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 97.95.129.245 (talk) at 18:40, 27 August 2012 (→Vandalism). 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:Stable version Template:Pbneutral

Where's the beef?

I'm searching through this article and there are any number of terms that just aren't coming up but should be. Where's "Christian reconstructionism", "Dominionism", "tenther" and "neo-Nazi"? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I asked why these terms don't come up, and the reaction was to summarily delete my question. It could be argued that adding these terms would be a WP:BLP violation, but I don't see how it can be a violation to bring up the subject. If anything, removing my question is a serious breach of editor etiquette, in that my words are being tampered with.
In any case, I'm not making any of this stuff up, and it's an entirely fair question. Even if all of the alleged associations with these terms are false, it is still true that they have been notably and credibly alleged. One example would be http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-ron-paul-a-closet-theocrat-66586/. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are references to reliable sources? These are terms unfamiliar to me and I follow politics quite a bit. Did you mean Ron Paul is a 'neo-Nazi' or that he opposes that stupid movement? There are guidelines in Wikipedia (for writing about living people in particular.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I posted a reliable source about the issue of his connections with the first two terms, and it included links to other reliable sources on the same topic. Here are links about the last two terms: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/16/794109/-A-Layman-s-Refutation-of-the-Tenther-Movement, http://newsone.com/1842275/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/.
Again, the question isn't whether the connections are true, as we should not be stating that they're true. In fact, it's quite likely that some of them aren't. But that's not for either of us to judge. We just report what notable secondary sources have said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Tenther"/Daily Kos cite is to a column written by an anonymous blogger, the (Neo Nazi?) NewsOne cite is to a Casey Gane-McCalla column that extensively quotes the hacker group "Anonymous" as a source, so I am not sure that either of those columns would qualify as reliable sources for these terms being used to describe Paul. If the Washington Post or the New York Times, ABC News, etc. used those terms to describe Mr. Paul, his activities and his beliefs then that would be different. Shearonink (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how quoting Anonymous makes the article unreliable; perhaps you could explain how. The other neo-Nazi story is http://www.buzzfeed.com/pajaroentertainmentltd/photo-of-ron-paul-palling-around-with-neo-nazis-31ii, which includes a link to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?_r=4&ref=politics. I believe you did mention the New York Times as a source you accept as reliable.
The Kos blogger is using a pen name but is by no means anonymous (http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/12910/). Ron Paul's support for tentherism is reported by tenther sites such as http://news.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/ron-paul-voices-support-for-nullification/, with links to more reliable sources, such as http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/ron-paul-ill-decide-soon-presidential-run?page=2. Besides "tenther", the related term is "nullification".
I won't pretend that sourcing any statements about these terms is trivial, but it does look doable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'Anonymous' is anonymous and a group dedicated to hacking activities....that would seem to not make them a reliable source. As to using "Tenther" to describe Ron Paul, if WP is going to include all significant viewpoints about terms then Radley Balko's Reason column link would also be an appropriate reference. The use of the term "nullification" to describe Paul's views and to not describe other politicians as such seems a little disingenuous to me. For instance, it would seem to apply to both conservatives and liberals who are on both sides of the medical marijuana laws and other local-use/marijuana laws. The controversy about his newsletters and their language has a section in the main Ron Paul article as well as its own standalone article: Ron Paul newsletters, Paul's political views are covered in Ron Paul#Political positions as well as its own article: Political positions of Ron Paul, and Paul's views about the Tenth Amendment are mentioned at least 5 different times in the States' powers section. As to using the above terms to possibly describe some of Ron Paul's beliefs - Tenther/nullification, Christian reconstructionism, Neo-Nazi, Dominionism - the use of which could be construed as violating WP:NPOV, I would point you to the example of how Wikipedia has dealt with terminology about abortion in the past:
Opposed: Opposition to legalized abortion, Pro-life, Anti-abortion and
For: Support for the legalization of abortion, Pro-abortion, Pro-choice with Women's rights covering Women's reproductive rights.
Also, using single photos from the Internet to prove asserted associations for politicians with various individuals would seem to be a slippery slope...many politicians have their pictures taken at campaign events with all sorts of people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a close association with that particular individual whatever people might assert both pro- and con-.
In my opinion, using the above various terms to describe Paul either one way or the other should not hold precedence but the usage of these various terms to describe him or his views should be scrupulously referenced from multiple, reliable sources keeping in mind any possible WP:BLP concerns.Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source is not Anonymous, it's the newspaper reporting on it, so your objection does not hold. In fact, our article on the group -- Anonymous (group) -- is full of reliable sources about it and what it says.
I found that Reason article denying tentherism during my research and I'm totally fine with including it, as it's a notable view. It's vital that anything we say is neutral and balanced, precisely because of the terminology involved, so that cite has a place.
As for how broadly tentherism applies, I'm only interested in whether it applies here. If, say, it also applies to Romney and Obama, that's fine, but should be dealt with on their article, not here. Having said that, I read Tenther and couldn't help but to notice that it contrasted the views of traditional libertarians with the statements in one of Ron Paul's newsletters. This suggests that Paul may well be opposed to the federal government's power but not the state/local one's, which is precisely the defining characteristic of a so-called tenther. I think it's extremely important that we accurately report Paul's views, using his own words and reliable sources talking about his words.
Ultimately, if we stick to our sources, I don't think that WP:NPOV would be a problem. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NewsOne's story starts like this:
"“Anonymous” claims to have recovered emails from Kelso that prove that Ron Paul has regularly met with members of Jamie Kelso’s neo-Nazi political party American Third Position and even was on several conference calls with their board of directors."
So Casey Gane-McCala's story in NewsOne starts with a quote from Anonymous about emails and then the rest of the story?... The rest of the story consists of quotes from Anonymous....so yes, in my opinion the reliability of Anonymous in and of itself as a source is very much at the center of how reliable this NewsOne story is. I do disagree with the statement that "We just report what notable secondary sources have said"...not quite. If that is all that Wikipedia articles are, then all we would have to do is be a listing service of what other sources state...but there is editorial discretion and editorial consensus about what is and what is not included in a Wikipedia article. If you think that the NewsOne story can be used as a reliable source for Paul's asserted Neo-Nazi ties, then include it. If you think that you have found enough reliable/independent sources to support including "Dominionism", "Christian reconstructionism", "Tenther", and "Neo-Nazi" as neutral point-of-view descriptions of Ron Paul & his political beliefs, then include them in the Ron Paul article as well. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NewsOne doesn't believe it can assert Paul has neo-Nazi ties. Instead, it is reporting a credible claim. In the same way, we are reporting on the notable claim, not endorsing it.
It is a simple matter of fact that Anonymous has accused Paul of these ties; we have reliable sources to prove this. Whether the claims are true is not for us to decide. They're certainly plausible, in that neo-Nazis have explicitly given support to Paul, as shown by the posed photo with Stormfront's leader. It's not a wild claim by any measure. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, if you think you have enough reliable/independent sources to support including these four terms as being neutrally descriptive of Ron Paul and his political beliefs, then add them to the article. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have enough reliable/independent sources to support including the issues around these terms in a neutrally descriptive way. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Christian reconstructionism", "Dominionism", "tenther", "neo-Nazi" Are you trolling? If you want to add a bit about Ron Paul's beliefs on nullification then do it. I know Ron paul has an interesting crowd following him, but come on. Naapple (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but do you actually have a point or are you simply trying to bait me? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think both my point and your intent are pretty clear. Naapple (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I'm not taking the bait. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other motive on Wikipedia other than making sure that certain articles are written to your interpretation of neutral? You are begging to look like a single purpose account. --JOJ Hutton 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a real stickler for punctuation. How about you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbardanswer

Your latest edit removed the mention of is newsletters, which are probably more notable than anything he wrote for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It's also not clear anymore whether he published the books he wrote. I looked up "The Case for Gold" on Amazon and the publisher is listed as CreateSpace, which is a site that helps people self-publish. Can you fix these problems? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this missing?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/18/is-ron-paul-a-dominionist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1003:1017:BE30:5BFF:FECF:46FE (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a blog and this is a BLP? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is sourcing, we can find reliable sources. But it's strange that none of this stuff is mentioned, even the things we can easily source. Gary North's involvement with RP is one example of this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the are reliable sources this can and should be included. Nemissimo (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gary North mentions this, so we can use whatever citation that article used. If not, Googling "gary north ron paul" turned up pages and pages of links. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tree

Green Tree is its own borough, not a Pittsburgh neighborhood. His bio infobox implies otherwise. Was it a section of the city when he was born? YellowAries2010 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul won enough states to qualify for GOP convention ballot and 15 minute speaking time

This shows the level of unreliability of the Huffington Post. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because they ran an opinion piece by a minimalist conservative? Please clarify your assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would love to hear your logic on why this specific article shows a level of unreliability? -- Avanu (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Someone cited "antiwar.com" as a source to call Ron Paul and Tea Party neocons.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Paul&oldid=509473642"