Jump to content

Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Not to be confused with Paul Rand.

"Not to be confused with Paul Rand." OK, that's valid. But I regularly confuse him with Paul Ryan. Same initials, same number of letters, same party. I would add {distinguish Paul Ryan}

--Elmeter (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I agree. They are commonly mentioned together, are in similar fields and their names are basically anagrams of each other. PrairieKid (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary. Paul Ryan is a completely different name than Rand Paul. Just because an editor confuses these names? Really?- Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Paul=Paul, obviously. And Ryan sounds like Rand. And they're both in politics. And they've both been mentioned in Presidential discussion. And, and, and... It's not worth getting upset about (or forgetting WP:Civil) and, quite frankly, if you think this is "ridiculous" or crazy, you're wrong; you might not feel the template is necessary, but you should be able to at least recognize the similarity of the names and to have a discussion over whether they are close enough to be confused. But throwing it out altogether is not going to help the situation. PrairieKid (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's names do sound significantly similar. Especially for two people who have (relatively) similar political platforms. I think that adding Paul Ryan to the distinguish template would help the less politically minded find the person they are looking for. But at the end of the day, let's not edit war over the text in templates. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would call this consensus. Thanks everyone! PrairieKid (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, it is totally unnecessary. Paul Ryan is a totally different name than Rand Paul. There are other names similar to Rand Paul. What about Ayn Rand, Les Paul, Chris Paul, Sean Paul, and Paul Rudd? In particular the last one) Uh? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the chances of confusing Paul with another conservative US politician who may even be a candidate in the same election as Paul and has a similar name are far bigger than those of confusing him with philosophers, guitarists, rappers or actors with somewhat similar names. Huon (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good measure to take. They're both conservatives with somewhat similar sounding names, both have been involved in presidential races, and both are members of the U.S. Congress. Yes, it's a different name, but so is Paul Rand. I'm for keeping the Paul Ryan distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Gopher (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is only me? But Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are so completely different names that it begs the question of why we have to make that point at top of article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul

I think we need to add Ron Paul to our little "not to be confused with" list here. Personally, I used to confuse the two, and I know several people who still do. I think it's important to note than Ron Paul is his father, not the same person. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will do so later today. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 20:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How about a "for his father" tag as opposed to a "not to be confused with" tag? I think that's a little closer to what you're trying to get at. PrairieKid (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll go do that. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 03:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Somebody needs to add that again. Someone not so smart removed it... The readers/public confuses the dad with the son (senator Rand Paul). Just see the stats views of the Ron Paul page on the date that his son Rand Paul announced the candidacy for the GOP 2016 nomination. They boomed. Link: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Ron_Paul --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I see absolutely no correlation, and he is already linked in the first paragraph of the lead. Gage (talk)`
0k. --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The lede needs reflect the totality of the article, summarizing salient points of Paul's life and career, and not use the lead as a way to diminish certain aspects and highlight other aspects related to his candidacy. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree we need to be a little more cautious about WP:WEIGHT in the lead. I'll go ahead and make a few changes to add more on his career and take away some on his political positions. Sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done What do you think? PrairieKid (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@PrairieKid: When you remove lots of references from the lead, you need to add them back into the article supporting the statements made in the lead. You broke some references by just removing them. Also, I have made a small change to the wording of the second sentence which I think is a more clear way to get the information across. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer for dad's 1984 campaign

In 1984, Paul took a semester off to aid his father's primary <challenge to Republican Senator Phil Gramm>. race against fellow congressman Phil Gramm to replace the retiring Republican Senator John Tower reference: United States Senate Elections, 1984 - Wikipedia TomZakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomzakes (talk • contribs) 10:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Children

An editor is repeatedly inserting the names of Senator Paul's minor children in the infobox, without reliable source citations. This violates WP:BLP and goes against the widely-accepted convention on not listing non-notable children, especially in infoboxes.

I agree. Per WP:NOTTRIVIA and BLP there is no need for children's names anywhere in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Board of Opthalmology

It is confusing as to whether Rand Paul protested the grandfathering in of those with lifetime certifications, or of the change from lifetime certification to 10 year periods. "it" is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.160.116 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Political Positions

1. Same sex marriage needs to be separated from pro-life political issue. It is not related needs to be a separate paragraph

2. It might not political position, its not a platform of his and the supreme court has ruled. his opinion is not as relevant, and when might have been it was in regards to a state level politics, where as he is not running for any state level position.

3. The same sex issue needs to be updated to reflect that states no longer have a choice. He is a constitutionalist this effects his position.

the following section should be updated/moved/or omitted , perhaps by smarter people than I. Here is the original text: 

Concerning same-sex marriage, Paul has made a distinction between his personal beliefs and how he feels the government should handle it. He has stated that he personally feels same-sex marriage "offends [himself] and a lot of people", and said there is a "crisis that allows people to think there would be some other sorts of marriage."[173][174] However, he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide, and would not support a federal ban.[175][176]"""

Should this text be retained it needs to reflect the real legal landscape as the supreme court has made a ruling which is final in U.S., State jurisdiction no longer applies. The Tense of the original text makes it misleading.

example modified text: 

Concerning same-sex marriage, Paul has made a distinction between his personal beliefs and how he feels the government should handle it. He has stated that he personally feels same-sex marriage "offends [himself] and a lot of people", and said there is a "crisis that allows people to think there would be some other sorts of marriage."[173][174] However does not support a federal ban.[175][176]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The lede should not be slanted to recent events. It should be a chronological presentation of this person's biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Taking a Stand

The article concerning Rand Paul's book, Taking a Stand seems straightforward to me. I have never heard of this book before, I haven't seen it at any book store. It isn't an award-winner, it isn't a bestseller, and unlike Mitt Romney's book No Apology, this isn't a book by a national nominee, it isn't a New York Times bestseller, the primaries haven't even begun. This isn't a book worth its own separate article at this time. Spartan7W § 14:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I oppose. I am not an Us citizen, nevertheless I have heard several times about this book, not only on the written media, but also on TV. The book is important because it has been presented several times like a political manifesto (Taking a Stand against the Washington machine). --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[1] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[2] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[3] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[4] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[5]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[6] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[7] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[8] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[9] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[10] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rand Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:IgnorantArmies, I noticed that you reverted my change, but I still see no citation where Rand Paul has publicly self-identified as being a Presbyterian through direct speechas opposed to self-identifying as being a Christian. That's probably fixable, but he also does not appear to meet our requirements for religion being a defining characteristic. See the above section for the exact wording of the requirement. Do you have citations that establish that Paul meets those two requirements? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rand Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Re Trump

I was hoping to find a mention of Rep. Paul's position on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump (i.e., after withdrawing from the race himself, did he pledge support for the Republican nominee or from Trump by name, and if so when and in what words?). This is a significant, newsworthy matter in connection with the 2016 US Presidential election campaign, and I think it deserves coverage in Wikipedia, at least as much as the chronology of the congressman's shifting positions on things like abortion or medical marijuana. --Haruo (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional conservative

Constitutional conservative links to the US constitution subpage that doesn't match "conservative" at all, iow the term is not explained there. Recommend to change the link so that only "constitutional" links to the article, and not the conservative part. 88.159.77.240 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rand Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rand Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2018

In External links, please replace

with

As you can see, Ballotpedia and IMDb are included in the Curlie link. Thanks. 174.198.18.232 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

checkY Partly done: Has been updated by other editors since your request. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Nothing at all has been done in External links. 174.198.2.61 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done @174.198.18.232: — Newslinger talk 07:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018

Under the 114th Congress (2015–2017) section, there is a typo. Rife needs to be changed to Rifle, in National Rifle Association Mglbllrd (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A separate section for the assault?

That smacks of WP:RECENTISM to me. It's merely one incident in his life. Meanwhile, it's three sentences long at this time. The "personal life" section is also three sentences long, so merging it and making a six sentence section just makes sense. Yes, there is no hard and fast rule about how long a section should be, but some common sense applies. Not every single minor topic needs to be broken down into its own section, when it can be included in an appropriate section, like "Personal life" in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Being a victim of assault is not "personal life", and this is not a minor incident. He suffered serious injuries. This is no different than the Steve Scalise article having a section dedicated for the 2017 shooting Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, bringing up Steve Scalise's shooting is something of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. On the other hand, that does do a good job of showing a totally different case. Scalise almost died; Paul didn't. The incident where Scalise was shot is notable and has its own article; Paul's doesn't. There was a political motive for shooting Scalise; we don't know the motive of Paul's neighbor. If this were to grow to the extent of what's written for Scalise's shooting, then perhaps a separate section would be warranted. But, for three sentences, it's unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
As more information will be made available, the section could grow. But even if it does not grow, Wikipedia does not have a policy on the minimum length a section can be. I agree that it usually does not make sense to have a section that is a single sentence, but in this case, we have a full paragraph. Regardless, this section is expected to grow as more information becomes available. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Incident is not WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to merit a separate section. Compare, if Paul had had a minor traffic collision causing rib fractures or developed an illness we'd keep it in the personal life section. If it turns out there is political motivation behind the battery, then we might upgrade the section. But unless/until we get more info, let's keep the incident as a mole-hill. – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This was not a traffic accident, and even if it was, the injuries are serious enough to merit a different section. See Jon Corzine#Motorcade accident. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be readability that determines when information is split into different sections, and that's mostly about length. This is short. Making it a subsection of personal life is an improvement, but I still think that's unwarranted at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that readability is the governing principle for breaking the text into sections. Where we disagree is that it's

mostly about length

. It's about being able to quickly find the information one is looking for, without having to read the entire article. Therefore, information should not be co-mingled into a section with a confusing label. In this case, being attacked is not part of his personal life. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The assault has been characterized as politically motivated by the neighbors, the Paul family, Paul himself, and major publications and editorial boards such as the WSJ. To suggest that a **politically-motivated** attack against a **politician** does not deserve a separate mention is ridiculous. 207.38.136.181 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to identify the judge as a Clinton appointee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.180.180 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 edits

I have substantially edited the section. In addition to being overlong and chock-full of poor sources, the section was just plain wrong in a number of parts. The text wrongfully attributed to the judge statements that were actually made by Boucher's lawyer; the text also said that Boucher was convicted in state court, when in fact he was convicted in federal court. Not sure who wrote this originally, but it was poorly done. Neutralitytalk 22:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

John Stewart's critique and Paul's response

After reversion of my edits that a good-faith editor had added the critique of Paul's stopping the 9/11 responders relief bill, I reviewed the contention by Paul that he had "always" insisted on a "PAYGO" approach to fiscal bills, specifically lack of opposition to the 2017 Tax Cuts bill. In three hours of looking, I found zero basis that he had objected in any way to the bill, which produced by far the largest fiscal deficits ever. Seven Republicans were thought to potentially oppose the bill but only one did, and Paul was not among them. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/tax-bill-senate-house-hurdles/ (Corker was the only Republican Senator who did, and he was not running for reelection.) Secondly, the edit retained the somewhat obscure term "virtue signaling" which has a linked Wikipedia article that refers to it by modifiers such as "hypocritical," "sham," "posturing," and that it refers to the contrast between valuing the expression of virtue over action. The Wikipedia article about the effects of the bill is quite clear on these points. Activist (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for discussing. Let's go one by one on the edits. which went viral this is extraneous. We include it because it was notable enough. If it didn't go "viral" then it likely would be WP:UNDUE to begin with. Regarding hypocritical I find this to just be a buzzword that merely functions to sensationalize. Sticking to the facts should be enough. killing this is not true. He did not kill the bill, just prevented it from being adopted via unanimous consent in order to offer his amendment. The bill passed not too long thereafter. which gave immense tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and to corporations this is also not true. Many wealthy people ended up paying more taxes due to the elimination of SALT deductions. Additionally, anyone who wants to find out more about the bill can click the link to the dedicated article. Anything else is WP:COATRACK. Regarding paygo, he mentions in the video interview that he supported paygo for the tax bill too but it was stripped out by leadership. Additionally, while he didn't mention it here, he's made the distinction in the past of the government spending too much money vs people keeping more of their own money while John Stewart is conflating the two. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
One-by-one is fine by me. I didn't include the word "viral" but it seems okay to me. You can gauge the understanding of the typical Wikipedia reader by perhaps ringing up five of your friends to whom you owe a call, and without any prompting from you, ask them if they know what the term, "virtue signaling" means. Unless they have some vocation that would lend some familiarity with the term, the chances that they know is probably somewhere between zero and none. I've been a voracious reader for many years and I've never heard the term before. So when I used the Wikipedia hyperlink to see what the term meant, I found the one-word synonym descriptions that I'd listed and more. "Hypocritical" is a word in common usage that almost every en WP reader can understand. Paul didn't kill the bill, but he may well have dealt it a mortal blow. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/rand-paul-objects-9-11-funding-unanimous-consent-gillibrand/index.html I don't know which video interview to which you're referring, but in any event, we're not allowed to quote from a video, are we? We'll see if McConnell will actually call a vote on the bill. I'll substitute the term "impeded passage," if that's okay with you. There are just two weeks left in session before the August recess, so that's usually 8-10 working days between now and September 8th. (Depending whether or not they can round up a 51-member quorum on, i.e., September 6th.) https://www.senate.gov/legislative/2019_schedule.htm For most billionaires, the SALT deduction is inconsequential. Many of the largest corporations already didn't pay any income tax at all, and now "S" corporations, emulating the Koch's economically disastrous exemption in Brownback's Kansas, won't pay any, and the AMT was eliminated. (Oops, this domain was blocked.) An-Anthology-of-Donald-J-Trumps-Presidency (see 12/22/18 entry) It's easy for billionaires to dodge other income, sales and personal property taxes that might exceed the cap. For instance, the DeVos family has its yacht, moored in Lake Erie, registered in the Cayman Islands. I'm sure you know the Leona Hemsley quote. https://www.newsweek.com/betsy-devos-cayman-islands-taxes-yacht-flag-foreign-donald-trump-america-1061960 Seven states (including Texas) have no income tax, some have no sales tax, and two others have no personal income tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-deduction-state-and-local-taxes-work Paul's "Penny Plan" would make those tax cuts permanent as the national debt skyrocketed to $25.5 trillion, with no end in sight. https://tennesseestar.com/2019/06/18/penny-plan-falls-as-national-debt-exceeds-21-5-trillion/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/tax-bill-senate-house-hurdles/ Here's the details on Paul's absence as a player in the bill. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/tax-bill-senate-house-hurdles/ Corker tried to repair the fiscal damage by avoiding permanence and terminating provisions in 2023, but his efforts failed. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/30/mccain-to-vote-for-gop-tax-bill-270511 Does that cover it? Activist (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources don't support including the term viral. The sources all say "fiscal responsibility virtue signaling" and don't explain further. We have the wikilink which should be sufficient. Nothing in the CNN article indicated the bill was dealt a mortal blow. Here is the video interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6tuPzt1G0g and yes it can certainly be used to attribute a statement to Paul himself. "Impeding passage" still implied he prevented it from passing, which isn't true. He's just preventing a unanimous consent agreement, which would bypass a recorded vote in the Senate. So if anything, he's actually forcing a recorded vote instead of a quick voice vote. Regarding the tax bill, it's still WP:COATRACK and is better left to be explained on its own page. Any simple descriptions of it like "tax cut for the wealthy" is a contentions statement that will lack nuance, best left to be explained on the dedicated page.
@Terrorist96:, @Muboshgu: The sources don't say it went viral??? I wrote here that it wasn't my edit that described the Stewart interview, though it seemed okay to me, so I retained it. But here's what the cited article does literally say:

"But when they’re in urgent need, you slow-walk, you dither, you use it as a political pawn to get other things you want, and you don’t get the job done completely," Stewart said in a clip that went viral, amassing millions of views.

The term "virtue signaling" is certainly obscure, and a Wikilink that would leave the typical Wikipedia reader who is not likely to be familiar with it either uninformed or alternately, taken away to an article where the term is described as indicating hypocrisy, seems unnecessarily tangential. There's no reason not to define the term with a single word so the reader doesn't have to hunt around somewhere else looking for it, detracting their attention from the Paul article. "Impeding passage" is substantially different than "killing" the bill; it's more accurate and removes the term to which you objected. I'm trying to accommodate you, but you don't seem satisfied. "(T)ax cut for the wealthy" is not my edit, but if it were, it would be accurate all the same. If you can find a reliable source that says it's not a tax cut for the wealthy, please feel free to change it, but none of the considerable number of sources I read, to see if your objections were well-founded, remotely characterized it that way. It's not a question of nuance at all, nor is it "contentions" (sic). Activist (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. My apologies, I didn't see that quote. If you really insist on keeping "viral", then ok, but it seems redundant to me. In other words, had it not gone viral, it would not have merited inclusion in this article to begin with, so saying it went viral is redundant. And if you really insist on keeping "hypocritical" then I'll let that go too, as it's the central crux of Stewart's complaint. But would you agree to tone down the verbiage on the vote on the bill and the mention of the tax cut bill? As it stands, the 9/11 bill is set to pass overwhelmingly this week and retaining "impeding passage" indicates he was successful in stopping the bill, which (as of right now may be true) but won't be once the actual vote is finally taken. We can wait until then to update the wording if you like. Since you did not respond to the link to the interview of Paul saying he has always supported "paygo" regardless of the spending (9/11 first responders, tax cut bill, disaster relief, etc.), would you be ok with restoring that text? And lastly, I still disagree with giving such a simplistic summary of the tax cut bill as it violates WP:COATRACK. We should just say that the criticism was for his vote in favor of the tax cut bill which increased the deficit (as is relevant to the fiscal issue) and leave out the "immense tax cuts for the wealthy" (as irrelevant). I don't need to find a source that says it's not a tax cut on the wealthy; the WP:ONUS is on you because you're trying to add that text. But even if you can find reliable sources that say that word for word, it still violates WP:COATRACK and would not merit inclusion in this article (but may well be included in the tax cut bill article itself). BTW: I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't a tax cut on the wealthy; I just don't think that description is needed here. Thanks for working with me on this and hope to reach a final consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"impeding" means "slowing" or "hindering" passage which are certainly true. If there is an actual vote, the bill may still be stopped by requesting endless quorum calls, with no opponent having to go on record as having a role in killing it. There were 73 co-sponsors in the Senate, 402 yes votes in the House. We'll have to wait to see if it passes. McConnell may kill it without getting his fingerprints all over its casket. Paul's prior action may ultimately have effectively stopped the bill, so we will have to wait to determine the language. At this point he has certainly delayed passage. I'll take a look at the video link you sent when I have time, which I hope will be available later today, to see if he supported PAYGO in the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The comparison mentioned by Stewart of unnecessary tax cuts given to those ablest to pay them (at a rate of a tiny fraction of what it was during the Eisenhower administration) is germane to Paul's action. If you can draft language which reflects that which you find more acceptable, please offer it, but the facts of the matter should remain. I think it's needed to allow thorough consideration of Stewart's comparison that fleshes out the consequences of Paul's refusal to allow unanimous consent to pass a bill that had enormous support, in contrast to a bill that only passed because so many Senators were coerced into supporting passage. I also am looking forward to reaching consensus, perhaps with the input of others on either side of the question. Thanks. Activist (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
A vote on the bill is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. EST, today, after which action the article can be updated, if need be. I could not find any RSS reference to confirm Paul's video statement that he tried to amend the bill but found support to do so only from nine senators. His voting "no" would have forced Pence to break the tie, if one existed, in an effort to make the bill revenue-neutral. Activist (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's a link (Amendment No. 1296 ) to the Congressional Record where he proposed for cutting spending to offset the tax cuts. Additionally, I will note that we do not need another source parroting what Paul said when we are attributing the statement to him versus saying it in WP:WIKIVOICE whereas we are including partisan talking points like "tax cut for the wealthy" in Wikivoice, which should be removed. I propose (changes in bold): "Paul argued that he was not blocking the bill, but rather seeking a vote on an amendment that would offset the new spending by other spending cuts due to the deficit. In a segment on Fox News, which went viral, comedian Jon Stewart and 9/11 first responder John Feal rebuked Paul, accusing him of hypocritical "fiscal responsibility virtue signalling," for delaying passage of the refunding and extension bill, while at the same time he voted in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which increased the deficit gave immense tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and to corporations in a time of trillion-dollar budget deficits. said he has always insisted on "pay-go provisions" for any increase in spending, including for disaster relief funding, and called Stewart uninformed and..."Terrorist96 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your update on the bill and Paul's 2017 amendment. I wasn't able to get away to watch C-Span for the live broadcast. I'm okay with your changes except for your last strike through. You provided the transcript of the final 2017 testimony on the deficit-engorging bill. I read Wyden's clarifying testimony, Paul's response, and the succinct rebuttal by Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment. This amendment includes reconciliation instructions to cut nearly $100 billion in programs that are vital to working families in this country, including education, healthcare, nutrition, affordable housing, and many, many other programs. This amendment paves the way to make it easier to cut Medicare by over Page S6622 $400 billion and Medicaid by over $1 trillion over the next decade in order to provide almost $2 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent.

The purpose of Paul's amendment seemed to be an ear-splitting rendition of "virtue signaling." It lost by a vote of 94-4 with only he, Lankford, Lee and Flake voting for it. Paul was honest when he said he supported "PAYGO," but his impossible "solution "was to take from the poor and middle-class in order to allow a vast inflation of the wealth of the richest 1%. In fact Paul voted for the trillion-dollar giveaway with the fig leaf of his amendment which would have been impossible to pass. I suggest if you don't want to simply restore your last strikethrough, that you and I work on some compromise. The strikethrough not only wholly erases the context to which accurately Stewart referred, but by doing so essentially endorses Paul's fiscal irresponsibility theatrics. The immense deficit-expanding legislation was supported by a straight party-line vote, Paul's assent included. Had Paul and his three dissenters joined the minority, the bill would have failed. Activist (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it's opinion being presented as fact and violates NPOV, plus COATRACK that I mentioned previously. Even if we both agree, consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy. My version sticks to the facts whereas your version injects political talking points unbefitting of an encyclopedia.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not opinion at all. It's numbers. Paul moves to stop approval of a bill that is going to cost slightly over $1 billion annually for the next decade. He says he only wants to simultaneously reduce the budget somewhere else by an equal or greater amount. But Stewart rightly points out that Paul voted to pass a bill that would have added 1,500 times as much to the deficit, having washed his hands of the disparity by proposing passage of a "revenue neutral" amendment that predictably gets zero support from Democrats and only 6% of other Republicans. "Washed his hands." Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah: Matthew 27:24 And then there's the Stewart comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam Activist (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
And we note the deficit point in the article. If you still insist I would recommend starting an RFC to get consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rand Paul

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rand Paul's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "results.enr.clarityelections.com":

  • From Trey Grayson: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/15261/25744/en/summary.html
  • From 2010 United States Senate election in Kentucky: "KY - Election Results". Retrieved July 7, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Rand Paul on Syria

Rand Paul defended the move to abandon the Syrian Kurds. That should be included in the article. --JamesC2V12 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

2017 Assault information

In personal life under 2017 assault is written "Matthew Baker, said there was no political motivation for the assault, descripting it as "a very regrettable dispute between two neighbors over a matter that most people would regard as trivial"." according to the WAPO source "What could cause Boucher to attack Paul and break five of his ribs remained unclear on Monday. Baker didn't immediately clarify his statement, and a number listed for Boucher went unanswered on Monday." can someone add that the allegedly trivial reason has not been specified? It looks pretty important to me that whatever reason the attacker had for assaulting Paul is only vaguely referred to as "trivial". --2001:8003:412B:6300:D70:679C:19DD:9CA8 (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Efforts to out the whistleblower

I believe at this point the Senators efforts to out the Whistleblower during the impeachment trial of Trump warrant mention in the article. The Chief Justice refused to read his question and he in turn announced the whistleblowers name on national TV and in his Twitter feed. I admit to not even knowing the name until these efforts he made. This is a very well documented and we can do so without specifically naming the wb nor linking to articles that name the wb. Owing to the gravity of subject I want other input first before adding a paragraph myself.Pbmaise (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

delayed SARS-2 Senate vote, add?

X1\ (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See Families First Coronavirus Response Act#Votes. [11]

Was added and deleted multiple times. X1\ (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: Rand Paul positive for coronavirus

Expect people to start trying to put this into the article. Source: NBC News — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been added to the section on his personal life. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What's with your tone (implying it shouldn't be in the article)? QoopyQoopy (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

The citation for the following line can be the American Board of Ophthalmology: "In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards on his first attempt and earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years.[citation needed]"

Use this link as the citation: https://abop.org/verify-a-physician/?fn=rand&ln=paul#physician-list-search-results 2601:1C0:5A01:D10:812E:B950:7421:FE88 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added the citation but removed the unsourced information about "on his first attempt". I also removed the 10 year mention, as this is discussed in the subsequent sentence. Thank you for the source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

A section on his direct opposition to a law that would make lynching a hate crime as he is one, if not the,main reasons it has stalled in the us senate. It is extremely important that this is reflected in his wikipedia page as it is an extremely good example of a action that represents his political stance. 2A00:23C7:AE0B:F100:E090:D872:1846:BDCD (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 00:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of coronavirus hearing contretemps

I just Googled rand paul not listening, just one phrase from the 9/23 repartee, and got almost 4,000,000 hits. That was not a "conversation." Activist (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the incident following the 2020 RNC

As far as informational content is concerned, the section does not necessarily make unreasonable claims about the general nature of the event. The language of that section does, however, indicate some amount of political bias. For starters, the section could be retitled, "2020 RNC confrontation," so as not to pass judgement on the crowd per se. Likewise, the terminology "violent mob" and "to escape the attack" pass similarly political judgements on the crowd and their intentions. This, despite information showing that other encounters between numerous RNC attendees and protestors a.) did not require police intervention in order to ensure the safety of either side, and b.) did not end in injury or death for any of the RNC attendees or protestors. And while it is certainly reasonable and understandable to disagree with protestors, misrepresenting the event in question with blatant disregard for readily available information that contradicts the misrepresentation. At the very least, it's negligence; at worst, it's intentionally inflammatory and divisive rhetoric, working in opposition to the goals and values of Wikipedia as an organization.

Wikipedia, as an open source website seeking to provide fair and unbiased information about topics of public interest, should actively work to ensure that information appearing on its website, especially information pertaining to controversial events or people, does not reflect the political leanings or beliefs of the original contributor, other contributors, moderators, or Wikipedia as a whole. Especially in times of uncertain information, unreliable authorities and experts, and deterioration of democratic institutions, being an unbiased, accurate, and inclusive source is of paramount importance. I hope you'll take this response into consideration and act upon it accordingly. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.32.15.72 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the section. Calling it a "mob attack" and saying they were "violent" even though they didn't do anything violent is a clear WP:NPOV violation. It's also not apparent that there is any WP:LASTING impact of him coming face to face with some protestors. We are WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


Muboshgu it's been a few weeks now and I say the event warrants a mention, as it received notable coverage around the time of the incident, it no longer falls under WP:NOTNEWS concerns at this point. I disagree with how the IP characterized it as a "mob", it seems relatively simple to word this in a neutral manner which I can easily do if nobody wishes to contend. WP:LASTING doesn't seem to hold much applicability in this realm, and I question as to how it might apply to you. If you wish to suggest it applies if a protestor faced action, there was a report released in which one participant was taken into custody for actions related to the incident, and if that is too loose of a connection it has Rand actively involving himself in the booking [12].
I'm interested in restarting this as a subheading, what do you think. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, I completely forgot about the incident until I saw your ping, so in my mind it's faded to the point of being out of the 24 hour news cycle, and having no LASTING impact. I do see that one protestor there did get arrested for punching a cop. Is that really relevant to Paul's bio? I suggest you propose some text to add, and then other people can help determine if there's consensus to include it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, in the hopes of not dragging this out, how about I show you my text proposal and we'll see if we can reach some form of agreement.

In August 2020, immediately following his attendance at the keynote speech delivered by President Donald Trump for the 2020 Republican National Convention held at the White House, Paul was confronted by protestors on his way to a hotel with his wife. A police perimeter was formed that escorted the Pauls away from the crowd, with one of the escorting officers being pushed in the process. The protestors' main contention point with Paul was the shooting of Breonna Taylor and their demands for Paul to "say her name". However, as was pointed out by several media organizations in the aftermath of the incident, Paul had previously authored a bill named after Taylor aiming to illegalize use of no-knock warrants.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/08/28/rnc-2020-rand-paul-says-angry-mob-protesters-attacked-him/5653957002/
  2. ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/28/protesters-confront-rand-paul-rnc-404223
  3. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/28/rnc-2020-rand-paul-says-angry-mob-attacked-him-after-trump-speech/5654078002/
Do you have any objections to the content I wish to introduce with this inclusion? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken No idea how a mob swarming a sitting senator is not relevant. The proposed text seems fine, but make sure to add that a man was arrested for assaulting a cop who was protecting Paul: Washington Post Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll just add it into the article this time since posting it on the talk page drew little to no results. If anything happens from there, be it removal from an editor with objection, we can return here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Long paragraph that was recently added seems way too long

@Activist: Regarding the long paragraph about Paul's exchange with Dr. Fauci that was recently added to the "Political positions" section, is there are way that can be significantly trimmed down and maybe rewritten? Though the few-minutes exchange represents a tiny fraction of Paul's senate career, it comprises 12% of the total words in his "Political positions" section and 13% of the characters. It also includes statements like "When U.S. coronavirus fatalities exceeded 200,000, conservatives continued to question Dr. Anthony Fauci's and the CDC's recommendations for responding to the epidemic" which is not directly about Rand and seem extraneous. There are also several other things that probably don't belong in the paragraph, such as statements that were made by Dr. Fauci and not Rand, but honestly I am not an expert on editing politicians wikipedia pages so I'm wondering what some other people think. Also it is worth noting that there is a page Political positions of Rand Paul where a long paragraph might be more appropriate, or maybe even the paragraph could be moved to the "116th Congress (2019–present)" section instead, but it would still need to be trimmed down. Thoughts?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC

@Jamesy0627144: I started reading the whole article, at your invitation, to get a better understanding of the context and realized the Assault section was scrambled, incomplete, out of date, and somewhat confusing. Hopefully, I rectified those problems and will continue taking a look at the article.Activist (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I trimmed some text, provided the CSPAN citation for text and video regarding the repartee between Fauci and Paul. Fauchi was directly responding to Paul's questions. The "200,000" figure was stated at 1:12:19 in the video by Sen. Bob Casey, D-PA. From the audio-to-text transcript:

THANK YOU FOR APPEARING THIS WEEK WE HAVE ANNOUNCED TO THE WORLD WE REACH THE 200,000 GRIM MILESTONE OF DEATHS

I changed the word "conservatives" to "Republicans." Paul's position, shared by his party colleagues, has been that the lockdown has been excessive though it's a critically important element (along with mask wearing and social distancing) in bringing the pandemic under control. Besides the 200,000 deaths the CDC/DHHS response was sole subject of discussion in the hearing. The "Assault" section is quite long, in the article, but the attack itself was over in 30 seconds. The sequelae and extensive judicial processes are integral to the section, just as the coronavirus response, including vaccines that will be available in the future, are to the "Disease control" section. Activist (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
That still seems really long for a single conversation he had with someone at a Senate hearing, out of his 10-year career in the Senate... and seems like a case of recentism. How about something like this:
In 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, Paul said that stay-at-home orders to halt the spread of coronavirus amounted to "dictatorship" by Democratic Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear. Paul has clashed with Dr. Anthony Fauci on several matters related to COVID-19 at Senate hearings, during which Dr. Fauci remarked that Paul had "misconstrued" his remarks on multiple occasions. Paul had repeated frequent but erroneous claims about herd immunity, Sweden's interventions to combat the pandemic, fatality rates as a result of the virus, "cross-reactive immunity" to COVID-19 from exposure to other types of coronavirus, and he postulated that the populations of Asian countries have greater resilience against COVID-19.
If readers then want to more about the details of the conversation, they can click the references to read the exact quotes, and the longer paragraph could even be added to Political positions of Rand Paul.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought you've put into this. Let me suggest a variation on your suggestions, with my proposals in italics. We'll keep the proper references, of course. Fauchi's quotes are important. Those remaining WWII and Korean war vets, as well as students of history, may remember Joseph Welch's counter to the Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn smear of Welch's associate, during the Army-McCarthy Committee hearings in 1954: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness."[31] McCarthy, accusing Welch of filibustering the hearing and baiting Cohn, dismissed Welch's dissertation and casually resumed his attack on Fisher, at which point Welch angrily cut him short:[25] "Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild ... Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" I believe that the notion that the edits display "recentism" does not do justice to the actual situation. Thanks largely to administration bumbling, the current death toll every few days exceeds the lives lost in the 9/11/01 attacks, or at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. The total number of deaths at this point, which can be expected to expand by half by the end of the year, has greatly exceeded the number of U.S. military lives lost in wars in WW I (53,402), Korea (33,686), and Viet Nam (47,424) combined and will exceed battle deaths on both sides in the Civil War (214,938) in the next few weeks. The U.S. will almost certainly exceed the military deaths (291,557) it experienced in WW II this year. For some reference, South Korea, which experienced the first spread of the virus beyond China, has had, per today's Johns Hopkins figures, 399 deaths, 23,516 cases. The U.S. has had 203,750 deaths 7,032,712 cases. South Korea has about 52 million people. The U.S. has about 330 million. Fauci is a careful and thoughtful professional, given to modulation in words and affect, but Paul seemed to have driven him to distraction, possibly because Paul is substantially brighter than Trump with considerable medical expertise (no peroxide, hydroxychloroquine or UV light Rx's), so has no excuse for his obstructionism. I haven't seen anyone else remotely get Fauci so irritated, and that speaks directly to both the 9/23 hearing and the situation with which he's confronted. So let me suggest:

In 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, Paul said that stay-at-home orders to halt the spread of the disease amounted to "dictatorship" by Kentucky's Democratic Governor Steve Beshear. Paul...clashed with Dr. Anthony Fauci on several matters related to COVID-19 at a fractious Senate committee hearing, during which Paul asked Fauci if he had "second thoughts" about the CDC's mitigation recommendations, including mask-wearing and maintaining a six feet space of social distancing. Paul then asserted New York's high fatality rate showed that mitigation efforts were insufficient. Fauci replied, "You've misconstrued that Senator, and you've done that repetitively in the past," explaining further that New York State had succeeded in getting the virus under control by adhering to the CDC's clinical guidelines.

So I've dropped contentions about the minutia, Sweden, Asian populations, etc., but unfortunately have now devoted considerably more time to this than I can spare, though the process has been quite educational. I hope you find my input acceptable. Activist (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that's a lot better. I assume you'd like to make the change yourself; when do you think you could do that since you said you are kind of busy?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Activist, I see you made some more edits last night but I'm a little unclear how you wish to proceed. I'll go ahead and make the edit myself if you don't in the next few days or so. I just thought you might like to do it yourself so you can arrange the references to your liking.

On a related noted, I'm a bit unsure about this sentence you added which seems like it might be inappropriate for the article. It's fine to say "contradicting guidance from the CDC and WHO" in the previous sentence, but then the sentence you added says "By September, 2020, it had become clear that the possibility of reinfection may be a common occurrence." Is that not kind of like overkill as far as covering what the opposing viewpoint is and maybe a form of editorializing? It also seems confusing / contradictory, using the word "may" after earlier in the sentence stating "had become clear". Just wondering what some people here thought.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Activist: to make sure is seen.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jamesy0627144: I've seen it. Last night I started at the top of the long article and had to take care of other things. Today I looked again at your concerns. I think you're missing the import of the timeline. In May, there were concerns of which Paul would have been aware, that victims (including himself, though he imagined he had developed protective immunity) might be reinfected. He chose to ignore those concerns. In September, scientists had become certain (thanks to DNA testing, etc.) that victims had been reinfected, rather than just having another episode brought on by the initial exposure, which meant that Paul's disregard of their earlier cautions had been ill-considered. If you haven't understood that, perhaps you can write some alternate language that would better explain the issue to WP readers who are less well informed than yourself. Feel free to change it if you think you can make it more clear. Thanks. Let me know by pinging if you do and I'll take another look. 22:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Activist: My preference would be to remove the sentence from the article instead of rewriting... but I'm going to leave it alone for now, having at least brought it to the attention of other editors on the talk page. My main concern was with the paragraph we originally discussed, which I have now revised. Thank you for working with me to bring it into a state that I believe better suits the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jamesy0627144: I can't fathom what's happened here. I'm hugely overcommitted and don't have the time to check on hardly any pages in which I'm interested or involved. I weighed in and tried to accommodate your concerns. I think that the notion of Paul's accepting the concept of "herd immunity" in this issue is notable, given the links to stories regarding the research I've provided to the contrary. There's no data that any such protection exists, except possibly in some subset of cases and for at most a very limited period of time, certainly < four months. The virus is mutating at a rapid rate, which makes the problem more difficult. Paul was the first Senator to ignore recommendations and went swimming and working out at the Senate gym after developing symptoms and without waiting for his positive test results, endangering his fellow senators. He's one of the only three physicians in the Senate and perhaps the only one who may still practice. Your last note said you were "going to leave it alone for now," and "brought it to the attention of other editors on the talk page." You did not leave it alone and no other editors commented on what we were discussing, though two made unrelated edits, not for the material in question. My diff is here: "28 September 2020 22:04, diff hist +1,031‎ Talk:Rand Paul ‎ Edits seem okay" I don't have much spare time but spent way too much in trying to figure out what you'd done, and your elimination of ref names, etc., made it more difficult. I went to substantial and tedious lengths (i.e., retrieving transcripts of the hearing), to furnish what you seemed to be asking for and you just deleted it, i.e., the "200,000" #. My printer hasn't been working (since my hard drive burned up and the restoration seems to have confused the program) so I couldn't just print it out and tried to sort through your edits. I would suggest you self-revert. I had made a minor edit before I discovered your deletions and shuffling through the text, so I've just self-reverted that so it won't pose a problem for you. Activist (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Activist: What I did was change the paragraph to exactly what was agreed to above. The sentence that I subsequntly raised concerns about – "By September 2020, it had become clear that the possibility of reinfection may be a common occurrence." – I left alone. --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What you've done is to have eviscerated the section. You've removed the amply documented NPOV fact that Paul became infected, one presumes by simply ignoring the advice from the CDC. You've removed the fact that after he became symptomatic he got tested and rather than wait on results, exposed his fellow senators by working out and swimming in the Senate gym, then he took the position that he had immunity and therefore could not get reinfected (and there was already evidence from China that such wasn't the case), so he didn't change his behavior at all and instead argued with the science when he questioned Fauchi after the preliminary evidence from China had been confirmed by DNA tests from other victims, and you hacked away at the solid references that demonstrated that. By removing the date of the hearing you caused the sequence of events to be less clear. You also removed the nature of Fauci's expertise. You've minimized the contretemps by characterizing it here on Talk as only a "conversation." I've told you that I've appreciated many of Paul's positions that I think both of us feel have been very helpful not only to his constituents but to victims of government overreach nationally through being ahead of the curve in realizing that a punitive approach to drug use is counterproductive as is the NSA spying on Americans, and similar issues, but that is no reason to keep Wikipedia readers from having the data about him that demonstrates that he's done awfully when it comes to responding to a far greater crisis, one that has killed 210,000 U.S. residents to date, has infected seven and a quarter million more. With his medical training, instead of attacking the science, he could have taken a position of national leadership and used his credibility to protect people in the U.S. Had he done something like this in private practice, it might have been seen at least as a violation of his Hippocratic oath. His response to COVID-19 is doubly ironic given his immensely exaggerating the danger from Ebola (the coronavirus has killed 100,000 times as many in the U.S.) and deriding the effective response to that disease by the Obama administration, facts that have long been in this very section. I'm restoring some of the text and references you've excised. No consensus for your action existed when you did it. 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The whole article seems to be somewhat biased against Paul- oftentimes focusing an inordinate amount of time on situation in which he has turned out to be wrong in ways that articles about Democratic politicans wouldn't. Ejkrause (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Physician

He made up his medical qualification so he is NOT a physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.188.106 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

From the Article:
"National Board of Ophthalmology
In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards.[25] Prior to this, in 1992, the ABO had changed its certification program, which had previously awarded lifetime certifications, instead of requiring doctors ::::to recertify every 10 years. Those who had already been given lifetime certification were allowed to keep it (according to the ABO, they would not legally have been able to rescind these certifications). Shortly after this change, ::::Paul began a campaign to protest it. This effort culminated in 1997 with him creating, "along with 200 other young ophthalmologists", the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO) to offer an alternative certification system, at a ::::cost substantially lower than that of the ABO.[26][27][28] Its certification exam, an open book take-home test, was described by one taker as "probably harder" and "more clinically relevant" than the ABO's exam.[26]
Named board members were Paul, his wife, and his father-in-law.[29] The NBO was, itself, never accepted as an accrediting entity by organizations such as the American Board of Medical Specialties,[19] and its certification was considered invalid by many hospitals and insurance companies. Paul let his own ABO certification lapse in 2005, which did not affect his practice in Kentucky; the state does not require board certification. By Paul's estimate, about 50 or 60 doctors were certified by the NBO.[26] The NBO was incorporated in 1999, but Paul allowed it to be dissolved in 2000 when he did not file the required paperwork with the Kentucky Secretary of State's office. He later recreated the board in 2005, but it was again dissolved in 2011.[30]"

Assuming all of this info is correct, he was certified by his own organization and the ABO. You are just being petty because you disagree with the man's politics. Grow up. 214.3.138.230 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical error in personal life section.

Under the COVID-19 diagnosis sub-section, the last sentene incorrectly reads "butAnthony Faucistated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedb82 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why no mention of his being one of the targets of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting?

Rand was in the batting cages when a Leftist activist shot up the Republican team practicing on the field for the charity baseball game in 2017. Why is this omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.183.224 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Stance on Impeachment Trials

why not have a record of Rand Paul's stance regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump? 65.27.145.180 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Transphobic" grilling of 1st trans nominee

Something needs to be said in the article about Rand Paul's ignorant line of questioning of Rachel Levine. [13] --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:9F6:3320:4F0F:4D9E (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It was a pretty standard line of questioning regarding the genital mutilation of children. If anything, the article should reflect that the person refused to answer and tacitly endorsed child genital mutilation. Innican Soufou (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Kim Petras and Nikkie de Jager are quite alright! --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:9F6:3320:4F0F:4D9E (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Innican Soufou: This is the article on Rand Paul so content should be relevant to Paul. There is already something close to consensus that Paul's questions and therefore her alleged "refused to answer and tacitly endorsed child genital mutilation" doesn't belong in her article. If you disagree take it to Talk:Rachel Levine and provide sources, not your personal PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in any event it must abide by a neutral encyclopedic tone, and not suffer from WP:UNDUE nor WP:RECENT. Will this one moment be significant enough to merit inclusion in the article? Not so sure, but if part of multiple sourced statements, perhaps may have a better home at Poltical Positions of Rand PaulRoberticus talk 20:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of material regarding medical work

Regarding this edit, I was wondering Doubledowndemo whether you reviewed both the references as your edit summary seemed to indicate. I can't find a working link for either reference, so I was wondering maybe that is the reason you removed the sentence, not because you reviewed the articles.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the protocol is for handling such a situation, but I believe someone would need to review the references (perhaps with a subscription to newspapers.com) before the long-standing material is removed from the article. It appears this was never done as the edit summary originally seemed to indicate, so am going to restore the material to the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadistic mellow musician?

https://www.independent.co.uk/celebrity-news/richard-marx-rand-paul-twitter-b1853543.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:7ABC:C8:F17F:6360:C6AB (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing in here suggesting he's a musician, sadistic or otherwise, though it is behind a paywall. Do you have a better source? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Strange, here in Germany there is no paywall https://web.archive.org/web/20210526025154/https://www.independent.co.uk/celebrity-news/richard-marx-rand-paul-twitter-b1853543.html.
There are some other soures https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWpwNzdyc2tvQU1FZU4wSnZOcEllcW9LQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen.

"Political positions" section

His positions are not organized by specific issues. I think there should be sub-sections in this section to distinguish between the issues and better clarify his positions on each. Agree or disagree? Bluewolverine123 (talk) 9:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

In the line: Paul also said that conservatives must present a message of justice and concern for the unemployed and be against government surveillance to attract new people to the movement, including the young, Hispanics, and blacks.[209]

change "blacks" to "Black voters" or "black voters" GregePorter (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gain of Function

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/F30-AI149928-02?fbclid=IwAR0GpjoUpEzz6NqiAZA2Q8tenZPNlVy0hXFLeD9csgvu-wRtx7fY-tdu7Ko "I will completely characterize the ability of mutations to the Lassa virus entry protein to mediate antibody escape from three human monoclonal antibodies currently undergoing therapeutic development. These complete maps of antibody resistance will determine from which antibody it is most difficult for the virus to escape and help evaluate and refine potential antibody immunotherapies." This grant is currently active. Isn't this the definition of GOF that Rand Paul was asking of Fauci? Here is a perma-URL to the general subject (link removed) You need not log on to FB. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rand_Paul/Archive_6&oldid=1251935977"