Talk:Ron Paul

Political positions leftovers

I trimmed the following from the Political positions section as it was merged in from another section but still doesn't really belong. Perhaps can be worked in elsewhere.

Records from the Federal Election Commission show that Paul accepts money from political action committees (PACs), although much less than most of his counterparts in Congress. Dr. Paul consistently received PAC money during the 1998(5.7%), 2000 (4.5%), 2002 (1.8%), 2004 (5.8%), and 2006 (2.1%) congressional electoral cycles.

In a special report, the group Clean Up Washington listed Paul as taking the seventh-least amount of money from PACs of all members of the House, as well as one of the members of Congress accepting the least amount of money from lobbyists and as ranking fourth in taking the most percentage of contributions from small donors. Their data studied contributions from the 2000 election cycle to midway through 2006. Of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, he has accepted the least percentage of PAC money.

Paul can be "maddeningly uncooperative" to his Republican colleagues because he will not give in to pressure to vote for bills that he views as spending taxpayers' money in a wasteful manner or for bills that he feels violate the Constitution. Once when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exhorted every Republican to vote the party line, he invoked a "Ron Paul exemption," saying Paul could vote as he pleased. Fellow fiscal conservative Jeff Flake said in 2006, "When I'm the only no vote, I can usually rest assured he's on a plane somewhere." Paul recounts that once, a bill passed 432-3. He thought the bill was based on a bad principle, and he had convinced the two members of the House sitting next to him to join him in casting a "No" vote while they waited.

Under Early life and education, in the last sentence, put in adhered/adhere TO, word is missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.165.30 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Signing this section or it will never be archived. ←Ben^B4 07:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

I fixed the opening slightly regarding federal involvement of marriage but I still don't think it's right. Why are we mentioning marriage twice? Are we mentioning any other issue twice in that paragraph? 67.184.23.112 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to accurately represent his position. I think saying he "is opposed to gay marriage" is sufficient, but supporters tell me that the nuances are oh-so-important. The way you "fixed" is was to make it say the same thing twice -- being opposed to a federal definition of marriage is the same thing as wanting no federal jurisdiction over marriage: if you can't define it, you can't govern it, and vice versa. BenB4 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was already saying the same thing twice. Are there any cites of him being opposed to gay marriage? 67.184.23.112 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"- so clearly, your position on for instance gay marriage, you'd be supportive of that? I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Ron Paul in interview with Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Yes, any time he has been asked, he has said that there should be no federal intervention. This does not belong in the lead, anyway.--Gloriamarie 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its very obvious that Paul is simply against any re-definition of the term "marriage". Marriage as a relationship he is not against, since he has stated in many places he does not like to outlaw consensual relationships when asked about gay marriage(watch is interview at Google). That is quite different from being opposed to the act of gay marriage itself, and fits with both his being a libertarian and a Christian.65.89.246.2 02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At Google he said, "you can call it whatever you want." ←Ben^B4 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, free people are free to call it whatever they want. But a redefinition by government fiat would not be "free". As an agnostic it does sound very silly to me, but I realize many Christians take that sort of thing quite seriously. Redefining the institution of marriage to include gays may offend a great many of them. In any case, there is no quote or action by Paul showing that he is against the act of gay marriage, but there are quotes of him saying he wouldn't want to criminalize it.

• Signing this section or it will never be archived. ←Ben^B4 07:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neturality Neutrality

I know this might be a sore subject, but I nominated this article on behalf of the neutrality standard. I feel like this article was written by a Ron Paul supporter. That in itself isn't a problem, but I some aspects of the author's bias show in the writing. I wanted to nominate it for a neutrality check because, as we approach the elections, it's important that we use Wikipedia for unbiased information, not political stumping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.133.184 (talk • contribs)

We do still need a third paragraph in the intro for an article this size, according to WP:LEAD. Since the 2nd paragraph of the lead at present is nothing but the accomplishments of which his supporters are most proud, I think we should summarize his controversial positions such as the Sanctity of Life Act, his comments about gay marriage, the fact he wants to pull out of NATO and the UN, the federal agencies he wants to dismantle, and the newsletter remarks incident, in the lead, too. What do other people think? ←Ben^B4 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say no to more political positions. There is a whole article on political positions and a summary section in this article. There is no reason to have a two paragraph summary of the three paragraph summary of a different article. Turtlescrubber 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A third paragraph could consist of what college/universities he attended, his medical and maybe military career, etc., to summarize what the article consists of. I agree, no more political positions.--76.182.88.254 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the consensus I'm going to insist on a lengthier exposition of his contoversial positions in the summary section. ←Ben^B4 02:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to take your ball and go home too? They are summary sections. Balance the positive and negatives and keep the section short. You might want to propose changes on the talk page so only the bare minimum of reverts happen. Turtlescrubber 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose to satisfy the instruction in WP:LEAD that controversies should be summarized in the lead? ←Ben^B4 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The newsletter controversy? Turtlescrubber 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that his positions are more controversial than the newsletter dust-up, because I believe him when he says an employee wrote it without him reviewing it first. A lot of his positions are in the 0-5% support range. If we can't agree, and I'm willing to drop it if you're sure we shouldn't have any more positions in the lead, then I guess we should add the college, his medical, and military career stuff instead as suggested above. But if we do that, I think we should mention at least the Sanctity of Life Act in the intro with all his proud accomplishments. ←Ben^B4 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Again? The "neturality" issue has already been decided. Shame on you Ben and Turtle for not removing the illicit tag yourselves. JLMadrigal 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have been reading this page you know that I still have neutrality concerns. Let me ask you: How would you satisfy the WP:LEAD instruction to describe the major controversies in the lead? ←Ben^B4 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"...and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (No notable controversies) "...The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article..." (Since the disputed summaries are nuanced, as you have said, they would do just that.) JLMadrigal 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are saying there are no notable controversies? The newsletter thing has appeared in major reliable sources. Saying "Paul was criticized when a newsletter article was published under his name with derogatory comments about African-Americans and other politicians" isn't a tease. Withdrawing from NATO is controversial because it has essentially 0% support in the US. Articles have appeared in major reliable sources about treating embryos as people. The list goes on. ←Ben^B4 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ron Paul media blackout. Now THAT'S notable, and well documented. Would you object if it were mentioned in the intro? JLMadrigal 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Media Blackout

(back left) Is the blackout discussed in a reliable source? All I see is blogs. And, what blackout? Google News has more than 100 articles over the past two days and that's with duplicates like newswire stories removed. ←Ben^B4 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's "Google News." A straight Google search for the exact phrase "Ron Paul media blackout" alone gave me 1,570 hits as of today. JLMadrigal 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A boolean Google search for pages containing "Ron Paul" AND "blackout" yields 74,300 hits! A search for the phrase "Ron Paul" yields 8,600,000 hits!! Common sense should dictate that the simple fact that he has been the the top Internet search term as measured by Technorati and Hitwise, while the big TV networks and news outlets are completely silent shows a major information imbalance. Hello? JLMadrigal 13:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So there is a lot of talk about the blackout on blogs, but lets take a look at the actual number of news stories:

Candidate	Polling [1]	Google News stories by date	Ratio
Ron Paul	2%	2,831	1,416
Rudy Giuliani	33%	10,723	325
John McCain	16%	11,311	706
Hillary Clinton	48%	12,905	269
Barack Obama	26%	21,216	816

That's not a blackout, that's a love affair. ←Ben^B4 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

you are playing with statistics, the 2% was drawn from an average of polls of which most did not include Paul. you know this, then why do you keep on playing with statistics? furthermore, he got a 9% in the Iowa poll and he won the Alabama poll among others, why don't you draw your numbers from there? a last point, in this country voting is not an obligation, therefore only those who care about it go to vote, the fact that Ron Paul's supporters care so much about him is a positive point than all the other candidates would love to have. we come here to defend him because we actually believe in what he believes, we are not getting paid to do this (unlike you Ben). the media black out is a fact, if you can't see than in each debate Rudy Mcromney get 15 min each and Paul get 3-5 min you are blind. true, the other small timers are getting ignored also, but Paul is getting ignored with special emphasis because we've all heard how the republican party wanted to exclude him from the debates after his confrontation with ruddy. or are you going to ignore all this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.203.140 (talk) 05:21, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Please have another look here. When Paul isn't a choice, they leave his square blank. The most he's ever polled is 3%, when he was a choice. I guess I haven't heard what you've heard, but if I'm getting paid, would you please tell whoever's paying me to hurry up and send the check? ←Ben^B4 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

i saw that link many times, you are referring me to the same link where you got the two percent, circular arguments? you clearly did not read what was not convenient to your view. and about the pay, son, if you are no being paid to do this, you are a big time loser, bashing Ron Paul on a daily basis for what? at least we are here because we believe in something and we wana make sure people like you won't turn the internet into what tv media already is. truly, if you are not getting paid to do this, you need to go get a life. but please, whatever you do, stop bashing Ron Paul for no reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.203.140 (talk) 15:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant here. And please ease up on the insults. I'm well aware that I have no life, but I do have a purpose here. When I saw all the hagiography popping up on YouTube and the like, I realized that this article would have bias problems. I was right, but some of them were easier to spot than others. Frankly, I'm terrified of the likes of Paul, politicians promising the libertarian agenda, but what they really want is to impose authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity on the schools, bedrooms, clinics, and court houses, sell us out to the rich with regressive taxes and commodity currency, and sever our diplomatic ties. Nothing could be further from true libertarianism. ←Ben^B4 07:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The so-called blackout is not notable. News is a business and it airs/prints only what people are interested in watching/reading.--Daveswagon 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of "news stories." That's the whole point. Duh!!! Here's my second paragraph. Clearly notable and well documented information:

While Paul has dominated the Internet, being the top Internet search term as measured by Hitwise, Alexa Internet, and Technorati, and has won three out of four of the 2008 GOP debates according to the online polls by the debates' sponsors, he has received relatively little name recognition from the mainstream media. In YouTube, he has surged ahead of all other presidential candidates. His YouTube channel was one of the top 40 most subscribed of all time, with over 25,000 subscribers.

JLMadrigal 11:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to that paragraph (although "dominated," "surged," and "of all time" might be wp:peacock terms) but it can't be in the wp:lead because it doesn't summarize something that's already in the article, so I moved it to the campaign section. ←Ben^B4 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A major oversight. Thanks. I added the missing section. JLMadrigal 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of the income tax

I think the main article should cover the fact that the national sales tax which Paul advocates would be terribly regressive, e.g., making retirees pay a 23% tax on all their purchases. The rich, who buy fewer goods proportionally to their income and wealth, would pay a lower tax rate than the poor.[2] What do other people think? ←Ben^B4 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop trying to twist the article to conform to your obvious political bias, that's what I think. BTW, it is NOT a "fact" that a national sales tax would be "terribly regressive". That is an opinion. 12.10.248.51 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that Paul advocates a large national sales tax? Paul wants to reduce federal government spending by quite a bit, so abolition of the IRS doesn't necessarily mean a replacement tax. Granola Bars 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He wants either a national sales tax or a flat tax, which would also be an income tax so if he wants to repeal the 16th amendment, that leaves the national sales tax.[3] ←Ben^B4 06:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a fact that Paul supports an income-regressive tax? I don't think there is any evidence of that. National consumption taxes may or may not be income-regressive (they are income-independent) depending on how they are structured. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Jogurney 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He says he opposes income tax, but he talks about a "flat tax or a national sales tax." But a flat tax is just a regressive income tax. And sales tax is regressive. So, yeah. 209.77.205.2 20:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the radical reduction in the size of the federal government that would accompany any change in the tax system, the point is moot. It's important to keep things in context. --Serge 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly says that he would reduce spending and taxes. That doesn't make a sales tax any less regressive. 209.77.205.2 21:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

State and local sales taxes are often structured to reduce income-regressivity. Food, medicine and clothing are typically taxed at reduced rates (or are completely exempt). It is quite possible that a national sales tax system would utilize a similar structure or even provide additional means to fight income-regressivity (e.g., rebates or exemptions for low-income individuals). You can jump to whatever conclusions you like, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Best regards. Jogurney 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Senior citizens would most likely pay little or no sales tax via identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.106.7 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source that says he advocates this kind of tax? I have only heard him say that he is willing to look at the Fair Tax, but he does not support it completely (and is not a co-sponsor of the Fair Tax Act) because he is afraid there would be both a sales tax and later income taxes imposed, and because the Fair Tax says nothing about reducing spending or reducing taxes and in fact makes a point that its presumed rate of sales tax would be the same as current intake on income taxes.--Gloriamarie 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

H.R. 4379 [109th]: We the People Act

The We the People Act needs to be discussed. It would have:

1. Prohibited federal courts from hearing:
   1. "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;" and
   2. "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."
2. Allowed state courts to disobey standing federal precedent on the above issues; and
3. Prohibited federal courts from making any ruling which expends funds or "imposes taxes."[4]

This shows clearly that Paul cares more for states' rights than individual rights: If this bill had become law, states would again be able to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and any sex act. The bill explicitly references gay marriage (1.2) in a way that would do nothing to protect it; only to allow states to outlaw it. It would also severely limit the ability of the federal judiciary in a way that would have prevented:

• enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, to the extent that such enforcement would have required any money, or that freeing slaves constituted taxation of slave owners;
• suffrage, because all those extra ballots for women would have cost money;
• desegregation, to the extent that it required expenditure;
• legalization of abortion;
• discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians;
• requiring government buildings to comply with accessibility laws;
• the abolition of sodomy laws;
• any order for the government to comply with a law that required any money;
• requiring translation services in for battered women seeking restraining orders in family court; and
• a whole lot more.

I find this very disturbing. I fully realize that we must have a reliable source which states these problems, and I'm looking for one. ←Ben^B4 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Gasp. Paul actually believes in the Constitution and doesn't like the federal government.

You're looking at it the wrong way Ben. What he supports also means that a state can legalize homosexuality, abortion, or any sex act. He leaves it up to the states. If the people of Alabama vote for no gay marriage, then they shouldn't have the federal government force it down their throats. If Californians vote FOR gay marriage, then the federal government can't stop them. This is what Ron Paul supports. His quote about forcing other states to recognize gay marriages is again just this issue. He thinks it is wrong to regulate marriage on a federal level, period. Every state has its own marriage laws, and Ron Paul just wants to extend the notion to gay marriage.--Cheszmastre 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

States can legalize those things as it is. The only thing this act does is allows the States to outlaw them without any possibility of being overruled by the federal judiciary enforcing the Constitution. The Act is diametrically opposed to libertarian ideals and shows the true social conservative nature of Paul. If you believe in the Constitution, then you believe in federal government. ←Ben^B4 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as Cheszmastre already pointed it out to you, it also allows the States to legalize without being overruled by the federal government. 24.14.76.94 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But those who believe in the Constitution don't believe in a powerful federal government. And libertarians are pro-decentralization. The federal government extending it's reach beyond that of which they believe to be Constitutional is a major grievance libertarians have, regardless of whether they agree that the policies suggested would be beneficial if applied by the states. Granola Bars 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says libertarians are pro-decentralization? Libertarians are pro-liberty. The Equal Protection Clause is pro-liberty. This bill is authoritarian, pure and simple. ←Ben^B4 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Libertarians are indeed pro-liberty, and pro-decentralization is seen as being part of this. Really, I'm rather surprised this even needs to be explained. Granola Bars 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Granola Bars: me and several others keep trying to explain it to BenB4, but he never listens. BenB4 constantly tries to twist this article to fit his political agenda. Why we keep letting him have input on this article is beyond me. 24.14.76.94 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberty and decentralization are entirely orthogonal. You can have a large free state and a lot of little totalitarian states. ←Ben^B4 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's probably possible, or at least its conceivable anyways, to have a large, heavily centralized state that is "free." Is it likely? No. Granola Bars 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, unsupported I gather. And off the topic of the bill. I presume that you have no evidence that it was designed to do anything other than allow the states to restrict personal liberty, do you? ←Ben^B4 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many libertarians that believe what I said. It's rather odd to be lectured on what they do or do not believe when the evidence is so glaringly different. Granola Bars 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say. Is there any evidence contrary to the fact that the only freedom this bill provides is the freedom for states to restrict specific individual liberties? ←Ben^B4 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Congressional Research Service provided this summary of the bill [5]. It appears to be an effort to limit the powers of the federal courts to interfere with legislative branch duties (such as levying taxes) and to ajudicate on certain matters: (1) state rules involving the establishment/free exercise clauses; (2) right to privacy; and (3) right to marry based on the equal protection clause. All of these appear consistent with a libertarian outlook except (2) and (3). I suspect that Paul believes that those "rights" are not conferred by the Constitution and that is his basis for limiting federal courts' standing over claims based on them. I think we should be careful in editorializing about what this proposal may or may not have prevented (especially claims such as the abolition of slavery). I also wonder how significant the bill is, since it never left committee. Paul did introduce it, and it is reflective of his political views, but perhaps it makes the most sense to mention it in the political positions article. Best regards. Jogurney 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The summary is just a recap of the bill's text. The only effect removing federal court jurisdiction would have is to allow the states to outlaw the activities. It would not do anything to advance personal liberty. And it says plainly that the courts can't make any orders that spend any money or charge any taxes. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources which discuss the bill, so I'm unable to say much about it. ←Ben^B4 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't removing federal court jurisdiction also allow states to legalize the activities? 24.14.76.94

Sadly, no. The jurisdiction is removed only for claims based on the right of privacy and the Equal Protection Clause. If there is a federal law prohibiting an activity, the government can still bring a case based on that law. It only facilitates prohibition. ←Ben^B4 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just looked up the actual text of the law, and the first very power is "(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion". It looks like it's about state's rights again. It's interesting that you somehow ommitted this from your original post. 24.14.76.94 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a power, that's another category of cases that would be removed from federal court jurisdiction. I didn't mention it because as far as I can tell, it's only designed to prevent Establishment Clause restrictions on nativity scenes, displays of the Ten Commandments, etc. I think that's pretty minor, in the scheme of things. It does go directly against Paul's statement that he's opposed to official religion. I have it on good authority that Jews think nativity scenes in town halls are not the way they want to have their taxes spent. And in any case, it only concerns, "any State or unit of local government," not individual rights and liberty. ←Ben^B4 06:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, BenB4. I doubt most people would agree with you that freedom of religion is "pretty minor". Yes, it's about states rights. Isn't that what I just said? Jeez.... 12.10.248.51 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, both sides here are getting way too much into the merits. There are lots of places to argue the merits of the bill, but here we're just supposed to report the facts. Ben, you've been putting too much of your own analysis into the article (for example the claim that the bill to state that life begins at conception would have resulted in treating abortion as murder, sourced only to an advocacy website -- the claims that abolishing the IRS would result in regressive taxation are also excessive personal analysis). I think the Paul supporters have been doing the same thing though I don't have examples off the top of my head. --Trovatore 08:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have two mass-media sources saying that defining fetuses as people makes abortion murder, and sources for the fact that national sales taxes are regressive, too. Others have indicated they believe their should be some mention of the We The People Act, but in the absence of discussion in reliable sources, I'm not sure what we can say supported by the bill's text. ←Ben^B4 08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's still too much original synthesis. What you need are notable figures criticizing specifically Paul's actions in these regards, not sources saying as a general matter that sales taxes are regressive or that a definition would result in treating abortion as murder. --Trovatore 09:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that agrees? If "Paul supports X" then we are allowed to quote from sources that explain the implications of X. ←Ben^B4 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In non-controversial articles on some technical subject, people might let you get away with that if it's helpful for the reader. In an article like this one I'm afraid someone's going to insist on applying WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Might be me, even though I'm disturbed in much the same way you are about the "We the People" act. I don't see any conclusive evidence that Paul intended to criminalize abortion (he may simply have intended to codify what he believed was fact), and it's also not clear that he intends anyone's tax burden to rise. --Trovatore 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that any reference to Paul's support for a national sales tax use a wikilink to the relevant article on national sales tax (or general sales taxes if there is no article on national sales tax). The reader can follow the wikilink and learn about sales tax there and decide whether it is a fact that they are income-regressive. Adding commentary here is unnecessary and potentially erroneous (particularly because we don't know what type of national sales tax system Paul would support). Jogurney 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the "We the People Act" quite disturbing, and am left with 4 possible conclusions. 1) He is a libertarian in name only; 2) He was pandering to his conservative base, knowing the bill would not pass; 3) He is more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian; 4) He believes that state-control of this issues will best preserve individual liberty in the long-run (which I do not find likely). I find the second alternative to be much more likely than the others. This is a guy with a picture of Rothbard on his wall, and who mentioned Lysander Spooner on national TV. He's introduced bills in the past that he knows can't get past congress and that he didn't actually want to pass (such as the bill to abolish the Fed, when he's stated he only wants to allow competition with them). I don't think its fair to say we know why he introduced the "We the People" act, so I don't see any reason to put it in the article. Maybe a summary about some people calling him too socially conservative to be a libertarian? 65.89.246.2 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At present, the article only summarizes the bill. Assuming you're right, and he was pandering to conservatives, knowing the bill wouldn't pass, then removing it from the article would make that less effective and possibly cause him to lose ground with conservatives reading here, whereas if we left it in he might gain from conservatives reading here. What I'm getting at is that we should still describe the bill, if for no other reason than it is interesting in the way that the encyclopedia is supposed to be comprehensive: We the People Act was until a few days ago, only edited by people who had not edited Ron Paul, so presumably there was that independent reason to describe the bill back in January 2006 before Paul even announced. ←Ben^B4 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail: Mrprada911 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet popularity paragraph in intro

I think this paragraph should be deleted. It is not a significant part of who Ron Paul the person is, and it appear to violate the "Notability is not temporary" part of Wikipedia:Notability.--Daveswagon 02:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I might support some brief mention of it in the intro. An entire paragraph is completely unbalanced, however.--Proper tea is theft 06:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Negatory. Even BenB4 agrees that Paul's Internet popularity is notable enough to be included in the intro, as documented in his comment on my User_talk. JLMadrigal 12:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton, the leading democratic candidate, has one sentence in her intro mentioning her national poll standings. Why should Paul get several sentences devoted solely to unscientific indicators on the Internet?--Daveswagon 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's an unusual and defining phenomenon that's been included in many if not most of the mainstream press articles covering his campaign? Given that Paul is little-known apart from his campaigning for president, the interesting aspects of the campaign are enough to fill their section on par with the length of other sections, so why shouldn't they be summarized? ←Ben^B4 20:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a separate article devoted to Paul's campaign. Such a paragraph would be more appropriate there.--Daveswagon 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While a key characteristic of Ron Paul's presidential campaign is his use of the Internet, there is little evidence to suggest that Paul's popularity on YouTube and Technorati will be enduring qualities that warrant an entire paragraph in the intro. See for instance, the article on Howard Dean, which contains no mention of Dean's Internet popularity in the lead, despite the fact that Dean was a presidential candidate who ably used the Internet to generate a great deal of support and attention.

Also (and this probably should go in its own section), the "controversy" recently inserted into the lead feels a little tacked on. I was not aware that talk page consensus had shifted toward including these "uncharacteristic" newsletter remarks in the intro.--Proper tea is theft 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But there is evidence galore that in spite of the notable blackout, his Internet popularity is on the rise. Other than POVs, there is no evidence that this will not be an "enduring quality." JLMadrigal 11:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the notability of his Internet presence. I am asking whether an entire paragraph that contains information about his YouTube channel and the unscientific results of online polls should constitute nearly one-third of the intro. Perhaps another way to look at this: In five years, will it be noteworthy that Ron Paul was popular on YouTube or that he "won" a debate according to an online poll? I doubt it. The overall way in which he used the Internet, on the other hand, probably will.--Proper tea is theft 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(back left) Given that a mention is all that occurs of his campaign in the other parts of the lead, how would you summarize it in the intro? ←Ben^B4 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Abortion again

In the summary, can't we just say that he's opposed to abortion, without getting into nuances that he thinks it's not a federal issue, except he voted against partial-birth abortions in Congress and wants to define embryos as people at the federal level? All of that is explained in the Political positions section below, and we don't spend near as much intro text on any other position. ←Ben^B4 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that understanding his position requires expanding on the megaissue of states' rights. If the federal government is limited to certain issues, the other ones are irrelevant. The Iraq issue has the same dilemma. Advocates of the war can use "ends justifies means" arguments to make the war palatable. Dictators exist. But the Constitution does not grant "democracy building" functions to the federal government. Likewise, the Constitution places states above the federal government on any nonenumerated powers. Simply saying "Paul opposes abortion," would make the majority of readers think that he takes the standard Republican approach of federally prohibiting to all states. Nuanced. JLMadrigal 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does defining embryos as people at the federal level show any respect for states' rights? How is voting for the partial-birth abortion ban consistent with avoiding nonenumerated powers? He has stated that abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights. How can you possibly say that is inconsistent with simply being opposed to abortion? ←Ben^B4 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether he favors or opposes abortion is irrelevant, since he respects federal lack of constitutional jurisdiction over abortion. Out of respect for the Constitution, he has explicitly stated that the federal government has no jurisdiction to enforce abortion restrictions or protections. In the wake of Roe v. Wade, he has attempted to patch a gaping hole by which the federal government would have guaranteed the murder of late term babies (not embryos, BTW). That's consistent. Again, the ends do not justify the means. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to enforce or prohibit abortion in the same way that it does not allow nationbuilding. Surely a Libertarian would not override the Constitution, would he? Those who do are no better than Fascists. "Paul opposes abortion" is far too simplistic for the intro, and turns readers with a centralized view of abortion (like yourself, apparently) away without reading the article. Editors of this article should have at least a rudimentary understanding of Constitutionalism as applied to the "enumerated rights" issue. JLMadrigal 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is inaccurate. It states that he thinks Roe v. Wade "should be overturned." Paul has made his position very clear that he does not support litigation to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ref that I added was removed for some reason: Savidan 05:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own source contains, "Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.... Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade." However, his Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, and his We the People Act, would both have removed jurisdiction over abortion prohibitions from the federal courts, effectively overturning Roe'. ←Ben^B4 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say Paul thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law. It's also apparent that Paul is in favor of allowing states to restrict the availability of abortion. Is the phrase "Paul opposes abortion" a fair summary of these views? Perhaps, but more a more nuanced comment would be better. Best regards. Jogurney 13:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

So, apparently the New York Times says he's a Baptist,[6] and NPR says he's an Episcopalian.[7] What do we say? The NYT puts it this way:

"His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one."

I'm inclined to say Baptist, given that. ←Ben^B4 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also go by what the NYT says.--Daveswagon 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe y'all should ask him. The NYT article with a disparaging title would need a subscription to be read. It can't be used. JLMadrigal 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to use secondary sources when available. Do you personally know where he worships? Why do you think the NYT article title is disparaging? The NYT is a reliable source, and you can get the article for free by registering (no subscription required) but if you don't want to, then use http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com ←Ben^B4 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can't find any Wikipedia policy of omitting sources that require registration. Just a pesky inconvenience for our readers. NYTimes Online is OK. Maybe their more recent articles about Paul are less disparaging. BTW BugMeNot requires registration too. JLMadrigal 11:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only can you use articles that require registration, but you can use articles as references that aren't even online.--Gloriamarie 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I found clarifying information to add on Ron Paul's religious belief and affiliation, but I don't see a good way to include it in the article as structured. Any suggestions? The easiest way might be simply to include a reference to this link, from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. RP grew up Lutheran, married an Episcopalian & attended that denomination. All his children were baptised in same. He and his wife "became less comfortable with the Episcopal Church as time went on." They now "occasionally" attend a baptist church. "Paul feels the "greatest affinity right now" with the Baptist denomination and identifies himself as a Baptist, though he is not a formal member of a local church. In the past, Paul has identified himself simply as "Protestant" but is now saying "as a matter of clarification" that he is a Baptist." The site even gives this personal statement by RP In His Own Words:

"I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do." (The Covenant News, July 2007) ←wpmno 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why it matters so much. It would settle it all just to say Protestant. However, I'd recommend going with the NY Times on this.--Gloriamarie 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We the People Act and court spending

JLMadrigal says that the We the People Act would "prevent federal courts from expending funds for the purpose of interfering in state and local government decisions regarding the display of religious text and imagery, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage" instead of "would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments

Here's what the Act says:

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

... (2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.[8]

I am correcting the error. ←Ben^B4 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Error? What error? Two sides, one coin. JLMadrigal 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

1. Yes, people refer to Ron Paul as a liberal, and the cited source, the National Journal Vote Rankings, gives him a composite liberal voting score of 61. I could add other sources if required, but the label "liberal" is an accurate use of this reliable source.

2. "...which he would replace with a national sales tax," is inaccurate - at least according to the cited source. The Caucus states that it would consider a sales tax among other tax reduction alternatives. The cited document reads as follows:

"There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation."

3. Why BenB4 refuses to acknowledge Paul's position of the States as the center of the abortion issue is beyond me. Paul's position is abundantly clear. Please keep the reference to the 10th amendment.

JLMadrigal 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't say he's a liberal. 209.77.205.2 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's opposition to abortion and capital punishment is again being used as a teaser and will need to be removed for various reasons discussed. His support of the 9th and 10th amendments defines many of his positions - including these. Currently, this article sufficiently outlines his position on these issues, and the positions article elaborates as it should. Abortion and capital punishment are political positions on which all candidates have a stance, but if they belong in this article, they can not be used in the lead - unless clarified. His pivotal states' rights position, on the other hand, distinguishes him from the other candidates. JLMadrigal 12:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. He's opposed to both. and no about of verbiage about the 9th and 10th amendments changes the fact that he's voted and introduced legislation to ban abortion. 209.77.205.2 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try teaching you with an illustration: Let's say the Supreme Court says it's OK for anyone to dump toxic waste into any body of water. In response, Representative "A" introduces emergency legislation that limits such pollution to bodies of water greater than 100 square miles, and limits contaminants to chemicals with a toxicity level below "X". So representative "A" has effectively limited pollution which wasn't supposed to have been federally authorized in the first place, while seeking an opportunity to overturn the original decision. The decision represents Roe v. Wade, and the band-aid represents the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Need I expand? JLMadrigal 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying he's all for states' rights as long as the Supreme Court doesn't disagree with him? I like the "unshakable foe" quote from his own website someone found. Are you going to say we need to nuance his own campaign material? ←Ben^B4 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the quote is misleading as to his position. What he believes personally is separate from his political positions, which is that he believes states should decide for themselves. The inclusion of that quote gives a misleading appearance to his more nuanced position on abortion, and I just don't see why any editor would want to insert something misleading to readers.--Gloriamarie 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

This article is looking pretty decent. Maybe it can be a featured article? Operation Spooner 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It can't hurt to try. The worst that can happen is you get suggestions for improving it. 209.77.205.2 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul the liberal

I don't feel strongly one or the other about the mention of this in the intro, but as it is worded now:

Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative,[3] a constitutionalist,[4] and a libertarian,[5] and a classical liberal [6] (as distinct from modern American liberalism).

it fails to conform to the cited source, which is a rating of his voting record that falls into the "liberal" range according the National Journal. That is not quite the same as calling him a "classical liberal" or (as it read earlier) "a liberal." --Proper tea is theft 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:Operation Spooner was on this, it seems. --Proper tea is theft 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"...and a classical liberal (as distinct from modern American liberalism)." is a perfect compromise regarding the "liberal" label, and succinct enough for the intro. Many sources for this catagorization are available if necessary. JLMadrigal 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That source says he has classical liberal views, not that he's a classical liberal. If you want it in, say it like that. I think calling him a liberal just confuses things. 209.77.205.2 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that he is a classical liberal, but I don't think it clarifies anything these days because too many people think that classical liberal means FDR, not Jefferson. Life, Liberty, Property 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

recent edits to lead

Ron Paul is one of the leading candidates in the Republican Presidential Campain having won 6 straw polls and finishing 2nd in 3 polls out 18 conducted so far Straw Poll Results.

Anon keeps adding the above. I have numerous concerns about this text, but I suppose the biggest reason that it should be removed (or heavily edited) is that the statement that Paul is a leading candidate is WP:OR ("...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'") --Proper tea is theft 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

might need clarification

Paul is pro-life, but, consistent with his opposition to federal power, he is in favor of allowing each state to decide whether to allow or prohibit it, instead of the federal government.

Ron Paul wants to allow each state to allow or prohibit life? I assume that "it" is supposed to refer to abortion in this context, but perhaps that could be made a bit more clear. 62.158.126.58 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not even true. He says that sometimes, but he votes and introduces legislation to flat-out prohibit abortions. 209.77.205.2 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Negatory. The act that he voted for filled a gaping loophole in Roe v Wade. (see above) JLMadrigal 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you think saying it funny like "negatory" makes it any less of a lie. What "loophole"? The vote was still to ban abortions. At least two of the bills he introduced would have banned all abortion. And at the federal level. He gets up on the stump and talks about the "murder" of unborn children. ←Ben^B4 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also two generalized categories of abortion: early term and late-term. I believe the form of abortion he voted to ban at the federal level was partial birth abortion, which is a different matter altogether for even many who support abortion rights early in pregnancy.--Gloriamarie 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging

Why do people think that

1. saying someone uses cocaine
2. saying someone has illegitimate kids
3. saying someone is a fraud
4. saying blacks are 95% criminal

isn't disparaging? I suppose next we'll be hearing from this crowd that burning a cross on someone's lawn is just a friendly welcoming gesture. 209.77.205.2 14:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the adjective "disparaging" is being removed. It appears to be a valid description of the comments. Jogurney 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Tvoz |talk 03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the comments are disparaging, but I also see the other side. It is arguably a violation of npov to state that they were disparaging, but no reasonable person could read those comments and think otherwise (however, "reasonable person" is a Supreme Court-like standard, not a standard for content on Wikipedia). I also believe Ron Paul's story of how the comments ended up in his newsletter (well, it is obvious that the comments are out of touch with the rest of his record, though some reference to the comments needs to be included because his opponents have brought this up constantly throughout this campaign). Life, Liberty, Property 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please protect or semi-protect this page, as I find the similarity to the name RuPaul quite humorous and intend to continue vandalising it. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.161.191.3 (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just block you so as to still allow other unregistered users the ability to edit the page. El_C 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to do (or how long do I have to wait) to edit a page when it is semi-protected. I would like to do some copy-editing. RyuPaulie 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you edit from your account while the IP is blocked, that will be block evasion, and your account will be blocked as well. Just wait it out. Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the semiprotection template that's on George W. Bush because the RuPaul vandal doesn't seem to want to go away. Hopefully it won't have to be permanent. But to address the original question, I think it's four days an account has to exist before you can edit semiprotected articles? Rompe 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kucinich

After reading those positions and claims in the intro, it's not hard to imagine why he hasn't got further in the polls even after "winning" debates. He's the conservative Dennis Kucinich! Rompe 08:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but unless you can find a source that says it, we can't put it in. ←Ben^B4 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's not, since he has around 100 times the support Kucinich has. And yeah I don't see where to put it in either. Megastealer 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For values of 100 approaching unity.[9][10] ←Ben^B4 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with this assessment, but without a link to a credible source making the connection, it would have no place in the article. Even then, I'd be wary since it's often better to let positions speak for themselves. Narco 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a comparison you might be able to cite - but not with Kucinich. Jon Stewart (or was it Colbert?) has made some passing references comparing Paul's level of support to Mike Gravell, and Giuliani appeared on Hannity & Colmes after tonight's debate and made a joke about having a Paul-Gravell debate, how it would be very entertaining with "lots of booing". I also believe I heard Bill O'Reilly compare them once. FWIW. --Schrei 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather nice article

As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I gotta say, this is a very well done article, certainly deserving of its GA status. (Especially with a few minor....adjustments i've made :D ) I've got a few comments though, there's some things I can't fix easily, (Especially because i'm not amazingly familiar with the article and how it has been constructed/referenced) and because the article is so expansive, I figured it wouldn't hurt to bring them out in the open. First of all, I notice there's at least one YouTube video as a reference. I don't know exactly how the YouTube or video website as a source thing works, but last I checked, things like that are never to be used as a reference except in the most amazing of circumstances, and I don't know if this is one or not, (It looks like a very well done video) but if there's no justification for it, the three instances I saw it cited need to be covered by something else. Also, ref 54 seems to be a blog, but the magazine this website apparently prints isn't, is this particular link to an actual blog post, (Which would make it a very poor reference indeed) or to an excerpt of an actual article from the magazine? The distinction is important, if its just a blog post, it should be replaced by something better. And that was about all I noticed on my look-through. Homestarmy 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, for the YouTube interview we had a few alternative news article sources (one was an NPR piece) which said pretty much the same thing but weren't as direct. Since the YouTube ref is a recording of an interview, it counts as a primary source (as opposed to just someone vlogging which wouldn't be acceptable.) Ref. 54 is a blog, but the policy in WP:RS says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog." Since the author of the post is an associate editor of Reason, I think that applies. ←Ben^B4 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're using You Tube as a source and have another one like NPR that backs it up, I suggest you add the other one as a second footnote - so if the You Tube video disappears, you have an additional source right there. Multiple sourcing be good anyway. Tvoz |talk 02:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy

How about it? Does somebody want to give it a touch up and then submit it for FAC? Miserlou 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but fix this first: Early in the article it says he has 18 grandchildren, later on it says "accompanied by one of his 17 grandchildren." --Golbez 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy to explain: The article that mentions that was written in 2001, when he did indeed have only 17 grandchildren. The 18th didn't come along until this year, it seems. It could be changed to just "grandchildren" or "one of his 17 older grandchildren."--Gloriamarie 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---Fixed. FAC it, somebody? Miserlou 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, that might be a bit of a problem, as I understand it, people at FAC tend to get real skeptical when it comes to articles that have the potential to rapidly shift in content in the near future. I'm not saying you can't try it, but I don't think it will be a shoe-in either. Homestarmy 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not that there's anything wrong with the article (far from it), but stability is one of the criteria used when judging FACs. Barack Obama is a featured article because it became one waaay back in 2004. And I can guarantee it wouldn't be on the main page until about 2010 if featured to avoid the appearance of bias or an attempt to influence the election. Narco 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Capital punishment and various religious topics

Does anyone have a date for this interview? Presumably it was this year(?) ←Ben^B4 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was after May 15 of this year, because the host talks about how misinformed he thinks Giuliani was in the South Carolina debate when he interrupted.--Gloriamarie 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter discussion

This is an obvious attempt to add some irrelevant piece of information to try to tarnish Paul. The article is from 1992, and as admitted later in the paragraph, Paul didn't even write it, apologized for it, and never has he said or written anything remotely similar to this. The paragraph is really useless, and a lame use of wikipedia to try to make some political statement.

I vote for removing it. Should I go ahead and do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.217.125 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I say keep it. If this is the best that the anti-Ron Paul people can come up with, then it actually makes Ron Paul look better. He didn't have anything to do with it and was still man enough to accept responsibility. It makes him look better. Now if you want real scandals, just look at Hilary or Guilinni! 199.102.39.65 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check the Talk archives, you will see extensive discussion of this point. The conclusion was that the newsletter represents a notable controversy, and the short summary currently included in the article does not place undue weight on it. If you disagree, I'm open to further discussion on the matter. Best regards. Jogurney 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's a notable controversy. But I (and probably others) went along with it because it makes Ron Paul look even better. 24.14.76.94 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Winning" debates

Unscientific call-in/online post-debate polls are designed to make advertising and text-message money, not to be representative of the facts. I'm not a fan of Sean Hannity, but he and Alan Colmes made a good point last night about the "Paulites" trying to rig "debate winner" polls. In the post-debate coverage, the professional pollster guy (I forgot his name) showed that a mixed room of likely voters clearly favored Mike Huckabee in the exchange Paul and Huckabee had, and Giuliani was seen as the biggest "disappointment" of the night... yet the "U-vote" poll showed Paul by far in first followed by Giuliani. Anyone who's browsed YouTube videos has seen the repeated spam "VOTE FOR RON PAUL AT XYZ LET'S HELP RAISE AWARENESS" - so why are these polls included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.129.43.168 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Description of the poll results are included because they are accurately sourced, even if the polls are obviously unscientific measurements of how the electorate intends to vote. The best thing to do would be to include sourced descriptions of claims that some of Paul's supporters might vote early and often in these polls. For instance, according to CNN's "Political Ticker Team," regarding a GOP debate back in June and a CNN poll that followed it:

These informal polls are unscientific because supporters can often vote more than once, and are not randomly selected, and while they may be useful indicator of a candidate’s ability to organize online, they are not generally an accurate measure of support across the electorate.

...the strain on resources that night prompted us to take down the “Who won the GOP debate” question (though that didn’t stop Paul supporters from commenting; they started adding comments to the “Who won the Democratic debate?” post)....

Or see ABC News, which said this back in May:

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? ... Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

--Proper tea is theft 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that a "mixed room of likely voters" is also not scientific; no one knows if they will actually vote, and by self-selecting themselves for a focus group, any poll done of their opinions is not scientific by definition, the same as a text message poll.--Gloriamarie 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet popularity

Why do we need an entire section devoted to his Internet popularity (especially since this is a subset of his campaign article)? Yes, I agree his popularlity his notable, but an entire section? And the section essentially follows this format: Paul is popular on website A. Paul is also popular on website B. Furthermore, Paul is popular on website C. Additionally, Paul is popular on website D. Can't this be summarized in a single paragraph--Daveswagon 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually had the same feeling for a while now. He does have a decent sized Internet following, which is probably how it got into Wikipedia (cf. self-fulfilling prophecy and WP:BIAS :P), but I'll leave it up to other editors. Narco 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} I'd rather see that go than the description of his legislation, for goodness sake. ←Ben^B4 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

...I took out a couple things like how many MySpace friends he has. To be blunt, we don't care.

Political positions section

Note: if you have arrived here from the dispute box, the alternate version is shown on this diff.

Why was the summary of the legislation Paul has introduced and the list of agencies he has said he would abolish removed from the political positions section? ←Ben^B4 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a summary. Turtlescrubber 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe his positions can be accurately described without a brief summary of the Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act, which are far better indicators of his positions than his speeches. Therefore, I have added a {{POV}} tag. I note that those summaries stood for weeks without objection -- why now? ←Ben^B4 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why now or why then, that's beside the point and is quite irrelevant to this conversation. How about because people hadn't noticed the slow sprawl. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Including his statements about himself when they conflict with the legislation he has introduced is a gross violation of the foundational WP:NPOV policy. There are other sections which are longer and WP:SUMMARY does not mandate a maximum length. I can point to featured articles with summary sections more than twice as long, for example Plug-in hybrid#History. Unless you can show that a policy or guideline supports your action, I shall be reverting. ←Ben^B4 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the revision contains "He supports revising the military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy to expel members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues," which is absolutely not supported by the cited source. And "Paul votes against most federal spending," for which there is no source even though one was requested months ago. ←Ben^B4 06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul does indeed support revising the military policy to expel members with sexual behavior issues regardless of whether they're straight or gay. If you want a cite, go watch the interview Ron Paul did at Google's headquarters. 24.14.76.94 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but The National Taxpayer's Union grades all congressmen on their responsible tax and spending policies. Ron Paul won NTU's "Taxpayers' Friend Award". In fact, out of 535 members, Ron Paul came in second. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=96 24.14.76.94 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I looked up the Google video. Ron Paul is asked if he was elected President, will he revoke 'don't ask, don't tell'?

This was his reply:

"I answered this question on national TV and I started off by being very - well, not very - but at least sympathetic to this idea. 'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't sound all that bad to me and I think that's what you're referring to. It doesn't sound all that bad because I think as an employer which I've been, I've talked to people and I've never asked them anything and I don't want them to tell me anything.

"But the important thing is what I said was I don't see rights as gay rights, woman's rights, minority rights. I see only one kind of rights, the individual. The individual has their right to their life and liberty and everybody should be treated equally.

"So when it comes to the military, I talked about disruptive sexual behavior and quite frankly there's probably a lot more heterosexual disruptive behavior in the military than gay disruptive behavior. So I would say that everyone should be treated equally and they shouldn't be discriminated against because of that alone which means those words aren't offensive to me. 'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't sound so bad.

"I think the way it's enforced is bad because literally if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military and I met one just the other day in my office who was a translator and he was kicked out for no real good reason at all. I would want to change that. I don't support that interpretation."

It's about 35:15 into the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg 24.14.76.94 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2004 election

The article says Paul spoke at the libertarian convention, did he endorse the Libertarin candidate? Did he ever endorse George W. Bush?

Hoponpop69 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)