Wikipedia

Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 11

< Talk:Ron Paul
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Trovatore in topic Move to change InfoBox header to "Dr. Ron Paul," or "Ron Paul, M.D."
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Minor Grammar Edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

In the section Early Congressional Career, Tenure.


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

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

I think you're right, :-) Twonumbers (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Can social media predict elections?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to this article on page B1 of today’s usa Today, Ron Paul has the most views (10 million) of the GOP candiadates on Utube. Ron Paul has been viewed 432,608 times in the last 30 days on Wikipedia See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Ron_Paul (please check my facts for mistakes, TIA) 71.231.62.26 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While interesting, this would not be suitable for inclusion in the article, unless reported on by seconday sources, otherwise you will run into WP:OR pretty quickly (especialy by trying to attribute any meaning to the statistic.) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It would not be suitable for this article (main WP article on Ron Paul), but it might be appropriate for consideration in the article on Ron Paul's 2012 presidential election campaign. Info from USA Today reporters isn't usually considered original research for WP purposes (I haven't seen this specific USA Today article though).Dezastru (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How long do posts stay up here?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone keeps deleting them due to traffic until this past few months.140.198.45.69 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Check the banner toward the top of the page: "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived." Dezastru (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the thirteenth (13th) paragraph of the section "Political positions"

Remove the words "he argues" from the sentence "He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[153]"

The resulting sentence should read "He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[153]" 108.81.25.227 (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: Removing the words "he argues" implies that eliminating federal involvement would have the effect he describes, which is itself a matter of debate. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide for the reader which particular political economic view is correct. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul won enough states to qualify for GOP convention ballot and 15 minute speaking time

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This shows the level of unreliability of the Huffington Post. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? Because they ran an opinion piece by a minimalist conservative? Please clarify your assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would love to hear your logic on why this specific article shows a level of unreliability? -- Avanu (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 5/6/2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

No newsletter contains anti-semitic material. Being critical of Israel and/or Mossad is not being critical of a religion or race. This does not suggest the newletters are anti-semitic. Indeed, one such newsletter mentions a "Jewish friend" who also believes Mossad was involved in a certain bombing, so it cannot be the case that the newsletters contain anti-semitic material. If they do, quote the statements about Mossad in the examples... that is, of course, if you aren't afraid to draw attention to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neveos (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A debate over what constitutes anti-Semitic ideology is beyond the scope of this article. Whether the content of the newsletters meets your (or my) definition of anti-Semitic or not is immaterial. Wikipedia requires that its articles reflect content published in reliable sources: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." Editors are not permitted to editorialize or present original research. You may be 100% convinced that you are right about something, but it cannot be included in an article unless reliable sources support it.
(Also note that the article does not state that any newsletter contained anti-Semitic material. The only place the term "anti-Semitic" is used in the article is in a line which reads: "During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry." (bold emphasis added) Dezastru (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
True, and as I said earlier, I suggest someone include in this section which reference is being charged with anti-semitism, as it is alleging that the author is antisemitic. Unless, of course, we should decide not to include every allegation a critic has made about someone, because, why not include the numerous allegations made about Obama being a closeted homosexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neveos (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (25 April 2012): Discuss Powell byline in Newsletters section

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In the section "Newsletters controversy" the following addition should be made:

The author of the newsletters, James Kirchick, has stated that none of the "racist" newsletters have a byline except for one. A 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide, "How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence" contains a byline and was written by James B. Powell. The publication's content and style are stunningly similar to the other "racist" newsletters.[1]

Source:http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters Masonnixon (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Masonnixon. You can't tell it from the current state of this Talk page, because a lot has been moved to the Talk archives, but there was quite a bit of discussion several weeks ago about what the content of the Ron Paul page should include, and specifically what the Newsletters section should include. Several editors were insistent that the section was too heavy, placing what they felt was undue emphasis on the topic of the newsletters, which they felt was a violation of the Wikipedia WP:UNDUE policy. As a compromise, the newsletters content on the Ron Paul main page was heavily trimmed and a page dedicated to covering further details of the newsletters topic was moved to its own page, Ron Paul newsletters. Please consider directing the suggestion for whether and how to include the issue of the James B. Powell byline to that page rather than to the main page. Dezastru (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(I've taken the liberty of expanding the title of this Talk page section.) Dezastru (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the newsletter section is refering to The New Republic. But the New Republic is itself criticised in the Ron Paul newsletters, and has a host of it's own controversials as problamatic or more so than the newsletters, and the writer of the article is a jewish gay rights activist. Without mentioning this, the Wikipedia article becomes biased. However, all that information is itself already on Wikipedia in different articles, it just needs to be linked. The full quote is in one of the original documents if you read it. Leaving out the fact that your own magazine was mentioned by sawing off a quote looks like you have an ax to grind. The above should be mentioned. Most of it is already on wikipedia. The quote is in the PDF of one of the links already on Wikipedia.

For instance, if the source is mostly The New Republic, then this should be linked, as something like - The New Republic claims, which itself has controversies, that xxxxx ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic#Controversies

Other sources of edited quotes should be used, or the background of The New Republic and its criticism in the newsletters should be mentioned. As it is, a large number of links are to the New Republic, which isn't an objective source in this story, as its part of it.

Also, controversial depends on who is saying it. Something isn't controversial in itself, but only that so and so says it is controversial. The article is also quoting secondary sources that are quoting The New Republic instead of doing their own research. Here's an example: The New Republic in one of its quote lists puts this under militia as controversal: "Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.". That quote is from the war of 1776, which most Americans don't find controversial. So controversial without who is saying what is controversial, or quoting critics who are quoting the New Republic isn't saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.70.237 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Edit request. "of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry".

There is no reason that Semitic should be capitalized here when the rest of it isn't, and this isn't how the word is usually spelled. It's antisemetic.

It's also redundant. Racist was already mentioned. Capitalizing on top of being redundant is odd.

The word being looked for is probably anti-Judaism. Suggest "critics such as xxx, yyy, zzz, charge passages reflect racial, religious such as Judaism, and homophobic bigotry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.70.237 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Reality Check on RP newsletters

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I think is worthy to include at least the possible author in this article. Also the "seven or eight freelancers" is quite important, as gives the reader an idea that the RP newsletters was bigger than RP and a friend. The article is not _that_ long, so we could include it, to 'close' the subject. What I added was requested by feedback.--Neo139 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article already says, "In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published." Dezastru (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about adding the author in the byline? After all, the name of the author is the only fact about the authorship the evidence provides.--Neo139 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The consensus after extended discussion about this section of the article was that the section was too long and not appropriately weighted for the article overall and that most of the non-essential details should be moved to the subarticle. (See the Talk:Ron Paul/Archive_10 page, where several sections dealt with these issues, leading up to the rewrite of the newsletters section on the main article and the expansion of the subarticle.) There were several arguments that the material discussing Fox News anchor Ben Swann's remarks in particular were not appropriate for the main bio page, especially given the multiple complaints that the section was too long, since it would be necessary to provide additional context addressing the implication of that bylined writer. Dezastru (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
We could remove some of the six examples provided and include the bylined writer. I think the reader would get the point with just three examples.--Neo139 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul newsletters controversy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

During the election, Ron Paul's newsletters were a source of only minor controversy, only mentioned once or twice in personal interviews and not even brought up during a debate. For instance, considering that Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, was actually asked questions in debates about his alleged "open marriage" to Callista Gingrich, that is more worthy in my opinion than Paul's newsletters and that does not have its own chapter in the Newt Gingrich article.

I do not believe Paul's controversy is worth mentioning in such a large subcategory, and especially not listing so many direct quotations from the letters. Instead we can consider merging it into his 2012 campaign subcategory and perhaps into the article "United States presidential election, 2012" and its related timelines. I'm of course completely open to second opinions, but if no one objects I would like to be the one to fix this problem. Thanks!

Blee395 (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Blee395

Paul's newsletters attracted significant attention from media outlets (and those were just the sources I found in the first page of Googling). It's certainly notable enough for a section, and there are more than enough reliable sources to cover it. Perhaps it was not covered in many TV interviews, but then again Paul was not covered very much by the television media in the first place. Mr. Anon515 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Twonumbers|Twonumbers]] (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter section -- Undue

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've tagged the section as unbalanced Undue. Since there is a main Ron Paul newsletters article, this section can be pared down to a minimum. (Admittedly the newsletter article needs improvement). – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)04:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vague claims of "unbalance" are almost impossible to discuss. Please give specifics: what claims do you think are unbalanced (everything written in the piece, as far as I can see, checks out perfectly factually). I have not edited this page, but see no quotations which are unbalanced. Given that this section has been here for awhile, your edit shoulders an even heavier burden of proof, as it defies WP:Con Given WP:Con and my careful checking of the claims made in the piece, I have deleted your heading. I will consider putting it up again if you offer specific claims which you deem unbalanced, and why you think they are. Steeletrap (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Note too that your perception of lack of coverage of Ron Paul's side is not justification for adding that tag. It is merely justification for adding more discussion of Paul's side of the story (e.g. the Swann piece you mentioned earlier). You have to establish that the claims made in the piece are distorted/not NPOV. (otherwise, the problem is not the "anti-Paul" claims themselves but the lack of opposing ones. And of course, if not many (credible) opposing RS don't exist, it does not mean that the article is "biased." Maybe Paul's side just has been deemed unreasonable by most credible sources/people. ) Steeletrap (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps another banner would be more appropriate. I'll look for one to replace that which I have just restored. (If other editors think it is "impossible to discuss" unbalance, I am sure they will not opine.) In any event, I think you are missing my point (which is not well put) -- the best page for elaborating on the newsletters is in the newsletter article, not here. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Free Speech Activist

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Two editors appear to be engaged in an edit war over whether or not the category "Free-speech activists" should be added to the article. In order to stop the war (and prevent anyone from breaking the 3RR), I wanted to begin this discussion.
Personally, I support the addition, as Paul has gone further than "the average politician," and is primarily known for his libertarian, constitutional ideals. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to be described as one of the two editors in this matter, but I did review and revert the addition of the free speech category. As I noted, every US politician is (nominally) in favor of free speech – when they take office their oath of office includes the requirement that they protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States. (Words to that effect, at least.) So including Paul or any other politician as a free speech enthusiast is problematic. Where is the RS that says he is a free speech activist in the sense that he is active in a free speech promoting organization? There is no such RS, so adding this category is not appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There are aspects of his beliefs that are counter to free speech - see Political positions of Ron Paul#Freedom_of_speech. It lists only a single example but it's definitely a big one in the US. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
S. Rich- I wasn't speaking to you. Sorry about the confusion.
In general, I think Paul's primarily known for his free-speech stances. PrairieKid (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if he is, then it shouldn't be hard to find some reliable sources that say he is. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - It may be helpful in deciding how to handle this question to remember that in the process of determining whether a category is appropriate for a person, there needs to be consensus on whether the category is for a defining characteristic of the person. Many editors seem to not be aware of this criterion. From the guideline on categorization:

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

and

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristic—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections.

From the guideline on categorization of people:

Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized in terms of occupation only by the reason(s) for the person's notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.

Dezastru (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that standard seems a bit too strong — by the letter of that rule, we couldn't even call Paul a physician. But I agree with others on this page that being in favor of free speech is not the same as being a free-speech activist, and my sense is that Paul should not be thus characterized. --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
He shouldn't be categorized as a physician, because he isn't notable as a physician. The category system is supposed to help readers browse for articles on related topics. You can be sure that NOBODY is going to be browsing Wikipedia looking for an article on Ron Paul based on him being a physician (except for maybe some local Texas folks who knew him personally or have friends or family who knew him personally). But a good number of people might browse for articles about libertarians, presidential candidates, members of congress, the gold standard, other stuff like that, looking for articles on Ron Paul or people like Ron Paul. Too many editors don't understand how the categories are supposed to be used. They see the system as a way to label the person in terms of whatever aspect they particularly admire about him or her. A perfect example of this was somebody a few months ago who categorized Queen Elizabeth II with people of Hungarian ancestry! But I'm probably wasting my time even typing this because I don't see any improvements occurring in the way categories are applied. Dezastru (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Free speech activist in the western countries is often a code term for holocaust denial. TFD (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, what total bullshit. It's true that the free speech of holocaust deniers is often infringed, and I hope I don't have to explain why that's a bad thing even though the deniers themselves are wrong, so naturally they do get caught up in the debate. But your formula is like saying "anti-death-penalty activist" is code for "murderer". --Trovatore (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"It's true that the free speech of holocaust deniers is often infringed?" Like I said, it is often a code word. TFD (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The free speech of holocaust deniers is often infringed, yes. I think that's pretty much indisputable. The deniers themselves are wrong, but their free speech is nevertheless (and wrongfully) infringed. What's your point? --Trovatore (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Freedom of speech is generally considered to exist in Western democracies, especially in the U.S. where it is part of the Bill of Rights. No serious argument exists against the principle. 04:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The US does not generally overtly infringe on their freedom of speech, but other Western democracies do (especially Germany). The fact that the US does not (that is, that the 1st amendment is respected to the extent that it is) is in large part the merit of lawyers who did not agree at all with the clients they were defending. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If the U.S. does not infringe on freedom of speech, then the term "free speech activist" is meaningless. It is like saying that he is an activist in the right of Americans to speak English. TFD (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course the US infringes on free speech. Not as much as most other countries, but it still does. Even if it didn't, how would that make the term meaningless? An American can't be an activist for change in other countries? Plenty of non-Americans are activists for change in the US.
Anyway, this is all off-topic. I don't think Paul should be characterized as a free-speech activist either. I just have a deeply negative reaction to your "code term" remark. --Trovatore (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Preserved Carol Paul references

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As a result of an AfD, Carol Paul now redirects to this article. In order to preserve the material about Carol, which includes numerous references to her cook books, the following data is provided. Interested editors are welcome to incorporate this material into the article and then remove the references listed below.

Carol Paul (née Carolyn Wells, born February 29, 1936) is an American author, who is the wife of former United States Congressman Ron Paul and the mother of United States Senator Rand Paul. See: Sheri & Bob Stritof. "Carol and Ron Paul Marriage Profile". See: "Ron Paul". Biography TV. She and her husband have been married since 1957. See: Paul, Carol (March 16, 2007). "The American Dream - Through the Eyes of Mrs. Ron Paul". Daily Paul. Since 1995, she has published the Ron Paul Family Cookbook, a collection of recipes she and her friends contributed. In 2012, it was sold as part of a campaign fundraiser to support Ron Paul's presidential campaign. See: McDevitt, Caitlin (November 29, 2011). "Ron Paul's family publishes 2012 cookbook". Politico. Retrieved 16 June 2013.

The Ron Paul Family Cookbook has come out in various editions since it first appeared in 1995. See: Carly Okyle (July 7, 2012). "Ron Paul Has a Libertarian Cookbook Series". FoodWorldNews. Retrieved September 1, 2013. It is more of a pamphlet with earlier versions running about 16 pages and later ones around 32 pages as new recipes are added.

  • 1995 The Ron Paul Family Cookbook
  • 1997 The Ron Paul Family Cookbook See: Paul, Carol (1997). The Ron Paul family cookbook. Clute, TX. p. 16. OCLC 793200538.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • 2000 The Ron Paul Family and Friends Cookbook
  • 2002 The Ron Paul Family Spring Cookbook See: Paul, Carol (2002). The Ron Paul family spring cookbook : including "The American dream, through the eyes of Mrs. Ron Paul". Clute, TX. p. 32. OCLC 793200539.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • 1999 The Ron Paul Family Holiday Cookbook
  • 2009 The Ron Paul Family Cookbook 2009
  • 2012 The Ron Paul Family Cookbook 2012

The cookbooks have been reviewed in a Wall Street Journal video See: Elizabeth Williamson (June 6, 2012). "Cooking With Mrs. Paul - Don't Ask About Calories". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 1, 2013. and article. See: Elizabeth Williamson (June 6, 2012). "Fed Critic Boasts the Gold Standard of Political Cookbooks". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 1, 2013. It was also reviewed in Slate, See: Libby Copeland (December 6, 2011). "Ron Paul Wants You Free ... To Clog Your Arteries!". Slate. Retrieved September 1, 2013. The Week, See: Staff writer (December 1, 2011). "Ron Paul's family cookbook: 'An unorthodox campaign tactic'?". The Week. Retrieved September 1, 2013. The Seattle Times, See: Alicia Halberg (March 31, 2012). "The Ron Paul Family Cookbook: The most delicious campaign material yet". The Seattle Times. Retrieved September 1, 2013. The Boston Globe, See: Shira Schoenberg (December 15, 2011). "Ron Paul's unusual contribution to campaign literature: A Family Cookbook". Boston Globe. Retrieved September 1, 2013. The Daily Iowan, See: Allie Wright (October 6, 2011). "Paul campaign reaches out with food". The Daily Iowan. Retrieved September 1, 2013. International Business Times, See: Cristina Merrill (November 30, 2011). "Ron Paul Comes Out with Cookbook, and It's Not His First!". International Business Times. Retrieved September 1, 2013. RT.com, See: "Ron Paul has a book, and it's not about politics". RT.com. November 30, 2011. Retrieved September 1, 2013. Smithsonian, See: Lisa Bramen (December 9, 2011). "The Edible Is Political: Cookbooks from Both Sides of the Aisle". Smithsonian. Retrieved September 1, 2013.and Fox News See: Bret Baier (November 30, 2011). "Grapevine: What's Cooking in Ron Paul's Kitchen?". Fox News. Retrieved September 1, 2013. among other places.

– S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing that CP's cookbooks are so notable that they need to be detailed in an article about her husband? Why? SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No comment on the notability or usability of the books is offered. The information is posted for the convenience of other editors who might wish to use it. It simply saves them the trouble of research. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Article size – too big

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At 124+kB we are already well past the WP:TOOBIG rule of thumb. Time to cut down sections which already have their own separate articles. The bibliography is one easy place to start. Editors are encouraged to pare down other sections. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want my opinion -- and I just know you do -- this is a case where rules of thumb are just approximations that need to be ignored. Any attempt at shrinking this article would mean cutting out material that supporters or detractors will object to. It'll be a war that never ends.
Things are ok for now. Let's leave them as they are. MilesMoney (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no, MilesMoney. Things are not okay. You are suggesting the article is perfect when you say "any attempt at shrinking this article..." Rather, an material will be moved to the particular other articles that it belongs in and nothing will be removed from Wikipedia. For example, the Newsletters section will/might say "Beginning in 1978 Ron Paul et al started publishing a series of news letters. During the ---- campaign, their contents became controversial. For more information see: ...." At present I'm hoping a cutback on the bibliography and a few less controversial sections will get the article down to a size that comports with guidelines. So there is not need to bring up WP:EDITWARRING, even before the edits occur. (I'm sure the community appreciates your opinion. Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong size measurement, S.Rich. WP:TOOBIG refers to the readable prose, not the gross total (which includes all of the Wiki mark-up not visible to readers). The prose size of this article is only 72kb, according to the article size tool. Roccodrift (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Even at 72, it is >60kb, which is one of the parameters. I'm glad I brought this up. But really, the article needs fixes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney and Roccodrift are right. The article has been stable over the past year and article size has not been a problem. Readable prose, excluding the Ron Paul Bibliography section, is about 7,000 words, which falls in the 30-50kB range discussed in the "Readability Issues" section of WP:TOOLONG. If you insist on splitting the article to reduce its overall size, the Ron Paul Bibliography can stand as an independent article. The rest of the current article should be left as it is. Dezastru (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul states he is a voluntaryist on Jay Leno Show

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is that a sufficient reason to label him as such? Hcobb (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming he does so in an explicit and unambiguous way, and there is a WP:RS we can cite for it to ensure WP:V (transcript, official webcast etc), I would think so. However, categories generally should only be applied if there is relevant content in the article, so some bit about voluntarianism would need to be added. If the only source for it is the leno quote, it could possibly be WP:UNDUE. I would think something like this would also be available from some of Paul's writings somewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Concept already on PPofRP page, so added link there. Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is "over 4,000 babies" encylopedic? For the amount of time that he was an Ob/Gyn that number seems quite unremarkable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.139.132 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014

I second this. Doesn't really seem to be necessary information and a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No context has been provided about the importance of the "over 4000 babies", and within the context of the story sourced, the article isn't about his achievements as a doctor but rather, being a doctor should give him some special insight into certain healthcare plans. This part should be removed.--Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that there should exist a clarification link to the Rand Paul page. I just saw that this article had an increase in the page views on the 7.04. 2015 - which is the date when Rand Paul (the son, the senator) announced his candidacy for the GOP 2016 nomination. Link: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Ron_Paul --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 19:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Ron Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ron Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

image of him with Don Black being added to Don Black (white nationalist)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image was uploaded in 2007 evidently by the racist Jamie Kelso, but today added to Black's BLP by a new editor and when I removed it by an IP. I thought people here might want to know about this. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Second or third faithless Libertarian elector vote?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was just looking at this pending edit by 73.149.152.16. I'm trying to work out whether it is accurate or not. The edit changed the number of faithless electors who have voted for a Libertarian candidate from three to two. John Hospers was the first Libertarian candidate for President, so that'd be the first vote accounted for. According to this source as well as United States presidential election, 1972, the elector in question also voted for Tonie Nathan (referred to as Theodora in the WSJ source). I'm assuming that including the VP vote as part of the count of Libertarian faithless electors is a mistake–it is comparing apples and oranges. There's no mention of anyone other than Hospers, the VP pick of Nathan, and Paul in the WSJ article or in Libertarian Party (United States), so I intend to accept the pending change momentarily. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Party registration

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any source that he is a registered libertarian? Metallurgist (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he is. He ran as a republican both times in 2008 and 2012. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Ron Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ron Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ron Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ron Paul posted racist cartoon

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://twitter.com/MildGiraffe/status/1013804053057417217 AHC300 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Racist weet and recentism

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone think that this has any encyclopedic value whatsoever? A former politician posts some stupid racist comic or twitter (or his intern does, doesn't matter either way) and a bunch of news cites post articles about it, and the tweet is deleted. Will anyone care about this a month from now? Will anyone even remember it happened a year from now? Does it tell us anything of value about Ron Paul? I'm removing this from the article on the grounds that it is unencyclopedic information that tells readers nothing of value. My suggestion is that you wait a month and see if this story develops at all, or if it simply disappears. I expect it will be the latter. Maybe there's a story to be told if Ron Paul consistently makes racist remarks and so this is part of a pattern. But this article doesn't need a section about a single tweet that was posted yesterday and existed for less than an hour. No article needs crap like that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's covered in multiple reliable and notable source, which justifies it's inclusion. A user opinion like "maybe people will stop talking about it a month from now, so let's remove it" isn't how Wikipedia works. Drsmoo (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
No. That is how wikipedia works. This material is unencyclopedic. It's a single insignificant event, covering it in this article lends undue weight to something completely irrelevant. I'm sure I could find multiple sources discussing the name of Ron Paul's dog, and that certainly doesn't belong in the article. Just being covered in sources is not sufficient for inclusion. Also, the way wikipedia works is that if someone adds content, and someone else reverts it, it stays out of the article until there is consensus. There is no consensus to include right now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. See: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." and "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." Your opinion that this information is "insignificant" is your personal opinion and has no baring on Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and this has been widely covered by by reliable sources, meriting its inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Belongs in the article. Received extensive RS coverage. (Came here via the NPOV noticeboard[1]). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in article. Pretty sure no-one believes Ron Paul is a racist. Anyone could have sent that from his account, he could have rted without looking closely. Wikipedia is bad enough as it is, without people thinking they can clutter up pages with references to single unrepresentative tweets. Bougatsa42 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with primary source content

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs to scrub all the primary source content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I come to Ron Paul's page only to find it locked down and censored. I wonder if I will ever again experience an irony so simultaneously hilarious and sad.

"The sign says you got to have a membership card to get inside."

Because I don't belong to your little wiki club, what I have to say MUST be thoughtcrime. Got it.

RIP wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.181.200 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ron Paul's corona virus stance and son's disease - let's not edit war here.

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Please discuss the issue here rather than edit-warring, Uncle Dick. There is no evidence of original research here, for example -- Ron Paul's position and his son's disease is one of the most widely reported news stories (by reliable sources) in the United States and around the world today.

I believe that his son Rand Paul's contracting of COVID-19 is a key point of the controversy, but it should be in the controversy section and not the one about Ron Paul's personal life. Msalt (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It's interesting but it's not about Ron Paul. But, anyway, let's discuss below. Didn't mean to open another section about it. Shearonink (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The original edit by Dchatwpdia was the very definition of original research. It took two unrelated facts (an out-of-context snippet from one of Ron Paul's weekly columns and Rand Paul's diagnosis) and placed them together in a way that implied some sort of value judgment or criticism. I agree with Shearonink that Rand Paul's medical condition is basically irrelevant to this article. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

My intent was not to make a value judgment but to present the fact that Ron Paul's comments about coronavirus occurred in the context of an outbreak that eventually impacted his family. The most recent column by Ron Paul on his website expressed doubts about the threat of the coronavirus. The fact that his son is the first U.S. senator to be diagnosed is certainly a compelling item of history that people will find interesting. By omitting this fact, we do a great disservice to the historical record. If Ron Paul's comments about the coronavirus are legitimate items in this page, then certainly the manner in which the outbreak impacted his only son is relevant.

Isn't the point to provide more information for readers, not less. Is not your claim that this is irrelevant in fact a values judgment of your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchatwpdia (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It is the point of the rule WP:OR that Wikipedia users should not draw such connections. I am sure I could think of more stuff I could add to the article, thus "providing more information", but I won't because it is against the rules and not encyclopedic.
When media pick this up, when they notice the connection and publish something about it, then is the time when it should be added to the article. Not now. So please revert your edit until then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh wait - the media did pick it up! They drew the connection. The very title of the article you linked is "Rand Paul Tests Positive For Coronavirus Days After HIs Father Dismissed Panic Over the Disease As A Hoax". Hey folks, what were you thinking, calling this original research? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Well. This is an article about Ron Paul. On that I think we can all agree. This news of Rand Paul testing positive a week or two after his father's hoax comments has nothing to do with the statements other than as a gotcha. How about we include every celebrity who has tested positive, every actor, every politician, every LIbertarian, every Senator, every doctor, every person who is a personal or professional acquaintance of Ron Paul's? The Rand Paul content has been removed several times by different editors and yet Dchatwpdia has insisted on reverting these deletions and now has again restored the disputed content before any kind of consensus has been established. Not cool. Shearonink (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
With respect, Shearonink, a large number of reliable sources are making the connection between Ron Paul's column and his son's diagnosis. Indeed, it's one of the biggest news stories at a time of very big news stories. Without engaging your analysis directly, it seems to me that you as an editor are arguing against the clear message of several reliable sources, and THAT is the very definition of Original Research. If there was a properly weighted counter-argument in other reliable sources, it could be added here as another part of the controversy, but that would make it even more appropriate to include the issue here. Msalt (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that Rand Paul has contracted COVID-19 is germane to the subject of Ron Paul, others obviously do. If we can't come to an agreement here in this section a Request for Comment should be opened so that editors can post their thoughts for/against and we can then come to some kind of clear editorial consensus on the matter. Shearonink (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
We could certainly do an RFC, but I stand by my earlier point that editors should not be arguing with (or against) reliable sources -- that's precisely what constitutes original research. If the reliable sources say one thing, as they appear to do in this case, we should defer to them. It doesn't matter whether editors have different opinions. We should not be imposing those opinions. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Ron's ideas about science, here some of them are listed, with sources. His son also has an entry there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Current political party?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's some back-and-forth in edits on whether Paul is currently a member of the Republican party or the Libertarian party. One editor points to 2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas#cite_ref-Elector_31-2 and List_of_United_States_Libertarian_Party_presidential_tickets, which both note (no source) that an unfaithful electoral vote was cast for Paul as Libertarian in 2016. I can't find any recent/current coverage that definitively says what party he belongs to now. Schazjmd (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no clear answer, but I'd point out that it's not even really clear what the question means. Paul is not in office, so he doesn't have a party for the purpose of committee assignments and so on. In Texas (does he still live in Texas?), if I recall correctly, you don't have a party for the purpose of voter registration, except when there's a party primary, at which time you can request a particular party's ballot. You can (or at least used to be able to) pay dues to the Libertarian National Committee to be a "card-carrying" Libertarian, but I doubt that's what it means.
I would be suspicious of the claim that the electoral vote was for Paul "as" a Libertarian, because the Constitution doesn't even mention political parties. The elector presumably simply voted for Paul, not Paul-as-a-Libertarian, same as any other electoral-college ballot.
Anyway, if we don't have a definitive source, we should find some way of making no claim one way or the other. If we know he held himself out as a Republican in 1996, but do not know whether that is still true, maybe something like "1996–?" would work. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe it likely works this way; Dr. Ron Paul "self-identifies" as a Libertarian, and espouses libertarian ideals, ..but he has always registered as a Republican when running for office; This is also known as a 'RHINO' or RINO a.k.a., a Republican In Name Only. It is sometimes deemed by a candidate, wrongly so in my opinion, as the only way to have a chance at winning in America's very bilateral, polarly-opposited, political system, and generically means that a conservative minded person has "chosen the lesser of two evils," and gone with the Repub party. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 08:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

RAND Paul's diagnosis of COVID-19

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit just now re-added content about Rand Paul. Rand Paul's life issues re: the COVID-19 epidemic, on how to treat COVID-19, on anything have little to no bearing on his father's article. If that material belongs anywhere in Wikipedia it is in RAND PAUL's article and can be discussed there. I am therefore removing it and anyone who wishes to discuss the issue of whether this content should stay or should go can do so here. On this talk page. Shearonink (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean analysis not diagnosis; he's an eye doctor and not giving a scientific verdict to a patient *wink* That being said! Excellent point about article creep over from Rand topics to the probably more popular Dr. Ron Paul WP article. Just an attempt by the naysayers and haters to discredit the entire Paul family. Rotten stinkers! -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 08:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Ron Paul stroke 25th September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Pab9bdXE11ot/ Dr. Paul appears to suffer a stroke during a live broadcast of his podcast, the Liberty Report.

Yeah, we need to wait for this to be covered by mainstream reliable sources before we run with it. Simply linking to the video isn't enough. Nblund talk 18:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Fox News has covered it. My personal preference would be to leave it out until there's enough detail to contextualize the event, but a single sentence might be justified. Nblund talk 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Medical Career

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I ask if more can be written here about his medical career? There used to be more. Jokem (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Move to change InfoBox header to "Dr. Ron Paul," or "Ron Paul, M.D."

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all - I move to change the InfoBox header or title to either "Dr. Ron Paul" or "Ron Paul, M.D." as right now all that is there is "Ron Paul." Are titles ok per WP policy? I realize we never put Mr. or Ms. etc. Once you are a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology I believe your title for life basically is Dr. xyz or First Last, MD, yes? Opinions, able to cite specific Policy articles? Thanks for your time. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Wikipedia generally doesn't use courtesy titles in its own voice. Dr Paul might be more correct than Mr Paul, but we don't call him Mr Paul anywhere, so there is nothing to change. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Vid2vid, except this article seems to be mostly about his political career. Almost nothing is said about his career in Medicine. Jokem (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
It's just not Wikipedia style. Compare three other physicians where their medical work is more central to their notability: Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin, Anthony Fauci. None of them gets Dr'ed or post-nominally MD'd in his article title, lead sentence, or infobox. (Fauci gets postnominal letters for his Italian knighthood, which I think is sorta silly, but there's a contingent of Wikipedians that go in for that sort of thing and it's probably not worth fighting them on it.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Paul/Archive_11&oldid=1157063378"