it is important to state which side of the debate Paul is on. ←Ben^B4 04:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One possibility to summarize the positions in the introduction without listing specifics is to report on the principles, ideology and philosophies underlying his positions. Terjen 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I say remove the whole thing as it is already summarized on this page and has it's own page. You cant condense someones views down to a small paragraph. Also, user Ben won't compromise on this issue (or any other) so it's best to just remove it wholesale. Turtlescrubber 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Tell me his refusal to participate in the congressional pension system is more important than his political positions. ←Ben^B4 04:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is more important than putting all of his political views in the lead. There should be a two or three paragraph detailed summary of all of his political positions in the lead. We should absolutely try to fit very complicated and elaborate political positions and vote histories into two or three word sound bites. This should be longer and more in-depth than the lead on the political positions article. We should delete any reference to congressional pension systems as they hold no importance whatsoever. Turtlescrubber 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the positions should be removed,and the congressional pension thing can as well and the whole thing rewritten.--Gloriamarie 08:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Are there any problems with that?" Yes, there are big problems with the above paragraph, because it contains many unsourced statements and misleading ones.--Gloriamarie 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Here are just a few, to give an editor who keeps saying his additions are sourced the specifics of what I object to:

School prayer. Saying he "supports school prayer" on the same level as something like free trade implies that he takes the position that many Republicans do, which is that there should be some sort of official moments of silence or official prayer. He supports the right of individuals to pray on their own time, but does not support any official type of prayer as a violation of separation of church and state. That falls more under "freedom of speech" than school prayer. The issue is also not that important in the scheme of things and is ridiculous to include in the opening.

Philisophically he opposes Medicare and Medicaid, but he has said that he would not get rid of them as President and would fund them with money saved from ending foreign intervention. This juxtaposition makes it seem like he is opposed in the same way he is opposed to the income tax, as in total abolition. Not the case.

He has said that he opposes the FEDERAL War on Drugs; he has not said anything about the states not being allowed to continue it if they wish. (as far as I know) I have tried to insert the word "federal" but that has been reverted several times along with my other edits in an edit war.

Gay adoption. This bill was for funding of gay adoption, not banning it. Paul votes against most federal funding bills. It's misleading and ridiculous to put this in the opening of his encyclopedia entry. It is only acceptable if it says something like "the federal funding of gay adoption" or of adoption in general.

Each time this is inserted in the article, it reduces the quality and gives misleading information to readers.--Gloriamarie 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think saying he supports school prayer implies anything more than that he supports school prayer. If people want to know the details, the reference is there. The previous paragraphs make it abundantly clear that his views are not in line with the Republican party's. He's introduced seven constitutional amendments to allow school prayer, for goodness sake. Would saying he "supports non-compulsory school prayer" sufficiently address your concerns?

As for Medicare and Medicaid, I agree on reflection that they should be removed. He is opposed in principle and refused to accept either, but has signaled that he would not try to dismantle them.

I've addressed your misunderstanding about his vote against same-sex adoption above. He voted to defund it. Voting to defund it amounted to voting for a de facto ban on it. Period. I have shown abundant willingness to compromise on representing his stance on gay marriage -- there is more than enough evidence based on Paul's choice of language to show that he abhors it. In return, I ask that you balance that with the clear description of his vote on Largent's amendment. ←Ben^B4 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gloriamarie's points here. They way some of these things are worded can give the wrong impression. Also, the lead should include more of the article for summarization. It jumps right to political opinions.. where is the rest of the article in the lead? There should be at least one sentence for each section in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length above. What else in the article is more important than the candidate's views? He's running for the highest office in the land. Note that while WP:LEAD recommends inserting controversies surrounding the subject, I have never asked for or inserted the newsletter controversy in the lead. I am not being unreasonable here. ←Ben^B4 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I inserted a compromise proposal addressing two of Gloriamarie's three issues, but it was subsequently blanked by Turtlescrubber. ←Ben^B4 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise with your edits on the talk page and not in the article. Turtlescrubber 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I don't think any political positions should be mentioned in the lead. IF there is consensus to include them, and there definitely is not as most people are against including them, my suggestions above come in. "Non-compulsory school prayer" is better, but "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" would get the point across even better and would be more worthy of being included in the lead. Why leave out the federal war on Drugs? I'm interested by why you think voting against federal funding for something becomes a "de facto ban"... people can't pay for their own adoptions with their own money? That is certainly not a ban. I wouldn't mind having the federal government pay my electricity bill, for instance, but if they pass a law saying "we will not pay for electricity bills" that doesn't mean I can't just pay my own as I always have. That doesn't mean there will be no electricity bills from that point on. They'll just all be privately paid.--Gloriamarie 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD which recommends at least three paragraphs for an article of this size. As a politician, what defines the candidate more than his political positions? You agree that the bit about the congressional pensions should be removed -- so what do you think is important enough to be in the lead? I didn't leave out his opposition to the War on Drugs; it was in there.

An adoption is not something that you go in to an orphanage and plop down money for. By law, adoptions are lengthy processes that take several weeks of background checks and professional civil servant social workers to evaluate the potential parents. Perhaps libertarians thing that just anyone should be able to go in an purchase a child up for adoption without any effort on the part of civil servants? I'm sure that would go over great with the pedophile crowd. ←Ben^B4 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all adoptions involve civil servants of this country; many adopt from other countries because of the expense and difficult bureacracy that is found in this one. There are more people who want to adopt than are allowed to. I'm not sure what the libertarian view on adoption would be, but I know that the people I know who have adopted paid for their own with their own money, somtimes supplemented with money from their companies.--Gloriamarie 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some ideas that could make up an additional paragraph: more of a summary of his political career (served in the '70s-80s, then in '90s-now), participation in the Republican debates, his popularity on the Internet, he ran for President in 1988, he has often gone against his own party in many votes, his emphasis on individual liberty-- there are a number of things that are more appropriate than a laundry list of positions.--Gloriamarie 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Plainly, though, you can't include his positions on the Iraq War or mention his libertarianism without also mentioning his positions on abortion, capital punishment, and same-sex adoption. Those are equally valid and important political positions; I would strongly oppose any lead that provides a vague, handwaving view of his beliefs as "libertarian" or gives any mention of his position on Iraq without also specifically noting his views on abortion, capital punishment, school prayer, and so forth. To do otherwise is to cherry-pick the parts of his politics that are covered in the lead... I could see removing all description of his politics entirely (John McCain's page makes no mention of his position on the Iraq War, for instance, an area where he is vastly more famous for his position than Paul), but I absolutely do not think we can put any mention of Ron Paul's position on the war or try to give an overview of his principals in the intro, while leaving out his equally significant positions on other major issues. --Aquillion 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In removing the second paragraph, you deleted two named references that are used later in the article, making two blank references. Could you please replace them where they are cited? Thank you. ←Ben^B4 22:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! I found and restored one reference, but I couldn't find the other... maybe you meant one reference that was used in two other places? --Aquillion 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquillion-- Well, since the Iraq War is the #1 issue among politicians in Washington right now, and libertarianism is in large part what Ron Paul bases all his views on, I must disagree with you on this assertion. Capital punishment is simply not as important as the war in Iraq. Any kind of adoption, same-sex or otherwise, is not as important as Iraq. Abortion is not as important as Ron Paul's libertarian ideas. That is ludicrous. Especially in the case of a president, who really has no power over abortion (except for possible Supreme Court justices) or adoption, views on war are certainly of a different and more important stripe. If I were writing the lead for Barry Goldwater, for instance, I would not say he was against or for abortion, I would say he was for small government. That is more informative and revealing and more appropriate for the lead.--Gloriamarie 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I have placed a {{totallydisputed}} tag on this article because removal of the newsletter controversy section amounts to a biased whitewashing of the major controversy surrounding the candidate (I feel that relegating the newsletter quotes to footnotes is similarly biased.) Furthermore, I believe removal of the summary of his political positions from the lead is similar bias by whitewashing, because pro-Paul editors have repeatedly said that they object to such a summary; I can not say why, but I note it does show less-popular and possibly contradictory views in some cases. Finally, I do not believe the statements on the candidate's position on gay marriage remaining in the article present his views in a factual manner. ←Ben^B4 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I want the newsletter controversy on the page. Check all of my previous edits. I think the manner in which it is currently written (the version you wrote) constitutes undue weight on the section and therefore throws off the balance of the entire article. You ignore attempts at compromise and any previous consensus version. You refuse to discuss any change and call any edits whitewashing or pov. There is no bias here, except for your own. I think you should step up to the plate like a real man and remove the disputed tag and start engaging in some constructive conversation. Turtlescrubber 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In your previous edits, you have removed it twice. We do not blank entire sections because they are in dispute, and it is particularly bad form for someone who has been downplaying something to blank it entirely when their edits are challenged. What policy or guideline did you think you were following when you blanked the section? We blank unreferenced disputed material, not sourced material. And I most certainly am not refusing "to discuss any change," as anyone can plainly see. Such personal attacks are prohibited by policy and I am striking them. ←Ben^B4 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get you to discuss it on the talk page instead of reinserting your one and only version. See the notes I left on your talk page, my talk page, this articles talk page, the deleted controversy article discussion, .etc. Oh, no. Strikethrough. Whatever shall I do. Too bad it's true. Turtlescrubber 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My one and only version? As noted earlier, I fixed the URLs in that section, and found out what he said about Jordan and Clinton -- the version prior to that had been in the article (with part of it in the footnotes periodically) for more than a month. But then you chopped it to two paragraphs. And now you have removed it altogether and are demanding compromise while continuing your personal attacks. Do you think anyone would be inclined to compromise with someone who can't even follow the civility policy? ←Ben^B4 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the section? Someone else buddy. That's what happens when you try to keep a pov type section in an article. I tried to compromise, have you? You started the incivility with your insulting edit summaries, yeah, now I am pissed. Turtlescrubber 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You deleted it. ←Ben^B4 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit on you. This was a at a different time and place, right when you started edit warring.Turtlescrubber 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those were not personal attacks, Turtlescrubber is telling the truth about how you have repeatedly discussed things on this talk page. How is it compatible with any Wikipedia policy to strike comments out of another editor's words? How is it compatible with any Wikipedia policy to not allow for discussion of changes to an article and say that you refuse to have it any way but your own, which almost no one agrees with you on? I have worked on scores of articles and have never encountered the Wikipedia policies you follow. I also want the newsletter section in the article and I have repeatedly restored it when editors have blanked it. However, it was previously discussed and decided that-- since he says he did not say them and that they don't represent his views and at least one magazine has even commented on that-- the specific quotes were better off in the footnotes. --Gloriamarie 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that I "refuse to discuss any change" in the midst of this very discussion? You also agree that I "call any edits whitewashing or pov" when there have been hundreds of uncontested edits since I started editing here? You also believe that I am a unique source of bias when I have been finding and fixing references in the disputed sections and addressed two of your specific concerns in the disputed lead section? Hogwash! Please review WP:NPA#Removal of text and WP:RPA which at one time recommended such striking but has been changed to suggest removing the text entirely. ←Ben^B4 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of these very same things in your edit descriptions. What is the policy on that?--Gloriamarie 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the only thing I have called your changes is biased. Calling an edit biased is allowed. Calling an editor (by name, not as a group) biased is not allowed. The policy is WP:NPA. ←Ben^B4 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice rationalization of your incivility towards the good meaning editors of this page. So, are you ready to start discussing the content of the article and the disputed sections? What in the newsletter section would be agreeable to you? What changes can be made? Can we summarize the quotations? Can we put them in the footnotes? Can we shorten the section at all? What is agreeable to you? Turtlescrubber 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the version that was in the article for more than a month, without foonnotes, before you got here. ←Ben^B4 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So no compromise whatsoever. No listening to the concerns of other editors. Is that how it is? Btw, I have been here far longer than you realize so stop it with that month stuff. Turtlescrubber 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a compromise because I think the section should include the basis of the remarks against Bill Clinton and Barbara Jordan. Why shouldn't it? ←Ben^B4 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just transcribe all the sources word for word. Yeah, that sounds great. So can you make any compromise whatsover. Yes or no? Just answer the question. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(back left) Yes, obviously. I have offered to go back to the version that stood for a month. I provided references for the position summary when Gloriamarie demanded them. Why should I believe that you are even willing to compromise when your response to something you don't like is to delete it? Why do you think two paragraphs on the subject is appropriate when every news article or commentary that mentions it quotes the article in detail -- the same quotes we had here before you chopped them? ←Ben^B4 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you still won't compromise even in the slightest? What's the bottom line? What would make you happy? Turtlescrubber 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "I have offered to go back to the version that stood for a month" do you not understand? ←Ben^B4 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "compromise" do you not understand? What version are you talking about as no version has stood unaltered for more than a month? Are you talking about the current version that is currently under dispute? Turtlescrubber 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This version which stood unaltered for far more than a month, but with the footnoted paragraphs inline. ←Ben^B4 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are now okay with having the quotes in the footnotes? Turtlescrubber 01:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I said I wanted that version with the quotes inline, but please see my newer compromise proposal below. ←Ben^B4 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter/pov discussion continued

Clearly there is a dispute over the level of inclusion of the newsletter remarks. My understanding is that nearly every editor involved in the dispute agrees that the controversy about the remarks is notable and should be included somewhere in the page. What is in dispute is the method of doing so. Until a compromise is reached, it is probably best to leave the content out of the article (I have seen this done on other articles), with the understanding that the content will be added back after a compromise is reached. Let's assume good faith, and try to work out a compromise. My preference has been to keep the comments within the footnotes (similar to the treatment of the Rezko controversy on the Barrack Obama article), but I understand that others prefer to include it in the main body of the article. I don't completely oppose doing that, especially if the coverage is not so detailed or lengthy as to give it undue weight when compared to other aspects of the body of the article. Best regards. Jogurney 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that the Obama article is a Featured article.--Daveswagon 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section and am not opposed to having the comments in the footnotes or having the text in the main body, if it doesn't give the section undue weight. Turtlescrubber 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How much do you think would give the section undue lenght? By height on my screen, the last revision was about the same height as several other sections, and shorter than at least two, not counting subsections, of course. ←Ben^B4 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my compromise version above? I think that is a succinct but still covers all the bases. Is one of your goals to make this section long? Turtlescrubber 01:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes in the Obama article contain no quotations from sources, and certainly not two paragraphs of them; at most they have a single sentence of explanatory prose apart from references. I challenge anyone to find any article in the encyclopedia that has two paragraphs of source text quoted in footnotes. ←Ben^B4 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit above implies that you are okay with two paragraphs of text quoted in the footnotes. Was that a mistake? Turtlescrubber 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, here is my compromise offer: replace your two paragraph version, fix the URL so that it works, include that the article claimed Bill Clinton fathered illegitimate children and used cocaine, include exactly what it said about Jordan ("fraud" and "half-educated victimologist") and put back the summary of political positions. Agreed? ←Ben^B4 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a level of inclusion similar to the Obama article. Best regards. Jogurney 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we revisit the earlier discussion here: [10]? I think there was a reasonable version there which had some of the remarks in the body of the article. Jogurney 02:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some substantial differences between this and the Obama situation. First, Paul took responsibility for the comments, at the same time saying an employee wrote them. Second, the comments were published under Paul's name. Third, it wasn't just one controversial thing that the article said, it insulted Clinton and Jordan at least twice, and black people at least three times. Finally, I think you have a misunderstanding of what "undue weight" means; please review WP:UNDUE. Reporting Paul's newsletter remarks is not something that happened in just a few fringe sources. The remarks have been reported in several major newspapers and have been from 1996 through to this year. The policy of undue weight simply does not apply. That said, I have agreed to an expanded two-paragraph version per my compromise proposal above. ←Ben^B4 02:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obama has admitted that his financial relationship with Rezko was a mistake ("boneheaded"), so the situations are quite similar. Additionally, Obama's relationship with Rezko has been widely reported in reliable sources (much more frequently than the Ron Paul newsletter controversy). That said, it was agreed that providing links along with a short summary of the issue was sufficient coverage. Best regards. Jogurney 05:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Libeling a sitting president, a colleague in the House of Representatives, and an entire race of people is not comparable to a single questionable financial deal. ←Ben^B4 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The newsletter does not constitute "libel", and the two issues are absolutely comparable. I am trying to assume good faith, but your actions smack of POV-pushing. Jogurney 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's not libel because Clinton and Jordan are public figures. But how is the incident at all like a financial deal. ←Ben^B4 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Paul and Obama made decisions which they admit were mistakes. Both involved questionable conduct - hiring a ghostwriter to prepare his newsletter and not reviewing the totally inappropriate content by Paul, and financial dealings with a fundraiser indicted on corruption charges to his apparent benefit by Obama. Both involved poor judgement but no actual wrongdoing. Please explain how they are not comparable. Jogurney 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you write something up and put it on the talk page. And don't lecture people on policy, we all understand undue weight very well. That is my only real issue with this section. Turtlescrubber 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go:

Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section)

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments. The article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking." Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

---

Is including that and replacing the position summary in the intro an acceptable compromise? ←Ben^B4 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above section reads ok for me - It is much better then the blocked section of direct quotes. You could probably put a one sentence summary in the lead - something simple like "Ron Paul has been criticised for disparaging comments published in a 1992 publication; written by a ghostwriter, Paul stated that they do not represent his views." Also, it is correct to say he is opposed to universal health care - I think the statement in the prior sentence says it better with free-market health care (could be universal depending on system and charity). Morphh ^(talk) 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one noticed my posting above regarding an earlier version that seemed to have consensus, I'll post a link to it - [11]. That version describes the controversy within the body of the article and provides links with more detail of the disparaging remarks in the footnotes. I think it's preferable to the version suggested above. Anyone agree? Jogurney 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The section composed by ben above looks more or less acceptable to me. Some small grammar changes to better identify the sources, in the first and second sentence would be good. But as far as content goes I don't have a real problem with it. I'll make some slight changes and repost it tonight when I have a better internet connection. However, I cant say that I am opposed to Jogurney's suggest above either (except for the blockquote formatting). Turtlescrubber 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Either of them are acceptable to me; I suggest that it would make the Ben one better, if it includes the Barbara Jordan direct quote, to include the direct Barbara Jordan rebuttal. At least one of the direct quotes from Paul should be used if the quotes are going to be given from the newsletter. They're both pretty acceptable. I also don't mind the summary given below by another user and it might be best for not giving the issue undue weight.--Gloriamarie 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Barbara Jordan apology should be in, and I'm sorry I left it out: I was editing an earlier compromise version which left it out. ←Ben^B4 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben B4

In light of the above discussions, I assert that Ben B4's edits could properly be classified as vandalism. His repeated flagging of the article can only be seen as an attempt to discredit the Ron Paul political campaign for as long as possible. Ron Paul a racist? Good grief! No compromise. JLMadrigal 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as this article stands there is not a single bit of criticism against Paul, whilst criticism does exist, it has simply been removed by editors who do appear to be trying to minimise its inclusion. The simple fact that you state that BenB4's actions are 'an attempt to discredit the Ron Paul political campaign for as long as possible' shows that you are incredibly biased on the subject and fail to understand our WP:NPOV policy.

So, rather than attacking BenB4 - who is simply trying to include sourced information in this article - why don't you try and work to get that information back in?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was the only editor here not on the campaign committee. Since JLMadrigal deleted the dispute tag before the dispute was resolved, I replaced the latest compromise version of both of the disputed portions. ←Ben^B4 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a screwed up thing to say. I myself would not vote for Ron Paul and don't agree with a large amount of his positions, why would I be on his campaign committee? Stop casting aspersions when you know absolutely nothing about the intentions of the editors on this page. Turtlescrubber 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that all editors should stop making things up regarding the voting stance of editors - saying that editors are here to discredit Paul or here as members of a campaign committee are simply personal attacks with the goal of discrediting each other.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tension level in here is getting out of hand. I believe that almost everyone is looking for consensus. It make take longer than 15 minutes to achieve, so everyone should be patient (without adding inflamatory tags to the article or calling other editors names). Best regards. Jogurney 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the totallydisputed tag there for? It seems the content that is disputed is the lead that is no longer there (as it is under discussion). You should only have the tag if the disputed material is actually in the article. As of now, we're just reviewing and gaining consensus on adding material to the lead. This does not require a tag. Morphh ^(talk) 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the tags are used when the content is not in the article also. As I said above, the article lacks any criticism - even though there is some available and it was included. However, I believe that it may be a bit strong of a tag to use, maybe one more intended to deal with neutrality would be better (rather than this one which states factual accuracy is questionable).-Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says that an article has to have criticism? Look at John Edwards' article. Does it include anything about the haircut, the house, or the poverty speeches for $50,000? Those incidents were covered widely in nationally read magazines, but the consensus has been that they are not important enough for his article. What wide criticism has been leveled at Paul that is not already included in the article? It is not a template or something to have a "criticisms" section. --Gloriamarie 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, we are supposed to be comprehensive. For another, WP:LEAD says that the major controversies should be summarized in the lead. As for critiques that haven't been in the article, the affirmative answer to their being a question about global conspiracies comes up a lot. Also the stance against foreign interventionism is widely criticized, even above on this talk page with regard to Darfur, but only his vote shows up in the article (why can't you agree to the same with gay adoption?) The bit about no income tax gets a good pounding from those convinced of the value of progressive taxation. There are also a lot of people who support NAFTA and the WTO, being able to point to the progress they have made on free trade. Furthermore, most mainstream economists think the gold standard would be damaging.[12][13] ←Ben^B4 06:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The links to the articles about taxation, currency standards, noninterventionism, libertarianism, conspiracies, international organizations, &c, provide all of the controversy that information seekers need. Cross-reference makes the article comprehensive. By your logic, any disagreement with Ron Paul is justification for a tag. In that context, every Wikipedia article would be tagged. (BTW, I'm not on any committee either.) JLMadrigal 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't agree to the admission of the Darfur info and didn't think it belonged on this page, but rather on Political positions of Ron Paul. Every politician has "major controversies" over their political positions. One glaring example I can think of would be Hillary Clinton, but does her article say that her political positions are disagreed with by Republicans, some independents, libertarians and other assorted groups? No, even though millions of pages have been written by people specifically disagreeing with her views and actions. This is an article about the person, a biography article, not about their political views if they have a separate page for that, or every perceived controversy about them. Major controversies that should be summarized in the lead are something like the Lewinsky scandal for HRC, or her health plan. A senator being with a prostitute would be classified as a major scandal, especially when that's what they're mainly known for. None of what you describe is a major controversy. Also, Ron Paul has not said that he would go for a full gold standard, but simply the admittance of gold as a currency and hard currency (gold and silver) being allowed in the marketplace. Name a political position that any politician takes and I can give you the argument against it. EVERY political position has two sides and is controversial to someone.--Gloriamarie 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but who are you to say what is a major controversy? On this subject, ie. Ron Paul, these are major controversies when you look at his life. The policy doesn't mean 'major controversies in the scheme of things' it means 'significant controversies which have meaning to that subject matter'. To make a judgement call like you are saying would mean that only the cream of the crop of controversies would ever get a mention on articles on WP.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding, because I am not saying what I think about it at all. I'm instead saying that it would have to be termed a major controversy or even a controversy in the first place in order to be referred to as such in the article. Are every politicians' beliefs major controversies in their life? Only to their opponents! (in most cases) I don't see the logic here, and I have often removed politicians' political positions from "Controversy" sections to "Political positions" sections. This is no different. Here's an example. To someone who is pro-life, John Edwards' abortion stance is going to be controversial. To someone who is pro-choice, Tom Tancredo's abortion stance is going to be controversial. Should their stances appear as controversies? No, even though they may each be controversial to 50% of the population. 50% will think it's horrible, 50% will think it's great. It's not a controversy, it's just a political stance. The above "controversies" listed are not controversial to many people, but are good political stances. To others, they may be abominable. The same reaction could be had from any politicians' views. Political positions are different from actions which are covered as controversial in the media and are widely thought to be so.--Gloriamarie 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PATRIOT Act and Iraq war

Can we please replace the bit about the congressional pension system with the sentence "He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War," which was in there at the beginning of the month. (I didn't take it out.) ←Ben^B4 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you want three paragraphs, if that is put back in, couldn't it just be another paragraph at the bottom?--Gloriamarie 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You said yourself that the congressional pensions stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Have you changed your mind? ←Ben^B4 06:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there is better information that could be put in the lead in a good way, in the same style as other politicians' articles in a summary way, I'd support it instead of what's there. I'm not very good at summarizing a whole article in a few sentences, so I'm just waiting for someone else to work on that while I work on other things. I don't think that political positions are the best thing for the lead, though. Not taking the congressional pension is a rare thing, maybe even totally unique, and interesting, but it doesn't have to be there if it can be replaced with better summarizing information. (not specific political positions, though :))--Gloriamarie 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The congressional pensions thing may well be unique, but the only one it affects is him. The part about not accepting foreign travel junkets captures the same essence, and I think in a more fair way, because, e.g., he doesn't opt out of the congressional health care plan. Another thing: I haven't found definitive information yet, but from what I have, it seems that the congressional pension system is not unlike employer participation in any retirement plan. It's bonus money, but not out of line with what used to be standard for most companies in terms of the amount the employer pays.

As for political positions in the summary, nobody can truly summarize an article of this size in three paragraphs. You have to pick and choose. For someone like Paul, who is so unlike any other politician or party in so many ways, don't you agree that (1) people are likely to be looking for his political positions more than for most politicans (2) people are likely to be looking for his political positions more than for any other information about him, and (3) therefore we should summarize them? If not, please explain. I know you are opposed to the summary, but so far you have only presented a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument against it. Are there any other reasons? ←Ben^B4 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jogurney 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate?

The tag on the page says the "neutrality and factual accuracy" of the article is in dispute. Which facts, exactly, are being disputed as inaccurate?--Daveswagon 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, is it the entire article, just the lead, or a particular section. Each of these have different tags to apply. What material is missing that is the challange for the POV? The lead in work does not seem to be one that is overly directed at one POV or another - it is more of an expansion and summarization of the article (which the lead should be). Morphh ^(talk) 0:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change the tag to the solely POV one if I don't get a response.--Daveswagon 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a sound change to me, from what I have picked up reading the talk page there seems to be a dispute over neutrality or point of view of the article more than the factuality. Enelson 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the #Totally disputed section, the factual dispute is about Paul's stance on gay marriage. I tend to agree: if we dont say what Paul said about "understandably fear" and "profound assault on liberty," then we really aren't telling the whole story accurately. --BB44 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he was talking about *federal intervention*, not gay marriage itself. Please stop trying to mislead people. 24.14.76.94 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have sibling articles. This article isn't supposed to tell the whole story.--Daveswagon 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also still don't see how "lack of inclusion" equals "factual inaccuracy". There's nothing stating Paul hasn't made those comments or doesn't hold those views, so where is there an untrue fact in the article?--Daveswagon 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth and nothing but is not as accurate as the whole truth, especially in this case which in Paul's words involves a profound assault on liberty. A profound assault on the liberty of gays? Nope! On the states that want to keep them from marrying. Paul is a libertarian in name only. --BB44 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This an encyclopedia article summarizing a topic, not a court testimony. I assure you.--Daveswagon 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are you the same user as BenB4?--Daveswagon 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was on a boat without internet most of yesterday and today. BB44 has captured the essence of why there is a factual dispute -- based on Paul's own words -- and I am replacing the totallydisputed tag. I will agree to remove that tag if others agree to replace the summary saying up front that he voted against gay adoption, and to replace the newsletter summary per Turtlescrubber's compromise version below. ←Ben^B4 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When did Ron Paul ever say he was against gay adoption? AFAIK, he was against *federal funding*, not gay adoption itself. Do you have a cite? 24.14.76.94 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, I see no way in which this article breaks the guidelines that would be exemplar of an article with factual inaccuracy. Not saying the "whole story" is not the same thing as having wrong or unverifiable facts. Enelson 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Paul's own words show that simply saying he opposes federal regulation of marriage is as factually misleading as saying the Sun is larger than a breadbox -- technically true, but strongly supporting false induction. I would not go so far as to say Paul is a Libertarian in name only -- plenty of people stray from their party lines -- but on this issue the truth is clear, and what supporters are trying to make it into isn't it. ←Ben^B4 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the only one being factually misleading right now is you. You keep trying to twist Ron Paul's position against federal intervention of marriage into something different.

Consider that regarding education, the article states "Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level." That's pretty much Ron Paul's position on lots of topics. You can take that same sentence and substitute the words "gay marriage" for "education" and it would be correct: "Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over gay marriage and gay marriage should be handled at a local and state level." 24.14.76.94 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4 placed the tag, but I agreed with it when he kept inserting the paragraph into the lead with misleading and possibly false statements on Paul's views (see above discussion on Lead). Since that paragraph is gone, I see no reason for the factual inaccuracy tag.--Gloriamarie 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BenB4 has repeatedly tried to transform Ron Paul's position against federal intervention of gay marriage into being against gay marriage itself. These are two completely different viewpoints and his attempts to blur this huge distinction violate Wikipedia's policies on NPOV as well as factual accuracy. A lot of people have complained about him. I don't understand why someone so obviously biased is allowed to make changes to this article. 24.14.76.94 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine, and my opinion is that my edits are for more accurate and less biased than yours. There are plenty of vocal supporters here, and I believe you will find that if you take action against me because you believe I am biased, you will only draw more non-supporters to scrutinize the article. ←Ben^B4 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, I want more non-biased people editing this article the better, because they'll drown out your biased edits.

Ben, are you threatening this anonymous user? Turtlescrubber 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You may not share BenB4's POV, but it's no reason to call for him to be banned from editing. I'm not pleased with all of BenB4's behavior (such as when he calls editors that disagree with him "Paul supporters") but to my knowledge he has not been disruptive and has been trying to come to a consensus on improving some of the more controversial sections of the article. Jogurney 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter - new suggested compromise

The "disputed" tag on the whole article should be removed soon. It does not look good on Wikipedia for an up and coming person, for which Wikipedia might become a first port-of-call for info on this person. The newsletter issue is notable, but is old and has been acknowledged as an error by the person in question. Couldn't we just put in a POV-section tag instead? If you look at the George W. Bush entry, only a sentence or two is given to the controversies surrounding his military career and his likely drinking problem. The article is getting long already. We need to provide an overview, not provide detailed ammunition for either side of the pro- or con- Ron Paul camp. They can Google instead. How about this much shorter compromise (which still keeps the references)?

"An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments. President Bill Clinton was accused of cocaine use and of having illegitimate children. It also argued for the lowering of the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults to 13 because of the perceived threat from young black males in Washington, D.C.. Paul has since said this was written by a ghostwriter, was not sufficiently reviewed and did not represent his views. "Janbrogger 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that as a step forward.--Daveswagon 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a step forward, but you may wish to note that GWB has 3 articles devoted to criticism, calls to impeach and public perception, so claims that he only has a couple of lines are bogus...-Localzuk^(talk) 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Janbrogger was referring to the main GWB article (as we are working on the main Ron Paul article). His point is well-taken. Jogurney 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your meaning. The main GWB article is written in summary style, and as such only a minimal amount of each section is kept there, as a summary. Here, we don't have enough to create a seperate page, so summary style is not required. His point is not well taken.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the GWB article (or take the Obama article) are examples of how controversies are summarized on a biographical article. If the controversy is notable enough (such as the ones you refered to for GWB), separate articles can be created to address them in more detail. Best regards. Jogurney 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that approach would not be compliant with our NPOV or forking policies, or the structures to avoid guideline. Information should be fully explored within the main article it is relevant too until it becomes too large to be enclosed within that article, at which point summary style would be used and the main body of that section put in a sub article.

Now, whilst I am saying that, we should also be paying attention to NPOV policy to ensure undue weight isn't being given to the controversy. Counting the fact that the sub articles (meaning articles which are summarised here but would be included within this page if it weren't for their size) plus the text on this page comes to a very large size, in excess of 100 paragraphs, asking for the controversial information to be discussed in adequate detail is not going against this. By adequate detail, I would say that 2 paragraphs is a good size for it.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it wouldn't be compliant (otherwise the Obama article has the same problem). In any case, do you agree with the alternative version I proposed above? Jogurney 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an attempt to form a "Ron Paul controversies" article (by myself) and it was listed for deletion and subsequently deleted after a vote. That option is clearly a route the Wikipedia community does not approve of.--Daveswagon 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Daveswagon. It is a POV fork and they are not allowed.

Anyway, I prefer the version under the heading 'Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section)' as it goes into the right amount of detail.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The controversy should only be discussed within this article. I think the only question is the appropriate amount of space and detail. I'm of the view, that most of the detail should be in the footnotes, but apparently, few agree with me. Jogurney 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with putting most of it in the footnotes. If that kind of thing is good enough for the Obama article, its good enough for this one.--Daveswagon 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the small summary is done pretty well and I would support it. But, what section would it fit in?--Gloriamarie 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as a subsection, between the 80s and 90s congressional service, chronologically. ←Ben^B4 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't really fit there. The 1988 presidential campaign is between those sections, it didn't become known until later, and the only reason it did was because it was pointed out by his 1996 opponent. I think it should be a subsection of Campaigns because of that, or at the end where it has been to this point. It's not on the level of the 1988 presidential campaign or his congressional career, so it doesn't necessarily merit its own top-level section. I'm willing to go with what the consensus is on this, though.--Gloriamarie 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in a section on its own at all - it should be within one of the other sections. To put it in its own section is like segregating it - and is against the guideline I mentioned a few sections above.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What??? All articles with controversy sections have them at the top level, and since the entire article is in chronological order, it goes in that way. Put it in where the controversy broke, not when the article was written. 209.77.205.2 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't fit in the article chronologically, either when it was written or when the story originally broke. The 1996 campaign is covered under Later Congressional Career, and it would have to be done under a subsection of that to be done chronologically.--Gloriamarie 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Section

Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents. According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The article also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking. Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

---

Made one or two slight changes and I am okay with this. I think it's a decent compromise. What do other page editors think and where should this (or any other version) be placed in the article. Turtlescrubber 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (after an italicization) ←Ben^B4 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

did not represent his way of thinking." Should there be an opening quotation mark somewhere, or does this one need to go? Maxisdetermined 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this one... The space given to the quotes is lengthier than the space given to his explanation/denial, and the denial should perhaps be included in the first sentence as it is in one of the compromises above. The second paragraph, I believe, should include the exact quote or reason of why he takes a moral responsibility for them-- this is kind of hard to follow on that point. Perhaps "... responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him because they were printed under his name, despite that fact..." The Bill Clinton comments do not appear in either of those Texas publications, and only appear in the Atlanta progressive paper, so I'm not sure why they appear first or why they're there at all. Finally, "made several disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents."-- I don't understand how that makes any sense. It seems odd to call Bill Clinton Paul's political opponent since they never ran against each other. Barbara Jordan never ran against Ron Paul. That's confusing. Also, if it includes the specific quotes on Barbara Jordan, it should include the direct quote of him saying something to the effect of "it was especially sad about Barbara Jordan, because she was a delightful lady." I liked some of the compromises above better than this one.--Gloriamarie 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind posting a version that you think is acceptable, using the above template or not. Either way. I think that would help the process. Turtlescrubber 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work on a version that's better.--Gloriamarie 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps relevant for the newsletter controversy that according to a 1992 study, An estimated 70 percent of Black males in the District of Columbia are arrested before the age of 35, and 85 percent will be arrested sometime during their lives. See e.g. Crime, Communities and Public Policy by Lawrence B. Joseph, page 141, as displayed by Google books. Terjen 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Gay Marriage Again

I've fixed the part about Ron Paul's position on gay marriage to be more factually accurate. Apparently, BenB4 (or someone) keeps trying to vandalize this part to be misleading. At least now it's factually accurate. If BenB4 continues to vandalize this article, I think we should ban him from making edits. Wikipedia's job is to inform, not misinform. 24.14.76.94 04:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was probably me. This is a summary section for a whole article. It's supposed to be short. If you make changes keep it the same length and number of paragraphs. I just changed everything back. If you need to change things go ahead, just try and keep it short. There is a whole article intended to explain the nuances of his political positions. Turtlescrubber 05:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK, sorry. I trimmed it down a sentence. Hopefully, that does the job. If not, let me know. 24.14.76.94 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Without mentioning the vote against same-sex adoption along with the "understandably fear" and "profoundly hostile to liberty" quotes, I do not believe any description of his stance can be accurate. ←Ben^B4 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it can. He's talking about federal usurpation of state's powers, not about gay marriage. 12.10.248.51 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The usurpation on states' powers to restrict personal liberties. And why do Americans "understandably fear" nationwide legalization of gay marriage? ←Ben^B4 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Ron Paul is a libertarian and as such, is against big government. So when said "fear" he wasn't talking about fear of gay marriage, he was talking about fear of big government, specifically a big federal government overruling what each state wants.24.14.76.94 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into those comments. My recollection (don't have a cite) is that most US voters do oppose gay marriage (although I am not one of them), so it is quite understandable that Americans fear it. It's quite clear that Paul is concerned about federal intrusion into state regulation (which fully explains the vote), and it seems like you are doing original research to theorize on ulterior motives that Paul may have about the issue. Best regards. Jogurney 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fear" is substantially different than "oppose." ←Ben^B4 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What does what Americans "understandably fear" (whether true or not) have to do with a summary of Paul political stances?--Daveswagon 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess only people in the "secular, pro-gay left" understand this problem. ←Ben^B4 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

However, if Congress passed a law banning all gay marriage, the "secular, pro-gay left" might then come to "understandably fear" federal intrusion, right? ;) He is talking about federalism and the federal government overruling what states have set out for themselves as laws.--Gloriamarie 10:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) How is legislation designed to limit the Full Faith and Credit Clause for one issue only -- same-sex marriage -- not a deliberate attack on the Constitution and the individual rights of gays and lesbians to marry? ←Ben^B4 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The legislation dealt with a Supreme Court ruling of the Full Faith and Credit clause that included any types of marriage (I believe it had to do expressly with polygamy at the time it was enacted. As I said, he wants states rather than judges to decide and if states decide to allow or ban gay marriage by referendum or passed laws, that's the way he believes it should be. That's his position and his reasoning behind it and his reasoning behind almost any law. IF you disagree with it, that's fine but this isn't a place for a debate on it.--Gloriamarie 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing disputed sections

There is no policy or guideline stating that disputed sections should be censored from an article while a dispute is ongoing. I will allow a day or so for people to find such a policy or precedent if it exists, but if there indeed is no such thing I will be replacing the disputed sections. The censorship of them amounts to more de facto bias than inserting anyone's compromise proposal. ←Ben^B4 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, removing the newsletter section was the ONLY way to get YOU to actually DISCUSS changes. Sorry about the caps for emphasis but I think it was quite productive in pulling your proverbial teeth. Anyway, when you do put it back in use the most recent compromise version. If Marie makes her changes before then, than we can talk about that. Before you put it back in we should also nail down where it should go. Also, it wasn't censored and there was no bias, you still can't help but use loaded and inflammatory words huh? The only reason things were "censored" is that you had no inclination to compromise. Glad to see you have come around a bit. As for the other section, shouldn't you guys discuss that? As far as I know, you are the only editor that likes that section. Turtlescrubber 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one that suggested this, and perhaps it's not compliant with all Wikipedia policies. As I said before, I had seen other editors do this where there was edit-warring over disputed content (as we experienced with this section). I think it has served us well, and there is no need to make claims of "de facto censorship". You are free to replace the section in the article if you are so bothered by it's temporary absence. Best regards. Jogurney 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of putting in the section currently under the "Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)" it seems to be a good compromise which can be edited over time and has no major complaints/agreeable counter suggestions that I am aware of, I feel it is important to get something up soon and to get the neutrality flag off the top of the page. Enelson 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Section neutrality

I think we have made good progress. I think the removal of all political positions from the intro satisfies my concerns about the way they are presented, so I moved the {{NPOV}} tag down to a {{POV-section}}. I still think we should have a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as possible are mentioned, and all of those should be supported by one or two positions per sentence in the intro. I realize this position is not supported by everyone, but again I ask, is there any argument against it apart from WP:OTHERSTUFF? There are plenty of arguments for including such a summary on this very talk page where people report that is what they have come looking for.

Also, someone needs to get the Barbara Jordan apology quote in the newsletter section as we agreed, I don't have time to find it right now.  Done ←Ben^B4 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is where you mention the lead. I am absolutely against, "a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as possible are mentioned". There is no reason to do this at all. Turtlescrubber 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been a couple of paragraphs in the intro on his political positions for the past four months at least. ←Ben^B4 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Turtlescrubber 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Political position summary in the lead

Let's make a list of all the arguments for and against putting a summary of political positions in the lead. Please add to this list: ←Ben^B4 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For

• Paul's positions are very different than his or any other political party
• Most people searching for him on Wikipedia will be looking for his positions more than for his history
  • examples are in comments here on this talk page
• Most people so far know very little about Paul's positions
• Paul himself considers his positions to be some of his defining characteristics
• WP:LEAD recommends three paragraphs for an article this size
• Paul is a candidate for U.S. President

Against

• Not all articles on presidential candidates have political positions in the lead, and those that do usually have less than a handful
  • see WP:OTHERSTUFF
• It is hard to summarize some of his positions because they are nuanced
• We don't yet agree about how to present his positions on subjects like same-sex marriage and adoption rights and gun ownership rights
• Some of his positions are controversial
  • WP:LEAD says major controversies should be summarized, and I think his positions are much more important than the newsletter article ←Ben^B4 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I disagree with your summary. Other Republicans (and other politicians) share some or many of Paul's political positions. Speculation about the motives of "most people searching for him on Wikipedia" is not an appropriate "for" argument. Do you have any evidence that "most people" "know very little" about his political positions (other than the overwhelming majority of voters who are completely unaware of his candidacy)?

There are many questions on this talk page about his positions, and very few if any about the other topics in the article (there are corrections, supplements, and commentary, but not questions.) The fact that the overwhelming majority of voters are completely unaware of his candidacy implies that most people know very little about his positions. ←Ben^B4 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions on the talk page aren't necessarily the best way to gauge readers of the article; it's unscientific at best. If people don't have questions or concerns, they're not going to ask them on the talk page. There's a simple reason for this anyway- political positions are usually not just cut-and-dried, whereas other aspects of a biography are. If the article says he's married for 50 years, people aren't going to ask questions about whether he is married or not. If the article says he went to Duke Medical School, no one's going to come and ask if that's a mistake and did he go to Harvard instead. --Gloriamarie 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "against" argument you may want to consider:

• It is difficult to determine which of Paul's political positions are notable enough to include in the summary.
  • There is insufficient space to summarize all of his political positions.

Best regards. Jogurney 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability guidelines apply to whether articles should be included or not. When the subjects are notable, the articles about them are supposed to be comprehensive, and when they run out of room according to the guidelines, then we are supposed to make WP:SUMMARYs as we have with political positions. I am not suggesting including every single position, just those that editors feel are important or defining. ←Ben^B4 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jogurney has excellent points, and I agree with them.--Gloriamarie 10:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "notable" since I wasn't refering to a Wikipedia guideline. Regardless, based on your last sentence, I think you understand my point. Jogurney 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that most other Wikipedia pages on presidential candidates don't seem to have positions in the intro. John McCain's lead has no mention of them at all; Hillary Clinton's lead lists major things she was involved with in the past, but doesn't specifically note any positions. John Edwards, too, has a sort of 'employment history', but no real positions; Rudy Giuliani's lead lists what he did as mayor of New York, but doesn't go into positions. Mitt Romney's lead barely even mentions that he's a candidate at all. The only exception is Barack Obama, who gets one sentence near the end, and who seems to be the only candidate out of the ones I looked at whose lead mentions Iraq at all. Significantly, not a single candidate lists vague descriptors such as 'liberal', 'conservative', 'libertarian', and so on. While we don't use other articles as precedent, most of those have gotten a lot more work than this one, and I think it's fair to say that their solutions can be good guidelines here... I think we should avoid using vague political-philosophy terms like libertarian in the intro, since they encompass a large number of different schools of thought and can mean different things to different people ('libertarian' in particular is extremely problematic, since it has different meanings in different parts of the world--depending on where you go, 'libertarian' and 'liberal' can swap meanings, while in places they can mean the same thing or be diametric opposites.) There's not enough space in the lead to explain that. For other political positions... it is certainly problematic for us to decide, ourselves, that some views are more important than others and put only those in the lead. (Possibly the reason Barack Obama has that sentence listed is because, as a relative newcomer, the major views he's expressed are still few enough to be skimmed fairly in a single sentence.) It could also be difficult to cover a politician's views in enough depth to give them justice. It would probably be best if we could encapsulate the subject's complete political philosophy in one paragraph, yes, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that in any way that is even accurate, nevermind NPOV. Given the choice between a potentally inaccurate or biased description of their politics in the lead, or none at all, I think we'd be better off going for none at all... we can still cover these views in the depth they deserve elsewhere. --Aquillion 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that since there is a section in the article about Ron Paul's political positions, then according to WP:LEAD, we need to include a summary of that section. This may be only one or two sentences as the rest of the lead should devote space to summarize the other sections in the article. If other sections are deemed not sufficient for the lead (not important), then we should consider the structure of the article and the weight we're giving to a section. In the end, we should have two – three paragraphs that properly summarize the article as a whole, which should include at least one sentence from each major section. I think we need to include his political positions and the question should be how many sentences we need to properly summarize that section in a neutral and meaningful way. Morphh ^(talk) 13:43, 02 August 2007 (UTC)

• I second that. One of the reasons that he is notable (and seems to be gaining notability) is his political positions and their place in the political US landscape now. Simply to make the article an interesting read (which is very much part of the fun of reading an encyclopedia) his political positions should be in the summary. If the other candidates have much less space in the lead, then perhaps it could be made shorter. Janbrogger 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the final consensus, the summaries of Paul's positions inserted into the lead up to now have been rather POV. Examples include passages such as:

• Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record.

As Aquillion notes above, this use of the term libertarian may be problematic for an international audience. Additionally, whose judgement is it that he holds a "strong" voting record in these respects?

• As congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget and has also called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax.

Inappropropriately laudatory in tone. Gosh, who among the electorate doesn't like the idea of abolishing taxes? But doesn't Paul also want to abolish or significantly privatize Social Security? Why doesn't that warrant mentioning? Possibly because it's not an electable position.

• Because of his dislike of the way goverment spends money it does not have

Inappropriate POV tone for the article.

• he has been a strong critic of the method of debt-based credit creation called fractional reserve banking advocating instead for a method of resembliling debt-free money creation to be achieved perhaps via monetary reform.

I'm not sure what this means, but I think it's a little specific for the lead.

--Proper tea is theft 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If Paul is in favor of abolishing the Social Security system, I think that would be important enough to include in a summary of his political positions. However, I suspect his position is more complex that simple abolition of the system. That is the danger of summarizing his political positions. Jogurney 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul does not want to abolish Social Security; he in fact says he is the only member of Congress who has never voted to borrow from it to fund other things. I agree that privatizing Social Security may not be electable, since George W. Bush wasn't elected those two times ; Ron Paul does not want to do that, he just wants to allow young people to opt out if they so choose. It doesn't warrant mentioning because it is not his view. Paul abolishing the IRS is different than many politicians because he actually wants to do this, would decrease spending to do it, and has sponsored many bills that would do just that.--Gloriamarie 10:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact he doesn't want to abolish social security, only to make it optional. However, as the system depends on each new generation of contributors to pay out to the older people it supports, if more than a tenth of wage earners opted out the system would quickly go into deficit. ←Ben^B4 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, though the practical difference is negligible in my view. Anyway, I hope it was clear that I wasn't really suggesting that the intro state that Paul wants to "abolish" Social Security. My concern is that the tone and style of the position summaries that have appeared in the intro, and especially the one that I have removed, violate WP:NPOV.--Proper tea is theft 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a difference between those two views to many people. How do the political positions that have appeared so far specifically violate NPOV? The ones that have appeared the most-- libertarian or constitutionalist ideas, not voting against the Constitution, Iraq War, abolition of income tax-- are the ones that he emphasizes as the most important of his political positions and talks about the most. IF political positions were going to appear in John Edwards' intro, it would make sense to mention "Two Americas" rather than other issues, because that's what Edwards chooses to focus on. If it's not judged by that standard, who would decide what is notable and what's not? Free trade might be the most important to me, and Social Security might be the most important issue to someone else.--Gloriamarie 10:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My original idea was to list the important things he supports in one sentence, followed by the things he opposes in another, followed by one or two sentences each for the remaining important but more complicated issues. This was not popular, but the criticism mostly centered around the wording I had chose and almost always had merit. The revised version has been the third paragraph of Political positions of Ron Paul for three or so weeks now, and has been readily adapted and improved by other editors. I think it would make a great second or third paragraph here. And for the other second or third paragraph here, again, I think we should at least mention his specific votes against the Iraq War, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Military Commissions Act, which have been very close to defining issues of our time here in the U.S. ←Ben^B4 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Has that paragraph really been on the other article for three weeks? I edited it about a week ago and perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing that paragraph. "War on Drugs" should be "federal War on Drugs". I don't see how "funding for same sex adoption" is important enough for the lead to a biographical article.--Gloriamarie 10:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional point on the international audience aspect: this is a common occurrence in Wikipedia, I've dealt with it before, and you usually just must go with the language of the country that the article most involves. A British article on transportation would say "lorry" rather than "truck" and "saloon car" rather than "sedan", with a wikilink to an article that explains the meaning for those who don't understand. The British equivalent for American "libertarian" is actually "liberal", but there aren't too many Wikipedia articles on American Democrats that avoid the use of the word liberal on account of these international audiences. It becomes too difficult, and it amounts to a cherry-picking of which words will be used and which will not.--Gloriamarie 14:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

position summary

JLMadrigal has inserted the following position sumamry:

Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record. He is an advocate of states' rights, free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, strong national sovereignty, and non-interventionism.[2]Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget and has also called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax.[3] Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress.[4]

This is an improvement over one that I removed before, but it still suffers from many of the same deficiencies I described above. While this may be "factual" as JLMadrigal argues in his edit summary, so are many advertisements, and the tone of this is nearly indistinguishable from that an ad or a website bio.

A couple of specific examples:

• Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record.

Says who? This seems like original research to me. I think a better approach here might be to note that he has a history with the Libertarian party or a relationship with libertarians.

• Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress.

Respectfully--so what? Why does this get a spot in the lead?

• As congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget

Overall, I'm not opposed to a position summary, but would it be possible to write one that sounds less like a press release? --Proper tea is theft 22:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody has ever accused me of being pro-Paul, but I think those statements are accurate, not particularly biased, supported by sources in the article, and important enough to go in the lead. ←Ben^B4 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I object more to the tone than to any perceived lack of factuality, but fair enough. Maybe it's just me.--Proper tea is theft 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In many ways he is a remarkable politician, and plain statements about him often end up sounding like boasts. The word "strong" for example, but "strong constitutionalist" has a specific meaning and gets more than 1,000 ghits. ←Ben^B4 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So can we remove the blasted POV flags already? JLMadrigal 11:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer to hear from some other editors. --Proper tea is theft 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the tags as this is a content/style dispute and is in no way a pov issue. Anyway, I just removed a second paragraph of political positions from the intro, there is No reason for there to be two paragraphs. I also think the Proper Teas has some valid points. I think it would be easier to remove the political postions summary from the lead entirely as it really isn't necessary. Instead, we could summarize his life and career. Crazy huh? But as PT has mentioned, the version that is currently in the lead is a bit fluffy and really should be worked over before it's finalized. Turtlescrubber 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons to include both paragraphs: In addition to those that I have listed, others have expressed concern that including the small number in now is cherrypicking. I wholeheartedly agree -- look at what's in there now, hagiography about his proudest accomplishments and very little on what ordinary people care about -- so am replacing the other paragraph. ←Ben^B4 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So the answer to reducing concerns about pov is to add more contentious material. There is no agreement to have any positions and now you add a second paragraph. Why don't we actually summarize the article?Turtlescrubber 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Put up what you think summarizes the article, and we'll compare your preferred comprehensive summary and my attempt at covering the political positions. ←Ben^B4 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the time and don't really care that much. That's why I said "we". I was just pointing out the proper way to write an intro and maintain npov. Your "preferred version" is very suitable for the Political Positions of Ron Paul article. Why don't you add it over there. Turtlescrubber 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been there for three weeks now, and I've been updating it as objections were raised here; others have been editing it, too, and I've merged their changes back here. I moved it down to the positions section where I hope you don't object to it. The problem now is that there is nothing controversial in the lead, and WP:LEAD says we are to touch on major controversies, and that the lead for an article this size should be three paragraphs. How do you propose that we balance that? ←Ben^B4 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What major controversies has Paul had?--Gloriamarie 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There's the newsletter thing, but I've always thought that his positions have been more controversial which is why I've been putting them in the lead. ←Ben^B4 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The newsletter can't be classified as a "major controversy"... and all politicians' political positions are controversial.--Gloriamarie 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove the "Taxpayer's Best Friend" part. One special interest group's opinion of Paul isn't particularly notable for the lead, especially when we already say he has never voted to raise taxes (which gets the point across pretty well, I think).--Daveswagon 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. ←Ben^B4 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"*Ron Paul has a strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record. Says who? This seems like original research to me. I think a better approach here might be to note that he has a history with the Libertarian party or a relationship with libertarians." The wording sounds a bit POV and I preferred it the previous way, but there are many, many sources for that assertion.--Gloriamarie 10:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the words "constitutionalist" and "libertarian" have pretty clear definitions. Cannot we also not say he is non-interventionist, pro-life, or pro-gun either because such claims are "original research"? For one thing, the way to prove Paul is not a constitutionalist is to cite evidence where he advocated or voted to violate the constitution. Does someone have such evidence?--Daveswagon 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OnTheIssues identifies him as a "Moderate Liberarian"[14]--Daveswagon 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to find sources saying that Paul is a libertarian. Here's one: [15] Operation Spooner 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times also says this.--Gloriamarie 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, what do finding sources for libertarian have to do with anything? Isn't the dispute over the phrase, "strong constitutionalist and libertarian voting record." Apples and oranges. Turtlescrubber 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the NYT and probably many other sources are available to corroborate that, but the wording now is better anyway so the point is irrelevant.--Gloriamarie 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

minarchism (using a google search to reference claims)

So Ron Paul is also the president of Christmas, apparently.

Seriously, this is not a proper source for the claim that Paul is referred to as a minarchist. All that finds is web pages where "ron paul" and "minarachist" are mentioned together. It utterly fails WP:V, so I'll be removing it, again.--Proper tea is theft 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please kindly review WP:Reverting, in particular: WP:REVERT#Do_not. This is from that page:

• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

If you have an issue with the citation, then improve the citation. Don't revert the whole edit. Thanks. --Serge 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I felt that the lead was getting a little crowded with things people call Ron Paul, and I didn't really feel like chasing down sources for your assertions. Thanks. --Proper tea is theft 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also from WP:V: Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Not verified}} or {{Unreferenced}}. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done. There are several alternatives to simply reverting, even if you're feeling lazy. Thanks. --Serge 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mainstream reliable source (or any source for that matter) call him a minarchist, so I'm not sure why it would merit inclusion in the article. The article is for reporting what reliable sources say about him.--Gloriamarie 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially in the intro! If it has been mentioned, it it surely not on the level as he has been described as a libertarian, conservative, etc.--Gloriamarie 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, then tag it with {{fact}}, don't just revert it. See above for why. Thanks. --Serge 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that having a source or tagging it for "fact" was only part of the issue. It appears that the main reason it was removed was for undue weight. I think it was proper to remove it and discuss on the talk page the merits of inclusion (once verifiable sources were presented). Morphh ^(talk) 18:48, 07 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have three issues: 1. Factual accuracy. Please cite a source backing it up on this talk page. 2. Whether this belongs in the article at all. 3. Being in the intro, if it does belong in the article. Even if one or two sources say this, it's not on the level of the number of times he has been called libertarian, conservative, or constitutionalist, which is the sentence it's been inserted into, and to juxtapose it with those implies that he is just as commonly described as a minarchist, which is not the case. As an example I can remember of how something similar was treated, even one of the most famous paleoconservatives, for instance, Pat Buchanan, is not referred to that way in his article (see his talk page) because it was deemed to not add anything to the article and he doesn't refer to himself as such, even though he is commonly referred to that way in the press. Something like this should to be discussed on the talk page and agreed upon.--Gloriamarie 19:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Undo weight? You've got to be kidding. The example cited at undo weight is representing the minority view that the earth is flat on the page about the earth. There is no question that Ron Paul is a minarchist. He is certainly not an anarchist, and he is a libertarian who believes in small government. Therefore, he is a minarchist, by definition. You cannot find a single citation of anyone anywhere questioning whether Paul is a minarchist (now compare that count of zero to the countless number of sources you can find questioning the claim that the earth is flat). Now, the fact that the term is not quite in the mainstream yet is another matter, and that's why official sources using that particular term are hard to find. But it is, for better or for worse, within the Wikipedia lexicon, and, so arguably is appropriate to reference within a Wikipedia article about an obvious minarchist. --Serge 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we'd need a reliable source per WP:RS -- all I can find is a bunch of bloggers; can't you find a reporter using the term? ←Ben^B4 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? WP:RS clearly states:

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations

Is anyone challenging the depiction of Ron Paul as a minarchist? Seriously? Ron Paul is arguably a quintessential minarchist! What is the basis of your challenge? And, again, since the term is not yet fully accepted in the mainstream, it's difficult to find a reporter using it. But it is in the Wikipedia lexicon. --Serge 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true or not, but I know that no one in the mainstream press has referred to him that way. He is also in favor of a minimal government at the federal level; he has not said that state governemnts should be gotten rid of as far as I know (besides the usual unnecessary bureaucracy, of course), and it seems that a minarchist would not be in favor of any type of state government. I don't know that much about it, though. It would need a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, of course no one in the main stream press has used a term that it not yet in the main stream. It is not true that a minarchist would not be in favor of any type of state government. Where did you get that idea? Perhaps the most succinct definition of a minarchist is "a libertarian who is not an anarchist". Because so many libertarians are anarchists, I think it's important to clarify that Ron Paul is a minarchist libertarian (not an anarchist libertarian). By saying he is simply a libertarian, we're not being clear on that point. --Serge 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He's running for president as a Republican. I think that he's not an anarchist is pretty much understood. --Trovatore 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An anarchist can run for president. Trying to eliminate as much government as possible through any means available is consistent with philosophical anarchism. Paul may well be a philosophical anarchist. He does have a picture of anarchist Murray Rothbard on the wall in his office. If he is though, he probably wouldn't admit it due to political repercussions. Operation Spooner 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case ... --Serge 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An anarchist can run for president -- but is unlikely to run as a Republican. --Trovatore 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Very true. And many people have a photo of, for instance, Jim Morrison on their wall... that doesn't mean they're a rock star themselves. It's pretty clear he's NOT an anarchist. If no one in the mainstream press ever uses this term minarchist, why should Wikipedia? While many people may think that libertarians are anarchists (I've actually heard a former governor say that at a speech once), a link to the article on libertarianism should set them straight on that point. I don't see the point of using an obscure word to clarify something that not everyone may even be thinking.--76.182.88.254 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Ron Paul a minarchist or an anarchist?

It is largely accepted that Ron Paul is a libertarian. But libertarians fall into two fundamental categories. So is Ron Paul a minarchist or an anarchist libertarian? Some anarchists feel that minarchists are not truly libertarian because they assume that any government requires some initiation of force (and thus is not true libertarianism), but many minarchist libertarians disagree, feeling that it is possible to establish a government based on consent and voluntary funding. A homeowners' association is arguably an example of a type of consensual/voluntary government. At any rate, what evidence is there for Ron Paul being either an anarchist or a minarchist? If he is a libertarian, he has to be one or the other, for there is no such thing as a libertarian who is neither anarchist nor minarchist. --Serge 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to get this specific? He's also labeled as a "conservative" rather than "paleoconservative" or "neoconservative".--Daveswagon 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since he's working within the confines of the political system, I would say it would be a good guess that he is a minarchist. In interviews he hearkens back to the Constitution, a document which establishes a compulsory government. And homeowners associations are not consensual or voluntary. Dues can and are extracted from members who choose to live in a community with a homeowners association. Liens can be placed on properties which refuse. See the wikipedia article for more information. --D 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When someone chooses to buy a home that falls under the auspices of a homeowners association, he is consenting by contract to abide by the CC&Rs. If he fails to do what he has agreed to do, like not pay his dues, then of course a lien may be placed on his property. But failing to meet one's end of a deal is fraudulent and a type of initiation of force, so the lien is not initiation of force. This is why homeowners associations are consensual and voluntary. No one is forced to buy a home within one. But if you do, you are also agreeing to the terms and conditions of buying a home there, including paying your dues on time. --Serge 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't forced to stay in the United States. By your definition our government is voluntary and consensual. But by being here you enter willingly into a contract with the government of the United States of America, agreeing to obey the laws of the land. (Suggested reading: "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine) And it could very well be in the future all homes will fall under a homeowners association, killing the consensual and voluntary part of the organization. The organization only remains voluntary and consensual up until the point that it's not that only option left, which makes it an unsustainable definition (it has boundary conditions which would void the definition). --D 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please confine comments to discussion of improvements to the article. This talk page is huge enough. ←Ben^B4 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article, minarchy "is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal — only large enough to protect the liberty and property of each individual." Presumably one would still be a libertarian if they favored a few government policies or programs that require a government larger than that in a minarchy, as long as they don't go "too far". While Paul does indeed wish to massively reduce the size of government, I think his stand on immigration may be enough to disqualify him from being a minarchist.Granola Bars 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that he's not an anarchist, but does every libertarian fall into one of the two above categories? There are many types of libertarians, and I don't think it's so cut and dried.--76.182.88.254

I completely agree.Granola Bars 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, those who reserve the term "libertarian" only for people who have a rigorous intellectual system of libertarianism, would probably do better to see Paul as a "conservative with libertarian instincts" than a libertarian. That's probably the more accurate description anyway. I think the main difference between him and other conservatives with libertarian instincts (Reagan, Gingrich) is that he puts what he thinks is right (for whatever reason, intellectual or not) ahead of what's good for the Republican Party.

(Yes, I voted for Russell Means. If I recall correctly, anyway; it was a long time ago.) --Trovatore 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"votes against almost all federal funding"

Does he really vote against almost all federal funding? The source cited in support of that doesn't say it. It says he votes against almost everything he sees as federal "overreaching" or that interferes with the free market. Other sources only say he votes against expanded spending, increased taxes, and unbalanced budgets. Is there anything that says he actually votes against almost all spending? ←Ben^B4 08:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

According to his voting record here, he seemingly votes "no" the majority of the time on everything. There was a defense appropriation (for construction) and some border fence/security things he voted "yes" on but not a lot of other federal spending that I could find.--Daveswagon 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The gist is that he thinks almost all federal spending is "overreaching" what the federal gov. should do-- which is basically, defend the country and provide for military veterans and everything else should fall to the states.-76.182.88.254 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't include gist, we need a reliable source that says it. ←Ben^B4 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Can you people not decide on which picture of RP's will grace the top of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.219 (talk • contribs)

The other ones got deleted because they were uploaded with uncertain copyright status. I tried to save the one before last which I thought looked better but someone apparently speedied it as uncertain status, possibly replaceable fair use. ←Ben^B4 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the last one before this one is much better but seems to keep getting deleted. However, it seems to be an official Congressional portrait and at the very least, released by his campaign, so I'm not sure why it keeps getting deleted.--76.182.88.254 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because whoever uploaded it last time gave a source which (1) was copyrighted by the campaign, and (2) did not actually include the picture they uploaded. I tried to save it with {{promo}} but some admin obviously didn't think that was good enough (because it's replaceable, almost certainly.) Does anyone have the real URL to the better previous pic? ←Ben^B4 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Neturality

I know this might be a sore subject, but I nominated this article on behalf of the neutrality standard. I feel like this article was written by a Ron Paul supporter. That in itself isn't a problem, but I some aspects of the author's bias show in the writing. I wanted to nominate it for a neutrality check because, as we approach the elections, it's important that we use Wikipedia for unbiased information, not political stumping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.133.184 (talk • contribs)

We do still need a third paragraph in the intro for an article this size, according to WP:LEAD. Since the 2nd paragraph of the lead at present is nothing but the accomplishments of which his supporters are most proud, I think we should summarize his controversial positions such as the Sanctity of Life Act, his comments about gay marriage, the fact he wants to pull out of NATO and the UN, the federal agencies he wants to dismantle, and the newsletter remarks incident, in the lead, too. What do other people think? ←Ben^B4 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say no to more political positions. There is a whole article on political positions and a summary section in this article. There is no reason to have a two paragraph summary of the three paragraph summary of a different article. Turtlescrubber 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A third paragraph could consist of what college/universities he attended, his medical and maybe military career, etc., to summarize what the article consists of. I agree, no more political positions.--76.182.88.254 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the consensus I'm going to insist on a lengthier exposition of his contoversial positions in the summary section. ←Ben^B4 02:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to take your ball and go home too? They are summary sections. Balance the positive and negatives and keep the section short. You might want to propose changes on the talk page so only the bare minimum of reverts happen. Turtlescrubber 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose to satisfy the instruction in WP:LEAD that controversies should be summarized in the lead? ←Ben^B4 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The newsletter controversy? Turtlescrubber 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that his positions are more controversial than the newsletter dust-up, because I believe him when he says an employee wrote it without him reviewing it first. A lot of his positions are in the 0-5% support range. If we can't agree, and I'm willing to drop it if you're sure we shouldn't have any more positions in the lead, then I guess we should add the college, his medical, and military career stuff instead as suggested above. But if we do that, I think we should mention at least the Sanctity of Life Act in the intro with all his proud accomplishments. ←Ben^B4 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of the income tax

I think the main article should cover the fact that the national sales tax which Paul advocates would be terribly regressive, e.g., making retirees pay a 23% tax on all their purchases. The rich, who buy fewer goods proportionally to their income and wealth, would pay a lower tax rate than the poor.[16] What do other people think? ←Ben^B4 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that Paul advocates a large national sales tax? Paul wants to reduce federal government spending by quite a bit, so abolition of the IRS doesn't necessarily mean a replacement tax. Granola Bars 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He wants either a national sales tax or a flat tax, which would also be an income tax so if he wants to repeal the 16th amendment, that leaves the national sales tax.[17] ←Ben^B4 06:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

H.R. 4379 [109th]: We the People Act

The We the People Act needs to be discussed. It would have:

1. Prohibited federal courts from hearing:
   1. "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;" and
   2. "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."
2. Allowed state courts to disobey standing federal precedent on the above issues; and
3. Prohibited federal courts from making any ruling which expends funds or "imposes taxes."[18]

This shows clearly that Paul cares more for states' rights than individual rights: If this bill had become law, states would again be able to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and any sex act. The bill explicitly references gay marriage (1.2) in a way that would do nothing to protect it; only to allow states to outlaw it. It would also severely limit the ability of the federal judiciary in a way that would have prevented:

• enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, to the extent that such enforcement would have required any money, or that freeing slaves constituted taxation of slave owners;
• suffrage, because all those extra ballots for women would have cost money;
• desegregation, to the extent that it required expenditure;
• legalization of abortion;
• discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians;
• requiring government buildings to comply with accessibility laws;
• the abolition of sodomy laws;
• any order for the government to comply with a law that required any money;
• requiring translation services in for battered women seeking restraining orders in family court; and
• a whole lot more.

I find this very disturbing. I fully realize that we must have a reliable source which states these problems, and I'm looking for one. ←Ben^B4 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Gasp. Paul actually believes in the Constitution and doesn't like the federal government.

You're looking at it the wrong way Ben. What he supports also means that a state can legalize homosexuality, abortion, or any sex act. He leaves it up to the states. If the people of Alabama vote for no gay marriage, then they shouldn't have the federal government force it down their throats. If Californians vote FOR gay marriage, then the federal government can't stop them. This is what Ron Paul supports. His quote about forcing other states to recognize gay marriages is again just this issue. He thinks it is wrong to regulate marriage on a federal level, period. Every state has its own marriage laws, and Ron Paul just wants to extend the notion to gay marriage.--Cheszmastre 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)