Talk:Ron Paul - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feddhicks (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 7 July 2007 (→other article's tactics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:00, 7 July 2007 by Feddhicks (talk | contribs) (→other article's tactics)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Paul article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Activepol

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

U.S. Congress Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

United States: Texas Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Archives

1 2 3 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Austin Chronicle

Need to add that the Austin Chronicle has taken a much more sympathetic view of Ron Paul after 9/11 in view of his opposition to the war on terror and the PATRIOT act. Also probably need an article on the Austin Chronicle.

Opposition to Iran policy

I'm not very experienced at wiki-ing, so I'll just forward the link to Ron Paul's Iran speech in congress:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12640.htm

Please include this in the article because it parallels his Iraq-war opposition.

Social issues?

I Was watching people get all exited over this guy on Digg.com, and his economic ideas seem nice, but mysteriously, there doesn't seem to be anything here about his views on social things, like Abortion and whatnot. I don't actually know his views on those kinds of things, which is why i'm bringing it up here, because it seems like a hole in coverage in this article that'd be nice to fill. Homestarmy 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's position on many issues, including abortion, is that the federal government should leave it to the individual states to decide.Granola Bars 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he is pro-life. --BlarghHgralb 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more nuanced than that. He believes that abortion is wrong, but that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to rule on it. He becomes definitely pro-life at the individual state level, so if a referendum were raised in Texas to ban abortion, he would vote for it as an individual. He would vote *against* a similar law in Congress, for a perceived lack of jurisdiction in the matter. 68.211.49.245 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul does not believe this is up to the states, the above is false. He has repeatedly submitted H.R. 2597 which states: Life begins at conception, each state has the authority to protect lives, and the Supreme Court cannot review this. If life begins at conception at the federal level, it is murder to commit an abortion, even with a morning after pill. How can this be interpreted? How would it not be murder under this definition? The line "each state has authority to protect lives of unborn children" is misleading. They will have to, according to this bill. Ron is not as neutral as he'd have you believe. 209.30.37.214 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct he is pro-life and does not belive this is up to the states but he never says he is neutral he has always said his is conservative Gang14 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Library

A new online library has been created that indexes more than 500 documents written by Ron Paul. This is a great resource for those wishing to know more about Ron Paul's position on various topics. Add to external links?

Ron Paul Library, indexes more than 500 documents written by Ron Paul

Ron Paul Interview

Congressman Ron Paul appears in a longer interview ca 35 mins into this video from mises institute

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=Federal+Reserve

this should be helpful for anyone who needs information to improve any section on his economic views and policies.
- cheers! -- ndg.

Controversial Racial Remarks

There is only one source for this section where allegedly something which could have been considered racist relates to Ron Paul; hence it's a misnomer to call this a controversy. Furthermore, with only one source citing remarks and no sources citing Ron Paul as a racist, it constitutes original research on the part of wikipedia editors to claim that there are controversial racial remarks. The section needs to be deleted lest we run afoul of BLP guidelines and original research guidelines. On top of that, Ron Paul's cited political position with respect to racism need to be moved to the page which cites his platform and other positions. It doesn't belong here.

Not one noted political pundit or editor or news program has declared any kind of controversy exists or that Ron Paul has even been accused of being a racist or saying anything which has been definitely declared as racist. Until such time, the section constitutes original research, since Misplaced Pages editors are the ones calling the speech racist. Ikilled007 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is probably right. WP:BLP does require multiple, independent sources for such controversial claims. This isn't a libel issue per se since Paul is a public figure, but I think the WP:BLP policy is about more than just potential libel liability. DickClarkMises 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul himself acknowledges the controversy in the Texas Monthly magazine interview - this is in no way original research. Tvoz |talk 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "controversy" is not used by Ron Paul... he doesn't say anything describing it. "minor sensation"; "racially tinted remarks"; "controversy" are used by the magazine itself. Texas Monthly is referring to it as a controversy in the context of the original election, when he had not yet issued a denial; they don't refer to it as that way afterwards.--71.65.202.41 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the current description (which I'm changing now) of the 'controversy' doesn't actually mention anything he said. Perhaps 'controversy' is an inappropriate description, but it's an issue nonetheless. One that doesn't seem to be treated fairly. Rather, it includes explanations on Ron Paul's behalf with regard to the comments, but little discussion of the nature of the 'sensation'. Perhaps the entire section ought to be deleted (though I don't think so), but it's also unfair to simply cite the source of the controversy and then provide Ron Paul's arguments to discredit the issue. Benthepanda 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "alleged racist remarks" section is being given undue weight. We had a good discussion of Barack Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama article, and it was decided that to give the controversy proper weight it should be mentioned within the footnotes (something on which I agree). I propose the same here. There appears to be a notable controversy about the alleged racist remarks but it is given the same weight as his 1988 campaign for the Presidency (which is ridiculous). I ask anyone to explain why this controversy needs a full section (not to mention 3 paragraphs of it). Best regards. Jogurney 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. I originally wrote up a short 3-5 sentence paragraph on the topic, which apparently angered his fans. In what I suspect was an attempt to obfuscate the allegations, they put in paragraphs of defense and hearsay, and even *removed* the actual allegations in the process. Then a few other editors got involved, putting them back in and adding more information on what he said. In the end, to make everyone happy, we have the mess of a section before us. Good luck fixing it, you will have several angry editors quickly changing whatever you do to it. Rm999 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was Tvoz who moved the quotes to the footnotes... The allegations are still there, in the first paragraph of the section. Jogurney, how would the situation be handled by putting it in the footnotes? I may take a look at the Obama article to see.---Gloriamarie 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose restoring the previous version of this section with the quotes left in the footnotes to avoid given them undue weight (compared to other sections such as his Congressional career). I believe user:Tvoz created a nice way to deal with this here: (similar to how the Obama-Rezko controversy is handled in the Obama article). Hopefully, this version will reduce the amount of blanking of that section. Best regards. Jogurney 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I follow up, I blanked the other accusations of racism section since it is redundant. I don't think we need a second mention of the controversy (and out of order). Best regards. Jogurney 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I restored a version close to Tvoz's of above that should be good; we may need to lock the article to keep the vandals away because it's annoying to constantly restore that section to the article.--Gloriamarie 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Racism Section Constitutes Original Research

The racism section amounts to a political hit piece on Ron Paul. It constitutes original research, since Ron Paul has never been accused of being a racist or of making racist comments. An article citing comments which no one outside of wikipedia editors has even claimed are racist comments does not warrant a section on the topic. Now if some editor can provide a source which calls Ron Paul a racist or claims he made racist comments, then that is another matter; however, to date no such source exist, and the interpretation of those comments as racist speech is being made solely by wikipedia editors and thus constitutes original research. Ikilled007 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section and reworded a sentence. The Houston Chronicle article did not say anything about being a racist or quote anyone saying the same. There were some blog posts on the Daily Kos and Wonkette saying that, but the text as printed was not exactly right because the word "racist" was not used in the original Houston Chron article. Since this did get mainstream attention from blogs and the like, it is appropriate to include it-- the section includes the allegations and presents a fair view of them.---Gloriamarie 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ron Paul has publicly made racist statements If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

This is not Ron Pauls election campaign page. Stop editing it to support his election campaign. Michaelh613 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)michaelh613

That is included in the section on the racial remarks, and he has denied writing that. Michaelh613-- please stop editing the page to support his opponent's election campaign :) Neutrality is what's called for in this article and on Misplaced Pages.--Gloriamarie 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article suffers from deep bias in support of the candidate.

You suffer from deep political bias and ignorance. The article is factual.

This discussion suffers from a lack of signing so start Gang14 06:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anonymous users: when you say that there is a bias, please give specific examples, and feel free to edit the article yourself.--Gloriamarie 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is very fair. I've read nothing biased, if you do so, please cite it. Manic Hispanic 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The glowing quote from that judge is pure glurge. I'd remove it, but I'd be insulting the honor of every Internet tough guy's favorite candidate.

What is "glurge"? ---71.65.202.41 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes if you make a comment.--Gloriamarie 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what concerns some users isn't anything specific, but the general tone of the article. Compared to other candidates' pages, I would say this entry seems more positive in favor of the candidate. But its not because the editors intended it be a glowing endorsement. I think it has to do with a lack of critical sources to cite. Ron Paul receives little criticism in the press, so its hard to find opposition to his message. With few direct rebuttals from respected media sources, and with hardly any constructive rebuttals from other outlets (like blogs), his message appears to have more validity than his opponents'. At least that's how I see it. Kylebrotherton 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just added back information on Ron Pauls election challengers with gloriemarie removed and attacked me on my talk back page claiming it was bias. The FACT he has people running against him was completely sourced. If she does this again she should be banned from editing this site. We need to protect this article from Ron Paul internet activists to keep the site reliable. Wikis not part of his campaign. Michaelh613 10:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)michaeh613

I attacked no one on any talk page and I only said to please stop making persistent non-neutral edits after I saw that many other editors had asked you to do the same on many other articles. Please stop calling for the banning of users who make useful contributions to Misplaced Pages.--Gloriamarie 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Internet Meme

It seems like the Ron Paul internet meme (or whatever that is) is as popular as the O'RLY Owl and LolCats (both are hobbies of fat people who have no life). What is the historical account on this popularity?

Please sign your comments with four tildes. I'm not sure what you're referring to, you'll have to elaborate.--Gloriamarie 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he's asking for a short "history" of how Ron Paul became so popular online.Granola Bars 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He's popular online because he's popular with people that actually research him, something you can't do with FOX news and CNN. Virek 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I think there's more to it than that. His message resonates with many internet users. A lot of them have a somewhat libertarian outlook, which Ron Paul shares. Ron Paul also stands firm against any regulation or taxation of the internet, something this crowd likes to hear. And as Virek said, those who actually research the current Republican candidates often find themselves aligning with a "second tier" candidate. Kylebrotherton 08:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Re-Word

Since the debate, Ron Paul and his position have also been defended by Lew Rockwell, Pat Buchanan, Accuracy in Media, and other conservative and libertarian as well as more liberal commentators, including Bill Maher, Joy Behar on ABC's The View. I can't put my finger on it, but something makes this sentence sound very awkward - especially the end. Can someone please re-word this? --CommonSense101 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that "and other conservative and libertarian , as well as more..."12.217.91.206 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Article losing focus

I feel this article is losing focus in a major way. It is supposed to be about Ron Paul the person, but more and more of the article seems to be devoted to other people's opinions of Paul instead. The Election and Internet popularity sections in particular offer very little concrete information about the person himself. As for the Election section, most of that information should be put in its relevant subpage, but a lot of it is spilling over into this one instead. I'd urge everyone to begin scaling this material back and showing more restraint while editing. We'll never make it to good or featured article status like this.--Daveswagon 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I pared down the intro to the Presidential campaign section yesterday, took out some of those opinions and moved them to the Presidential campaign page and I think it's a lot better after that. I feel there are also getting to be a lot of pictures which distract from the text. Do you have any other concrete suggestions? The first and third debate sections could also be shipped over to the Presidential campaign page and the second debate section summarized... I do believe that the second debate incident should be included since that is what he has gotten a lot of attention for, probably more than anything else he's ever done. I'll try to work on it a bit.--Gloriamarie 10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took an axe to it big time. Hopefully it stays lean this time.--Daveswagon 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I did like the American Conservative cover, though. Don't you think it would still work in that section? Or, at least some picture, it seems so bare now.--Gloriamarie 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Essay archives, etc.

I reverted a change that removed external links to archives of essays published under Ron Paul's name. There is no reason why these archives (whose counterparts are certainly linked at other articles) should not be included for the reader's reference. It isn't as though the article, in the encyclopedic voice, is asserting anything that violates WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should like to publicly available work by Paul that would allow readers to further explore the positions Paul has taken in the past. DickClarkMises 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of weblinks. Misplaced Pages is not web directory. People may use google themselves. Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website. Also pease be advised that linking from youtube, myspace, etc., is strongly discouraged in wikipedia. `'Miikka 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he was linking YouTube or Myspace-- I have restored the links to these archives of articles. An archive of speeches or articles are exactly what external links are designed for and is very encyclopedic. There is nothing commercial on the sites, and they are collections of Ron Paul's words. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscrimate collection of weblinks, I don't believe anyone is going to argue with that; however, that doesn't mean that informative links should be excluded because Google should be used instead-- that's a disservice to readers of Misplaced Pages. "Besides all his works must be easily available from his presidential campaign website." No, they are not. Lew Rockwell publishes many essays by Paul that only appear on that site. --Gloriamarie 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter section on race

Was this deleted or integrated into the article or moved somewhere? Turtlescrubber 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania?

Several sources show that Paul was born in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa - not Green Tree, Pennsylvania (southwest of Pittsburgh) http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000583 Is there a way we could verify this?

Reliable source

A large portion of the article is based on this source which is written by his wife on his website. This is not a reliable source. I propose that material that is sourced solely on his wife's article be removed from the article.--Agha Nader 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the personal and family information, nothing else, and I would not term it as a "large portion". If that information is all taken out, the article is not as good and has almost nothing on his personal life. I'd say that his wife is a reliable source for facts on his background and their family life, etc.-- nothing but information on their family is taken from that article. That section is neutral and just lists colleges attended, etc. Daily Paul is also not run by him, although the article originally appeared on his campaign website, I believe.--Gloriamarie 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article loses significant credibility when it has sections based entirely on the unreliable sources. Please read WP:V. It states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How is his wife a third party source?--Agha Nader 12:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He opposes what?

"He is strongly Pro-Life and opposes abortion, gay marriage, the Federal income tax on individuals, the Federal Reserve, foreign intervention, capital punishment, and the war on drugs." -- That makes it sound like he's against abortion, gay marriage, etc, which isn't true. I think this needs to be reworded.69.208.218.100 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I took that whole paragraph out because it simply reiterated what was already said in the summary and, as you wrote, gave a misleading impression.--Gloriamarie 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

In several parts of this article there are facts that are not terribly relevant to the biography; they seem to be more propaganda. This may or may not be related to all of the Ron Paul supporters who have been spamming other user-content-submitted sites such as Digg and Facebook. Bovester 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific so those parts can be fixed or eliminated Gang14 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"alleged" added to Sudan's human rights violations

TO those adding the word "alleged" to the phrase "Sudan's human rights violations": who alleges that Sudan isn't committing these acts? If there is a legitimate debate, then site it. Otherwise, don't add unnecessary weasel language... Adam Holland 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The other side on the Darfur issue refers to it as a Civil War. I can provide a few articles by libertarian opinion website lewrockwell.com. A Google search of this site turns up 59 results critical of intervention in Darfur and not referring to it as a "genocide" or "human rights violations." A search of the neo-conservative National Review website also turns up many articles critical of that viewpoint on Darfur. There definitely isn't a consensus that a genocide or human rights violations are occuringn in the Sudan. Life, Liberty, Property 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure human rights violations can occur during wars.--Daveswagon 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My question to Mr. Life, Liberty, Property (nice name, guy) still stands: who says that Sudan ISN'T violating human rights in Darfur? Now, I think I need to restore this entire subject which has mysteriously been deleted.

Adam Holland 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This thing reads like an ad

"As a Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997 and represented Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he is a medical doctor who votes against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system or take government-paid junkets. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War."

i guess mr paul has his congressional aids working overtime to make him look good. 71.252.59.18 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing or relocating the "Dr. No" and William Simon quotes.--Daveswagon 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Official External links deleted/put back

Several days age I put the official links back in place after they had been deleted. They have been reprioritized and btter descriptions added given the quick changing, online nature of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign. Please do not be destructive or revert these links to the previous non-descriptive listing. Anappealtoheaven 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)