Talk:Ron Paul

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

Picture heading

Look carefully at the heading above the picture: "Bro Man, King of Bros" - please correct if you know how. Mhym (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. The user responsible has been blocked, a second time, for repeatedly adding that. --an odd name 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana

The lead says that Paul supports "legalization of marijuana at the federal level". I believe that his position is that laws against recreational drugs are within the jurisdiction of the states not the federal government. Also he is against these laws at the state level. So the statement is a little confusing and I will remove it unless some wants to word it better. It's probably better to explain it in the body of the article because the lead already says he opposes the War on Drugs. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Affirm, would not be lead material even if correctly stated. JJB 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it out. His views on drugs are important but this statement did not accurately represent his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on article.

Hello, I've been doing a read through, and I got to this part:

"In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[38] and The Ron Paul Survival Report;[8][39] it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987.[40] Articles were largely unbylined but often invoked Paul's name or persona. In 1992, RP&A earned $940,000 and employed Paul's family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president[41] and sometime editor)[42] and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[41] Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters, but attributed the newsletters to "seven or eight freelancers"."

This makes me ask "Why were they controversial, and why is someone later having to "acknowledge[d] involvement"?" as I haven't got to the part of the article that covers that yet. It's not a huge deal, but I just feel it makes the article a little clunky. I think either at this point, we should just not mention the controversy, as that is covered in depth later, or add in some link like "(see Newsletter section)" or the like.

Anyone agree with me on this?

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the other idea i had was just to include a very brief sentence on why they were controversial, just so the reader is filled in and not left unsure. Perhaps something like

"it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987, which was later used by opponents of Paul, to accuse him of making racist remarks"

or something like that, sorry I'm not good at construction of things like this, that particular one is clunky too. I wasn't as satisfied with this idea though, as it then kind of begs a reader to ask "What kind of racist remarks?", bringing back the same problem I'm trying to address. Perhaps a good writer can do it justice though.

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that the newsletter is contained at the end of the 1988 election campaign, but actually pre-dates the campaign. The Four Deuces ([[User talk:The Four

Deuces|talk]]) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It only became controversial during the 1988 campaign, then flared up again during the 2008 campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Relations with Dennis Kucinich

What about his relationship with Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio? 20:17, 17 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk • contribs)

While Paul has made comments that imply that he and he and Kucinich are friends (depite their political differences), this dosen't seem to be particularly noteworthy enough to include in the article. Of course, if you can find reliably sourced content that suggests otherwise, feel to add it in the appropriate section (though it may be best to discuss it here first).--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruno

Is Paul's appearance in Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno movie noteworthy? See [1] Stonemason89 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, bit it might worth revisiting if the appearance becomes a topic of discussion in notable media sources.--JayJasper (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Double standard? How much of this article isn't backed by material in "notable media sources"? I'm not suggesting that the Bruno piece be included, but plenty of the article is just as specious. Burzmali (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Too transient an incident, and too irrelevant for the purposes of the article. JMHO. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The significance of this story depends on how it is reported in the media. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it reports what mainstream sources are saying. If it becomes a story then it belongs here. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An entire section of society knows him best for his scene in the Bruno film (which has, thus far, been hugely successful on both sides of the Atlantic). It's one of the (many) highlights of the film - Bruno attempting to make a sex tape with an unwitting 73-year-old Republican Congressman, under the misguided impression he's actually RuPaul. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the United States who knows him for anything else. MultipleTom (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You have any third-party compilations of numbers to back up such an assertion? Otherwise, you're just pulling that out of thin air. If you are correct in asserting that this film clip is the only knowledge of Paul which the mass of people who have seen the film have, that but for his appearance they would have no idea who he is, then it's equally as likely that they won't remember him at all in a month or two. So, as I said above: his presence in the film is too transient and isolated of an event for the purposes of the article. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)