Jump to content

Talk:Ron Paul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.110.104.80 (talk) at 14:07, 8 January 2012 (→Edit request: update link: Fixing edit request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleRon Paul has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 23, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Conservatism SA

Template:Pbneutral


Major omission from Ron Paul page

Why are Ron Paul's racist newsletters from 20 years ago only referred to in bibliography? It is a major controversy as it is stated he made 1 million a year publishing these newsletters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.41.195 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, the controversy is discussed in the main article here Ron_Paul#2008_presidential_campaign as well as here Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy In regards to the current election cycle, while the topic has received some press, I do not think it has evolved yet to become a controversy for this election (although if he maintains his position as a front runner, it likely will become so) At that time we wilol have to think of some sort of intra-article merge to avoid having the information scattered around causing confusion, and WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a mention of it in Inter-Congression years, 1985-1987 section and in the 1996 campaign section. Toss in the full section that's in the 2008 campaign section (in this article!) and I really have to wonder how in the heck could anyone have missed the multiple and fairly detailed sections about this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Often other pages have a specific section for "Controversy". This random netizen votes for such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.56.74 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, a well written WP article avoids the use of Controversy sections and instead incorporates the issue throughout the article. It may not be as easy to see quickly by looking at the TOC but nonetheless it is mentioned, as appropriate, chronologically throughout the article. I came to this article to read about this and was more than satisfied it was covered. Just do a search on newsletter and you'll hit all the salient points. SmallRepair (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I came to this article to read about this and was more than satisfied it was covered. " On the contrary, the write-up provides an illusion of balance not deserved by the facts, including, but not limited to the more egregious statements made in the newsletters, regarding Jews, AIDS, and race riots. One is left with the impression that the controversy surrounds MLK day, whereas in reality that is not even a big piece of it. The retort by the Taki editor regarding Kirtchuk's piece is hearsay and inappropriate (ad hominem attacks not based in fact). You are left with the impression in this write-up that ALL of the controversial letters were "ghost-written." The write-up suggests that Paul's name was not on ANY of the new-letters which is patently false. The article does not provide detailed responses by the accused ghost-writers, which Rockwell and others have repeatedly rejected responsibility for. Nor does the write-up discuss the solicitation letters sent by Paul with Paul's signature clearly visible on them with additional controversial statements and which were only recently uncovered. The fact that the information is presented in what appears to be the least damaging way (e.g. whitewashed) with respect to Dr. Paul, that it is fragmented in various locations, and that it is embedded so as not be aesthetically obvious to the casual reader---only furthers the bias of the article. I think in this case, a wholly re-written and objective Controversy section would improve the article. 24.59.184.22 (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Joel[reply]
Good. Articles. Don't. Have. Controversy. Sections.
One can speak of controversies within particular sections, like voting record or viewpoints related to X. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above poster. I don't have time now, but this article needs to be reassessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.139.241 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request moving opinion of Paul's "conservative voting record" to Poltitical Positions section.

In the lead we read the opinion of Keith Poole stating that Ron Paul "...had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." This seems both POV and unqualified (fiscally conservative? right wing conservative? small 'c' conservative?) and would belong better in the Political Positions section. I am going to be bold and make the change but welcome input.--Canadiandy talk 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Please change PAC's to PACs because the first way is wrong and the second way is right. Thanks.

Photochico (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Probablematic redirect

I just realized that Mises and Austrian Economics redirects to the Ron Paul article. While Ron Paul has written a pamphlet called that, the article doesn't state this (though it links to a pdf). This is obviously problematic since the reason for redirects should be clear. Either we should delete the redirect or include a note of the pamphlet (probably not really an option, given the length of the article already). --Kristjan Wager (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 December 2011

Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[54 The referenced article does not specify Rothbard as saying this. Rothbard was also dead at the time of the 1996 newsletter controversy. Should read "Some libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul." Woody1912 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Woody1912[reply]

Woody1912 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Church going Baptist?

Is this some special terminology of which I am previously unaware regarding Baptists? If so, please explain wouldn't it be simpler and more correct to just call him Baptist? If you want to say the man iactive in his church, then say that too. Don't try to combine them. It sounds silly. 108.86.128.248 (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 campaign section out of date

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#2012_presidential_campaign is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.99.111 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Ron Paul Family Cookbook

In Iowa Dr. Ron Paul mentioned something about a cookbook when he introduced his wife Carol. I found some references to it such as: Ron Paul's family cookbook: 'An unorthodox campaign tactic'?[1] I searched the Ronpaul.com website for mention of this cookbook and don't see it listed for sale. But there are a few mentions. [2] I find this topic pretty unique..however..don't have the time to write a well constructed line in the main article. Any takers to do so are welcome in my view..and any detractors thinking it isn't a good idea can edit this paragraph.Pbmaise (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cookbook is for sale on his campaign website.[3] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article incorrectly interprets Gallup poll

The article states that a Gallup poll revealed that Paul was the most admired man in Congress. The poll actually asked respondents what living person they admired most, and one of the respondents mentioned Paul. This hardly supports the conclusion that the poll suggests Paul is the most admired Congressman. I recommend deleting this section. --75.181.68.67 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.TMCk (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the polls finds 1% of Americans (not 1 respondent LOL) names Paul the man they most admire in the entire world. One percent of America is 3 million Americans admiring Paul above all other men on the planet. No other man currently in congress was named by as many sampled Americans which makes Paul the most admired man in congress.Twonumbers (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is original research, so it should be removed. Truthsort (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's not original research to draw obvious conclusions from sources. For example,if you have a list of the 10 tallest people in the world, and one of them is a women, it's not OR to call that woman the tallest woman in the world. Twonumbers (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poll DOES NOT suggest that Paul is the most admired man in Congress. You are confusing the statement from the poll that 1% of respondents indicated they admired him more than any other man in the world with the statement, that he is the most admired man in Congress. Who you admire most in the world (which the poll is asking) is an entirely different question from which member of Congress you admire most. This is one data point from a small sample for one month. Even if the poll were correctly interpreted (which it is not) such a transient data point would hardly merit inclusion in the article, unless one thinks that this poll should be mentioned in the article on anyone whose name has ever appeared in it.--75.181.68.67 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the poll tells who the most admired men in the world are (by Americans). Ron Paul is the only congressmen to make the cut. That makes him the most admired congressman in the world according to that poll. Analogously if you have a list of the richest people in the world, and New York city mayor Michael bloomberg is the only mayor to make the list, you can conclude that bloomberg is the world's richest mayor according to that list. You don't need a list specifically about the richest mayors to make that obvious inference. Now you can argue that had a poll specifically asked Americans directly what congressmen they most admire, Ron Paul would not have won, but you're always going to get different results when you change the methodology. But according to the poll as it was conducted, Ron Paul is the most admired congressman in the entire world. Since that's an extremely prestigious achievement and the Gallup poll is a highly reliable source, we should not be withholding this information from wikipedia readers.Twonumbers (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please change outdated link "Ron Paul at the Open Directory Project" in the External links section. It currently points to his 2008 campaign. The current, much more complete page is at http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/President/Candidates/Paul%2C_Ron/ I would make the edit myself but the page is protected. Thank you. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request fixed to use template (I hope correctly.) 68.110.104.80 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Paul&oldid=470258988"