Talk:Ron Paul

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

Ron Paul and the Don Black (white supremacist) contribution

Did I miss this in the archives? http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpauldonblack.jpg --scuro (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So a racist gave him money, and Ron Paul refused to give it back. I don't see this as a real problem for Paul, but as small-minded people trying to play racial politics. Let me pose a question: if Louis Farrakhan gave a campaign donation to Barack Obama, would you have him refuse it, or would you have Obama openly disavow the views of the man who gave him the money, and then subsequently have Obama use it for his own noble purposes? Why give the money back to some one who may then use it for their own ignoble ideas when you can use their own money they've given you against them? Foofighter20x (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like how the person who posted this didn't reference the fox news Neil Cavuto clip where Ron Paul explains the circumstances around this donation and clears up the matter pretty effiecently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because a politician would never spin an event like that? Burzmali (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, really... now you're just being cynical. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

About a politician? Surely you jest ;) Seriously, Don Black made the donation, the news reported it, Ron Paul spun the issue, and the news reported it. In the end, it's a wash. Since the New York Times didn't suggest that accepting the donation made him a racist, neither should we. Burzmali (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If we suggested things outside of the realm of media coverage and biographical fact then this would be a POV article, remember? Seriously, what is he spinning? You would rather have had him take someone else's donation by the time it was found out and give it back to Don Black? When you send money to a political campaign it's for the ideals of that movement, not vice versa. Last time I checked Ron Paul's campaign does not have racist ideals. Your guilt by association argument is laughably inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be suggested from a contributor. Simply state the facts, if someone feels that more should then that should be said, then find a good news source that states as much and quote that source. If you can't find a good source that makes inferences keep it sweet and simple.--scuro (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro I would just like to ask you something seriously, and I will not insult your intelligence. I honestly want to know your opinion on this. We are talking about a dead news story, literally a single-day controversy that was cleared up, that doubtfully even constitutes the word "controversy"...yet why is it that on President Obama's wikipedia article there is no mention of the Rev Wright or Bill Ayers controversies that got innumerable news stories..there are literally countless "good news sources" on those issues, it was a tangible part of his campaign, yet they are not even mentioned. I am not even talking about inferences on the President's character, I mean simply mentioning these well-documented and talked about moments. How does that willful exclusion not count as a POV by the editors of that page? And you have cited it as an example of a balanced article? Please clear this up for me.

I haven't really taken the time to research it. How much of a none news story was it? Who covered it? Frankly, I'm a one article guy now. I look but don't touch the other ones. RP is my article for the time being. The Obama page? You may have a point, I've heard of those issues. Bring it up on that talk page, see what they say. My role is not that of a judge, I don't have to balance different articles. I'm just here to improve this article. Some of my ideas will end up in the trash, but the exercise of examining this article more closely is not a waste of time. Do you have a name, it helps me remember viewpoints better if I can connect them to a name.--scuro (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My question thus is: What substance does this really add to the article? What does it say about RP himself versus what it says about those who would bring this up in the first place? Again, this is an issue where where his political opponents are simply trying to paint him as a racist when its generally accepted he's hardly that at all. This isn't worth any but the most partisan reader's time, nor Wikipedia's storage space and bandwidth. If they really want this information, let them go dig it up on DailyKos.

To back up this opinion, I'll cite WP policy to that effect. WP:BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Scuro: It was literally one single fox news interview I believe, which I've linked above on youtube. If you watch that video I believe Ron Paul very neatly clears up the matter. The donation was discovered after it was already spent along with a flurry of others, if he had sent back the 500 dollars, it would mean taking it out of the pool of other donations, in effect channeling someone else's monetary support to a different cause. If something so miniscule as this is noteworthy then there is a serious problem of balance on wikipedia because I have not seen anything like that on ANY other politician articles. And again, I have to stress this, it's not even controversial, the princple of the matter is that when someone donates money to a campaign it is for those ideals, regardless of who the individual is. The trouble I have also is if you are in charge of this page, it is deeply disturbing that you've already called it a "gushing cotton candy" piece, it is nowhere near that. I just hope that if there are "improvements", it's not done for partisian reasons and does not allege things beyond the realm of objectivity and fairness. I guess that's why I took a combative tone with you before, which I now regret. I believe Foofighter20x has done a superb job of defending the article, and also compromising when there really was some gap, these archives are proof of that with his substantive replies and attention to detail and the true letter of the law on wikipedia. My name is Nick by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been several claims by white nationalist http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28341_Neo-Nazis_Say-_Ron_Paul_is_One_of_Us&only. Patriotspeople (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education

Suggest that this section be abridged to read:

Paul was born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania to Howard and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. He received a B.S. degree in Biology at Gettysburg College in 1957. After obtaining an M.D. degree from the Duke University School of Medicine, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s.

Any comments? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure you wiki-link everything in there you can. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would keep the existing links and footnotes. I just took them out above so it would be easier to read. Also, I think his track record is probably worth keeping. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I abridged this section and plan to do so for the "marriage and family section" then combine it with "early life and education. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Better then what was there before. In looking at the intro...the first paragraph can and should state most important events in his life first.--scuro (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The lead contains too much detail and should be more of a general summary. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section has become filled with minor details when it should present a general outline of the subject. I propose a new lead along the following lines, and would appreciate any input on how this section could be improved.

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman, who gained widespread attention during his campaign for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination. During the campaign he attracted a large, enthusiastic following who made innovative use of the internet and social networking to establish a grass roots campaign despite lack of traditional organization or media attention. He criticised the Republican party for abandoning its principles of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and sound monetary policies, and in particular strongly opposed American involvement in the War in Iraq. He also called for abolition of many federal institutions including the FBI, CIA and Department of Education, abolition of the federal income tax and an end to the war on drugs. Despite surprisingly strong support in some races, he failed to win any state-wide contests. His campaign was known as the Ron Paul Revolution which continues as the Campaign for Liberty.

Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government, and he serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy.

Paul was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign and was himself a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988.

Paul's ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including 'The Revolution: A Manifesto' (2008). His positions have often been highly controversial and have attracted severe criticism from other Republicans. However, he has maintained a reputation for integrity, consistency and affability.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph looks decent. The rest of the information should be rolled in. Also, reword the last two sentences for NPOV. Burzmali (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How's this for the second half?

Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government, and he serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy. He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign and was himself a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988. His ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including 'The Revolution: A Manifesto' (2008). The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now made the changes to the lead section. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see why some editors have been questioning the article's NPOV.

"sound monetary policies"? That needs to be rephrased.

"Widespread attention"? He was a minor candidate and never had any serious shot at winning the nomination.

"He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign." Why is that important?

"numerous published articles and books" Numerous? Ron Paul doesn't seem to be any more prolific than any other politician. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem I see with the lead is that it's supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Yet almost the entire first paragraph is devoted to the 2008 presidential campaign. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign" The article doesn't actually state this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's better than it was before. "Sound monetary policies" - that's how these people talk, "Widespread attention" - he was not well-known before the campaign, "numerous" - actually has published more articles and books than most, "another problem" - the campaign is the most significant aspect, "support of Reagan" against incumbent Republican president establishes "conservative" credentials. That was my thinking anyway. If you can improve this section then more power to you. I suggest though that you post any comments in a new section so that others are more likely to see them. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Populist Party

Should Populist Party appear as another afiliation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of connection to White Nationalists

1) WP:BLP - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2) WP:BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

3) WP:BLP - The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit...

4) WP:NPOVD - The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

5) WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

6) WP:SOURCES - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Blogs and webforums are not reliable sources. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I concede blogs and weblogs "may" be presumed as unreliable sources. However, financial transactions such as http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html and photographs of said transactions http://blogs4conservatives.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg as proof of relationship are not of opinion and factual basis. What intent or motivations are involved whiel socializing with "white nationalist" are ambiguous. However, evidence of social interaction is clearly provided.LakeJacksonWN (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't worked in any political campaigns before (not that it's a bad thing, nor does it make you a bad person). Candidates routinely and indiscriminately stop to allow pictures with people who show up at campaign events without asking about their background or screening them for their radical or fringe views. The picture proves nothing except Don Black went out of his way to attend a Ron Paul event and was fortunate enough to have his picture taken with Paul. It's not an endorsement by Paul of Black or Black's views. I'm pretty sure Paul had no clue who the hell the other guy was with whom he was posing. As to the donation, that's been discussed above. Aside from those two things, which are highly tenuous and contentious, you've got nothing from which you can reliably extrapolate what you attempted to put in the article. Even if you could extrapolate it, it would still violate WP:NOR. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly did not view the receipt link provided above. It referenced a payout to the restaurant where reported white nationalists met, it was NOT A DONATION to the Paul campaign. It was a campaign expense. It is very unlikely that any politician could not recognize the most prominent white nationalists, even more so an individual a newsletter with blatant white supremacists themes on his part. I on the other have worked on campaigns, and most knowledgeable national politicians would easily recognize Don Black. Ron Paul has issued no statement on this end, so we can assume it is left ambiguous. Either way, this evidence of interaction is completely provided. Chose to ignore it at your own bias. Piecestory1 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then clearly that further justifies the exclusion of the material from the article. Wikipedia is not in the business of proclaiming guilt by association, whether with people or places. I may go and eat at a restaurant; so may a bunch of racists. Just because I may by happenstance get a meal from that establishment is no form of proof that I agree with the political views of other patrons of the restaurant. Also, I may know the name Louis Farrakhan or Jessie Helms, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recognize either of them should I run across them in my everyday routine. These arguments about Paul's alleged connections are all non sequiturs and guilt-by-some-attentuatedly-alleged-association form of race-baiting. Hell, even the airport cop in Idaho didn't recognize Larry Craig as his own U.S. Senator. With the exception of party leader (which Paul obviously is not), I wouldn't expect too many people to know or recognize radicals with whom the don't associate. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Foofighter entirely, and thank you Foo for staying with this. I had my photo taken with Paul (it may have even been the same event in FL as Mr. Black; it would be ridiculous to demand that Paul do background searches on donors solely to prevent them from being in the same room as him), and my donations to him are public, verifiable, reliable. But guess what! It would be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them in this article or to extrapolate the original research that Paul agrees with all of my nutty extremist views. Rather, it's the other way round. JJB 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if you really wanted to point out Paul's connection to white nationalists, you could mention his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, the guy who make fairly regular appearances on The Political Cesspool, the James Edwards radio show that condemned the movie Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants since, in Edwards' opinion, interracial relationships are a form of white genocide. ;) Burzmali (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Had to work pretty hard on that one, didn't you, my friend? And James Edwards was in a movie with Kevin Bacon, right? You notice that Cesspool was just PRODded as nonnotable. What is your source for "fairly regular appearances" rather than one appearance on the show? Thank you. Actually, that question should be answered on the Baldwin page. JJB 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, if I thought that David Duke should be president, I wouldn't be surprised it people raised their eyebrows. All I'm saying is that there are far too many red flags for the people to easily trust that Ron Paul is friend to all races. When Paul endorses someone who barely even tries to conceal his opinion about the jews if there much surprise that Paul's own character is questioned? Burzmali (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't know David Rockefeller was Jewish. JJB 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are only acceptable if the author of the blog is an established expert on this specific topic and has been published by reliable third-party publications. Here's Wikipedia policy on WP:SPS. Perhaps more important, blogs should never be used as as third-party sources about living persons (even if they qualify as an established expert as defined above). See WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the cite to http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html per the reasons stated above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How does Ryan Sager not meet that requirement? The blog in question isn't a self published source, it's run by the New York Sun, and Ryan is/was a columnist in a major newspaper (the NY Post). Since LatestPolitics has gone down since the demise of the Sun, I can't quickly verify that the blog was "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" but, aside from that, what elements of the requirement do you believe the source lacks?

Also, I'll assume good faith, but I find it interesting that you were able to diagnose a source as bad without actually being able to follow its link. In all fairness, actions like that are what lead to shouts of whitewashing from certain parties. Burzmali (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. According to WP:BOLP, such material should be removed immediately. If anything, I was conservative in my change. There are several other references to blogs that probably should be removed as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read more carefully. The sentence in WP:BLP reads "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person..." This suggests that the blog needs to be self-published in order to be fail this requirement. That, or every website listed as a source in this article is also out of compliance. Since the blog in question was maintained by the New York Sun, the following sentence "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." applies, or at least I believe it does. Burzmali (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it still fails the very first qualification: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Since the site is dead, it does not meet the requirement of being high quality. In any case, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the blog was hosted by the NY Sun. Technically, it was hosted by latestpolitics.com. Either way, both organizations are now defunct and latestpolitics.com is now a dead site. Even if it wasn't dead, was it subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A dead site means low quality? Actually, I think it just means low profitability. Also, latestpolitics.com was a NY Sun's blog, it wasn't an independent operation. Either way, I'll look up the reference tonight on archive.org and re-add if I can verify the editorial control. If you are really trying to improve the page, why did you just remove a dead link to an article that wasn't complementary to Paul while leaving the material the source supported intact? Burzmali (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the link is broken, it is of zero quality. But yes, if there's an archive of it and it meets requirements, we can add it back. I didn't remove the material because there was a second cite to a New York Times article which seems to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to cite primary sources to argue an opinion in this or any other article. The article should be based on secondary sources. If the media failed to draw connections it is not the role of this article to make up for their omissions. Unfortunately no one so far has written a critical biography of Paul and the 2008 campaign, which would be a helpful source for this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of newsletter section

A couple of IP users keep removing the section on the newsletter. I and a couple others keep reverting the removal. One user stated that the removal was sanctioned on this talk page. Has a resolution been reached on this? ConstRepublic (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We last discussed the newsletter here where, from what I remember, most moderates on both sides stopped fighting at least long enough for what I consider consensus to be declared. I don't think anyone is completely satisfied, but the result is a short section that presents both sides of the issue and is sourced to several reliable sources. Burzmali (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm pretty new to wiki, what's the normal course of action to users who ignore this and keep removing the section? Its getting a little annoying already... ConstRepublic (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically he has violated the three revert rule so I've left him a warning. If he reverts again, we report to an Admin Noticeboard and let them sort it out. If it gets worse, an uninvolved party will probably request that the article be semi-protected to prevent further IP vandalism. Burzmali (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter needs to stay, bhowever, I think it ought to be parred down for the following reason: the subject-matter is covered much more in-depth in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, one paragraph discussing the accusations and one his rebuttals with a link to the full discussion on the sub article should be enough. I'd estimate cutting it in half from what it currently is would be a good start. Burzmali (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the section had the right balance. By the way, does anyone still have any concerns about the overall neurality of the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why this is even in here. If controversial and possibly defamatory information is not allowed in Barack Obama's page, why is it allowed here? The Obama information includes documented court cases, while the information here cites letters with unverified sources. This double-standard indicates political bias on the part of Wikipedia - is that what we want? vt007ken (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Barack Obama can walk on water so no sourced criticism of him is allowed on wikipedia.--E tac (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to the recent edits I made? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems better now. It tells the story concisely and gives links and footnotes for those who want to know more. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Borat appearance

Should this be listed in this article? It seems silly to me. ConstRepublic (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like Da Ali G Show, it seems like unnecessary trivia to me. I'd be fine with it's removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur - Appearances in movies or documentaries are more appropriate for mention in the articles about those specific items, and not here on his bio page. Foofighter20x (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Isn't rand notable enough to have his own page?

Considering he's potentially running for senate, I think it would be justified.

Thanks, 76.192.144.118 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)