Talk:Ron Paul

Progressive run, not in past

The opening line of this page has changed to give the impression that Paul "ran" in 2012. He is in fact still running. Need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.77.5 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Paul hadn't "ran" in 2012, he IS running in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Agreed and Change made. --Bandit6789 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a well-known term, but for reference: The dictionary definition of churchgoing at Wiktionary ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction is between those who profess a faith but do not regularly attend church, and those who do.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Did it really say church going Baptist, as suggested in the subject heading, rather than churchgoing Baptist? That would be an odd usage — to me it suggests a church that might have been some other denomination in the past, but that was now "going Baptist". (I suppose I could look it up in the article history if I really wanted to know). --Trovatore (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ru Paul

Can someone remove all the links that take you to the Ru Paul page? This is shameless vandalism but I can't fix it myself since I don't have an account. PLEASE HELP!!!1! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.214.140 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Request edited to use template and set to answered = yes since someone has already fixed the issue. Troll-Life (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012 - Newsletters section

Ben Swann, an investigative reporter for Fox19 News in Cincinnati, OH, aired a special 3 week Investigative Report on Jan 4th, 2012 into the truth behind the "racist Ron Paul newsletters". What the actual content of the newsletters was, and if not Ron Paul, then who the real author was. This special report has been widely ignored by the major news outlets, but the airing of the report appears to have had a quietening effect as the major news outlets also ceased airing any coverage of the issue at all.

Special Investigative Reporter Ben Swann reveals that there was a total of 9 newsletters which contained racist passages written over a 2 year period between October of 1990 to June of 1992. In 2007, During Paul's presidential bid, a newspaper called "The New Republic" obtained hard copies of the racist newsletters and published one on the internet as proof of the racist content. According to the New Republic, some of the newsletter editions with racist passages were:

Oct 1990, Nov 1990, Dec 1990, Feb 1991, Jun 1992, Jul 1992, (month) 1993, Dec 2002

One newsletter with many racist passages was the Jun 1992 (Special Edition On Race Riots). This newsletter was published online by The New Republic in 2007 to prove the content was more than just a few racist passages. However it was not published in its entirety as the last page, page 8, was cut off half way through. In the 2007 article The New Republic reporter, James Kirchick, had explained that none of the racist newsletters contained a byline - except one. But he failed to say which newsletter had a byline and whose name it was.

After the initial airing of the report by Fox19, James Kirchick contacted Ben Swann with additional information from his 2007 report. A Special Ron Paul Newsletter published in 1993 containing similar writings to previous 'racist' newsletters contained the one and only byline "James B. Powell". Through comparison, Ben Swann suggests that Powell may have been the anonymous freeelancer that wrote the earlier racist articles which Ron Paul has disavowed.

Despite the analysis of Ben Swann, The New Republic staff and James Kirchick continue to post articles critical of Congressman Paul and his supporters, and even to today insists Ron Paul wrote the bigoted racist newsletters.

SOURCE(s):
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters
http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-ben-swann

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-liberal-defenders
71.229.157.180 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother. Left-wing wikipedia mods would rather leave unproven rumors in their "objective" sources even though nobody involved in the publication has come forward to say Ron Paul wrote the letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.216.168 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We can't include all of that in the article. Please try to distill that down to a sentence or two; then other involved editors can decide if they think there's anything useful in it worth keeping (also, be sure to check that the source is a news story, not an opinion/entertainment piece, since fox stations run both). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See the new section below, and please comment here on talk before editing the article. Thanks you. Msalt (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone add a source?

I found the following fascinating but could not find a source.

While exit polls indicate that he received write-in votes elsewhere, not only do many U.S. jurisdictions not require the counting or reporting of write-in votes, but some actually ban the counting or reporting of write-in votes.

It would be nice if one was added.

I'm sorry if I'm not conforming to protocol in this post. I'm a fairly new/inexperienced user. Space fountain (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems that this sentence is not supported by facts. Even if it were true that some places don't count write-ins (as I recall, this is only if they fall below a certain threshold), we would need a secondary source that explains why it is interesting that Ron Paul got write-in votes in places he was not running. Write-ins are generally protests, for example if people were to write-in Harvey Milk because both real candidates for some office had made homophobic remarks. Without an explicit source, this sentence is what is called WP:SYNTHESIS. Speciate (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't neither a source nor additional input with respect to Ron Paul. But I gather that in California write-in votes are reported only for declared candidates. Votes for, e.g., Mickey Mouse for dogcatcher, are not reported and perhaps not counted. --AndersW (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul's ties to neo-nazi group

The hacker group Anonymous hs just released material that confirm Paul's ties to the neo-fascist group called American Third Position, including Paul sitting in on several conference calls with its board of directors. [1] Please include this material in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.230.210 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More just one source will be needed to include it. If more reliable sources appear, it will likely be included.--Newbreeder (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. TFD (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources:

International Business Times 1 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291817/20120202/ron-paul-a3p-opblitzkrieg-nazi-anonymous-jamie.htm

International Business Times 2 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm

Vancouver (BC) Observer http://www.vancouverobserver.com/life/technology/2012/01/31/anonymous-neo-nazis-and-ron-paul

Orange County Weekly http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/02/american_third_position_ron_paul.php

Newsweek/Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/03/anonymous-accuses-paul-of-ties-to-white-supremacy.html

Msalt (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo Ron Paul campaign denies white supremacist ties alleged by Anonymous

Intelwire 'ANONYMOUS' hits White Supremacist sites

2 additional sources for connections to American Third Position Party story. Heiro 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect date for listed for first presidential bid

The introductory paragraph lists 1986 as the first time Ron Paul ran for president, but there was no presidential election that year. Should be edited to 1988. Annikaw (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed the lead as you suggested. --AndersW (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

First line of the article -- is "physician and author" the most notable thing about Ron Paul?

The first line of the article says

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, Republican United States Congressman, and repeat candidate for President of the United States

Is his being a physician and an author really more notable than his being a congressman? Imagine if the Obama page said "Barack Obama is an American author, lawyer, and president of the United States." Paul has been a congressman for a total of 22 years, and is certainly much more notable for that than for being a physician, by any metric that you choose to measure notability. — Sam 72.248.152.57 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, and I agree. Perhaps we reword to "Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a United States Congressman (Republican Party) and repeat candidate for President of the United States..." His OB/GYN work is mentioned in the next paragraph so perhaps we leave that out of the first sentence entirely. Thoughts anyone? --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Physician and author can be safely deleted. Current wording makes it seem like he's a notable physician, which he isn't. Scott Illini (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, as you can see in this edit. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsletters (again)

I made some edits to the newsletter section to remove some language that, intentionally or not, is serving the pro-Ron Paul POV. Look -- this is obviously a contentious subject, on a semi-protected page. Please do not make edits without talk page discussion.

The most recent edits removed some of the latest information from reliable sources, which provided important context. They also, separately, inserted the argumentative language from the local Fox-TV reporter that speculates as to the possible author of one article in one newsletter. This has been discussed here on talk and rejected repeatedly for very good reasons. 1) not a reliable source, or even a news story. It's an argumentative editorial in fact. 2) Way too much emphasis on a tiny point, the author of one article 3) It's admittedly speculation 4) the source given doesn't even mention James Powell, and 5) assuming Powell is alive, this is a very weakly sourced and scandalous accusation against him, so it violates the BLP policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not just in articles about the living person.

Most importantly though, this whole point -- whether James Powell did or didn't write one or more articles in Ron Paul's newsletters -- is jumping into the middle of an argument, which is not something encyclopedias do. The whole issue is an answer to an allegation that has not been made in this article, or anywhere in the news sources that I have seen; the allegation that Ron Paul may have written the racist articles in the newsletter. I've read all the sources here and no one is saying that. So why would we refute an argument that hasn't been made?Msalt (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased Construction of this Wiki Page

(watch)

'Newsletter Controversy' occupies an exorbitantly large percentage of overall content, is covered in at least two sections of the overall wiki, and is the final significant section of the article, providing the final statement and affect to the reader. This indicates absolute bias.

Could an Admin please look at the way this article has been constructed (preferably an Admin without political interest). Thank you Frederich12 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation for comments. You do not indicate in which direction you think the bias you find in this construction is pointing. To my eye, this section has been expanded for several reasons, one of which is a tendency to try to refute attacks against Ron Paul (ie, a pro-Paul bias). It also has a tendency for editors to throw up their hands at shaping encyclopedic content and instead list a chronology of the charges and countercharges that have been made over the years. This is a long-winded way to describe something, but would seem to come from an inartful attempt to not be biased, by listing all of the arguments and counterarguments on both sides.

Given that the newsletters earned about a million dollars a year at their peak -- compared to Ron Paul's total assets of $5 million today -- and given that these newsletters have been a political issue in each of his campaigns since 1996, the issue seems to be due some significant weight. I'm curious what you think a more fair approach or length might be? Do you agree that the content of these newsletters was often highly controversial? That also seems to be the consensus opinion, and I don't think can fairly be called bias. But perhaps you disagree. Msalt (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the weight of this section to be appropriate. Akihironihongo (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was 'Christian' removed from his religious beliefs?

His religion was listed as "Christian (Baptist)" but for some reason, someone has removed "Christian." It needs to be remembered that wikipedia is a worldwide website, and thus, listing someone as "Baptist" (a denomination) without listing the religion (Christian) can be confusing. We do not have simply "Theravada" listed for Buddhists, or "Vaishnavism" listed for Hindus. Dr. Paul's religious beliefs as "Christian (Baptist)" should be reinstate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.242 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All Baptists are Christians, and that is well-known, so there's no real need to further describe its connection to the larger Christian religion.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Will Beback Christianism is a religion, whereas Baptists (or Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc.) are all just branches of the Christian religion. Therefore, "Christian" should also be listed; if only because not putting it is favoring so-called "religious" conflict/difference between people who actually share the same religion. benzband (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any other examples on Wikipedia or in the Encyclopedia Britannica where this is done? Because I'm confident I can find 100 where it is not done. Also, what is "Christianism"? I have not heard that term before.Msalt (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Msalt Although "Christianism" is described on Wikipedia and on Wiktionary as "obsolete", it does originally means the Christian religion. In french, Christianisme is the correct word for Christianity (translates as such), which may have led me to confusion.

Also, i can't help but point out that those parallels you mention are basically WP:OTHERSTUFF… although rather a lot of it . Anyway, i was just stating my opinion. Being an atheist, i suppose i haven't really got my head round much of this stuff (it's all opium to me… only kidding :) benzband (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving newsletters controversy to separate article

Currently the newsletters controversy is given extreme undue weight, so I am moving it to a separate article, as per precedents such as Jeremiah Wright controversy and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for Barack Obama. As evidence of undue weight, I cite this:

• Google news hits for "Ron Paul": 71k
• Google news hits for "Ron Paul" newsletter: 4k

So, about 5% of total coverage of Ron Paul mentions the newsletters, yet it is the longest section on this page (and this is biased towards the newsletters coverage as all the coverage prior to the internet and before the controversy are not picked up by Google). I am moving the entire section off page and leaving mentions + link in the sections where it is relevant (1) Early congressional career (2) 2008 campaign (3) 2012 campaign. Psicx (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My revisions can be seen here. I have dropped multiple links which I believe is usually discouraged, however given the importance of the article to the content and non-obvious nature of the subsidiary article, I think it is justified. Psicx (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The impact of the newsletters on his 2008 campaign still needs to be worked in however. Psicx (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd dispute the validity of the above list of Ghits. Many pages on the Internet are going to contain passing mentions the subject, but those pages are not of any real value. What matter are the pages which are substantial profiles or news reports on the subject.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Psicx, Google News hits should not be the sole basis for deciding whether material is given an appropriate amount of coverage in WP. Such a tactic runs a high risk of being negatively affected by WP:recentism. My sense is that 10 or 20 years from now, the newsletters controversy will remain a signicant issue in Paul's legacy, and on that basis, the newsletters warrant discussion on the main page.

Incidentally, in contrast to what you found by searching Google News, Google general searches finds ("ron paul" +newsletters) 48 million hits, compared to ("ron paul") 74 million hits -- in other words, newsletter searches pulls in more than 50% the number of hits as just putting in Paul's name alone.

The newsletters issue is not just a minor topic -- it has been a recurring topic in three of his major political campaigns over the last 15 years of his career, including in two presidential election campaigns. The newsletters also apparently have been a significant source of income for Paul and his associates (and probably helped him to maintain his political support and campaign donations in the years prior to the advent of the internet, given that a large part of his campaign contributions through the years have been made by donors from outside his district and outside his state). For many, the actual content of the newsletters, how Paul handled the publication responsibilities, and how he handled the criticism of the content of the newsletters over the years are relevant factors in interpreting his policy positions and his candidacy for public office.

If the consensus is that there is too much material on the newsletters spread between the main Ron Paul page and the Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 presidential election pages, rather than deleting the newsletters section from the main page, it would be more appropriate to trim some of the material from the 2008 page, since more information on the topic has developed since that election. I do not necessarily object to the creation of a new page dealing solely with the newsletters. However, if a new page is to be created to allow an expanded discussion of various points, then the essential points of the topic should still be maintained on the main Ron Paul page, in accordance with WP:SPINOFF rules. A Newsletters section near the bottom of the page, where it was before, would be appropriate. The various other references to the newsletters that are scattered throughout the rest of the main Ron Paul page could be deleted, being redundant.Dezastru (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose this shorter version of the Newsletters Controversy section to be placed on the main page. (All the other references to the newsletters in the other sections of the main page would be removed) (I have references for all of the statements, but have not included them here on the Talk page):

________

BEGINNING IN 1978, Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name ('Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report', 'The Ron Paul Survival Report', 'The Ron Paul Investment Letter', and the 'Ron Paul Political Report'). By 1993, a business through which Paul was publishing the newsletters was earning in excess of $900,000 per year.

A number of the newsletters, particularly between 1988 and 1994, contained material that later proved highly controversial, dwelling on conspiracy theories, praising anti-government militia movements, and warning of coming race wars. During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry.

The newsletters included statements such as:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws”

“[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [AIDS patients] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act,” and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers.”

Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr,” while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been “taken out of context.” In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by a team of 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published. He eventually disavowed those passages.

IN JANUARY 2012, the Washington Post reported that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "it was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it." Paul continued to deny the accusations.

________Dezastru (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

strong agreement with Dezastru. Google hits is anti-encyclopedic measure; the very reason you need an encyclopedia is to remedy the recentism myopia of the press. Furthermore, we don't know what criteria Google News is using. "Ron Paul Newsletter" has 6,900,700 hits on Google Everything; the only thing the low count for Google News shows is that Google News is a poor source of information.

The edits concerning the newsletter controvery seem dramatically POV, in favor of Ron Paul. Notably, the word controversy is removed altogether, and there is no mention in the 2008 campaign at all. There seem to be many pro-RP edits recently; I don't have time to go through them in detail right now but I urge other editors to do so. Right off hand, the NH and Iowa primaries are mentioned, where Paul got strong vote totals, but not several priMaries since where his total is much lower, despite other candidates dropping out. No mention of the news about his ties to racist group members. A brief, santized description of the newsletters mentions controversy only in asserting that it had no effect on his campaign. Etc. etc. I removed the last one which has no business in an encyclopedia; it's SYNTHy and not supported by its unreliable source (a brief blog opinion, which only says the controversy didn't dissuade his core supporters. Which ignores the question of whether it prevented his support from growing outside of his base.) From a quick read, I'd say this latest revision the article needs either heavy revision or a POV tag. Msalt (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has reinserted a passage about the so-called "newsletters" in the article. I do not see how this will help Ron Paul. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Right, so your idea of neutrality is to just pull out everything except the quotes?
I agree that the newsletters are important, and they are already mentioned in the article four times. Giving them a whole huge section is undue weight. They are not significant feature of his life, they are a significant feature of his campaign, and so go in that section. Psicx (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Psicx. An entire section here on this topic in this BLP is undue weight. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Relatively speaking, it's a very minor event, too minor for a section, let alone an entire article. Wknight94 ^talk 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wknight94, the only reason they are a separate article is because your ally Psicx took the text out of this article and turned it into one. Ron Paul produced these newsletters for 16 years, heavily branded with his name in large letters on the top of every page, and they generated a million dollars a year in revenue, which appears to be more than he has made from any other source. Please explain how you come to the conclusion that they constitute "a minor event." Msalt (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't know I had an ally. Good to know, I guess. Second, is there some precedent whereby any person that produces newsletters gets two articles - one for the person and then one for the newsletters? Would anyone advocate this approach if three or four of the newsletters (as I've heard anyway) over those 16 years (as you state) did not contain controversial subject matter? I think not, especially since 90% of the newsletter article is about those few controversial examples. If you're advocating a split because they're a major part of his life, I'd like a precedent - if you're advocating a split because of the controversy, I maintain the controversy is not a large enough factor to warrant a separate article. Wknight94 ^talk 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of precedents for separate articles on details of the careers of notable figures. One is right here -- political positions of Ron Paul. I happen to feel that there is far too much material about him both here and on other pages, and much of it has been contributed by pro-Paul editors. But I am one voice among many. I did not support a separate newsletter page, for that matter. But we move like an amoeba here, and I am reacting to the situation on the ground. One pretty decent reason for a separate article is that there are now many Ron Paul pages, and several of them mention the newsletters. In a situation like that, a separate page makes more sense, because the alternative would be to repeat a lot of material in several different places.

If you look at the sources, there are dozens of controversial newsletters. But even if there were only a few, that would not make a separate article a bad idea by itself. Ron Paul started and headlined a major newsletter business -- one that grossed a million dollars and had over 100,000 readers. That is a big deal, whether he's a politician or not, whether they are controversial or not. Note that the article is about his newsletters, not just about the controversy. Now, on top of that they often said very racist or anti-gay things (gays love the attention of getting sick from AIDS? Are you kidding me?), and yes, that deserves either a page or a big chunk of Ron Paul's page.

Since you seem to be addressing me personally, my personal preference would be only one Ron Paul page, of about 100K, with all the current pages' material (including the newsletter controversy) presented much more succinctly. But we are a mighty long way from there right now.Msalt (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm losing interest in this thread but have a couple counterpoints: On a technical note, there are currently exactly two articles linked to the newsletter page which does not match your "several" claim. Second, if the newsletters warrant a separate article because they are actually an important aspect of Ron Paul's net worth and exposure, etc., then hopefully you'll agree that such an article should be quite neutral - and that the article there now is anything but. Wknight94 ^talk 17:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, every page on Wikipedia should be neutral, and if it isn't, then let's edit it. I made a few edits and I didn't find it particularly POV, but there is a major technical problem. For some reason, the table of contents is not appearing, and I can't figure out how to insert one. I looked at the source of this page and didn't see any actual code for a TOC.Msalt (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I forced in a TOC, though it may not be needed. It would be automatic if the article had one more section (four or more total, including trailers like "See also", "References", and "External links"). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Since other editors have raised the issue of undue weight, we should discuss the overall balance of this page. It seems too long in general -- three times the length of pages on comparable figures such as Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson. There is also overfocus on some details -- a list of 5 committee assignments in the lede? -- and a neglect of others -- not one word about his career as an author prior to 1988?

My time is limited but I am making some edits to begin to rebalance. It would be great if other editors could take a look at this. Thanks. Msalt (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru: I would like to discuss the amount of text in the congressional tenure section. Since Ron Paul's is already 2 and a half to 3 times longer than comparable politician's web sites, I think we should look for ways to condense the text rather than expand it. Is there a standard of coverage, or minimum amount of detail that you see as being necessary here? We have to make sure that this web page does not evolve into a platform for the Ron Paul campaign. He already has his own website, and it's not our place to be touting his opposition to government spending, for example, whether it is typical or not. There is already a section for his Political Positions; I think that describing his stances there, and not repeating them in various sections of this web page, is the appropriate encyclopedic approach. Do you agree? Msalt (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Msalt, I'm glad to see you have been working to improve the article. It has needed a bit of sprucing for quite a while. In terms of the amount of detail on Paul's tenure, it's important to bear in mind that Paul is not the typical member of Congress, or presidential candidate, by any means. He's served longer than most other current members of the House, in terms of his cumulative tenure; few others were serving even before the Reagan administration, as he was. He's proposed many more bills, proportionally. He's run for the presidency three times. He's switched parties, and switched back. There's also the fact that he doesn't fit neatly into any of the typical political alignments of Washington -- you can't just say he's a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican and be able to decide where he will stand on an issue on that basis -- you can't even say he's a "Libertarian" and automatically know what his stance will be according to that label, so the shorthand devices that work with most other politicians don't necessarily apply in his case. He has is own specific political orientation that is arguably unique in Washington. Then there's the fact that at the end of the day, he is a politician, so there's always the issue of whether what he does (how he votes, what issues he takes on in legislation he sponsors or cosponsors) syncs with what he says. For all of these reasons, it makes sense that his WP entry will be a bit longer and more detailed than most other politicians'. I think it's important to maintain a little bit of flesh summarizing major issues he pursued (or didn't pursue) during his tenure, even if they were the same in his pre-1984 years as in his post-1996 years. You're right that he has his own campaign websites that provide some information about his positions and his background, but those sites, which make no claim to be balanced, will probably disappear in a few months, right after the election; the info on WP will hopefully persist. WP should be a site that readers can turn to in the future for a balanced summary of his history. I think the section on his pre-1984 tenure is about right now. The quote at the end could come out.Dezastru (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that an encyclopedia is important as a lasting document. At the same time, we need to be very careful to remain NPOV, especially when he is a candidate in the most important election in the United States (and one might easily argue, on the planet.) The very act of defining him as unique and not a typical politician is not a neutral position -- it is a major theme of his campaign, and polling has consistently shown that voters want that. Every candidate says they are unique and stand up to their party, whether it is true or not. My point about his campaign page is not that they serve as an alternative encyclopedia, but that it is there role to promote him, not ours.

For comparison, I looked to other long running candidates and political figures, some of whom also have changed parties, (Phil Gramm, many current Republicans actually) or run for president as outsiders (Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, etc.) I just don't find any congresscritters who receive this amount of information on Wiki, and given how many other pages Ron Paul has -- notably Positions of Ron Paul - I really don't think we need to duplicate all of that material here. Broadly speaking, Wiki doesn't care that much what Congressman's positions are, nor does the public, so I think we need to be triply careful about having the effect of building a narrative about what a "maverick" RP is, to coin a phrase. Some material is fine, but that point should be made in one paragraph on this page, with a pointer to the separate page on his positions and perhaps a brief mention in the lede. Msalt (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The current sections on the 2008 campaign, support for third-party candidates, and political positions could stand to be honed, as there are separate pages that discuss these in detail. The 2008 campaign and third-party candidates sections, in particular, are heavy on the chronological play-by-play that would have been timely four years ago, but are perhaps much less appropriate for the encyclopedia now.Dezastru (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I suspect that what may have happened is that editors added a bit here and a bit there during the 2008 campaign, in real time as it happened, and no one ever went back and condensed the narrative. We know how the 2008 plot ended, so we don't need to make it a page-turner. :-) Msalt (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Edit

I was just reading through the article, and I saw this: During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit "think tank" dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics,

In the section Early Congressional Career, Tenure.

Shouldn't this end with a period and not a comma? I can't edit it, so just a suggestion to anyone who can edit it.

Skywalker122 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)