Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Newsletter Controversy

Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV

This is one of the most impressive (and longest) fluff pieces on WP. I especially admire the way the newsletter controversy has been deftly atomized and scattered so that it is hardly detectable. If this were anyone else, there would be a "Controversy" section dedicated to it, as there should be.

On the positive side, I get to point to this article as evidence against the supposed left-wing bias of WP. There's scarcely anyone to the right of Ron Paul, yet the apparent WP consensus is to treat him with fawning adulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey dumbass, where is the "controversy" section on Obama and his William Ayers connection, Rev Wright, or the controversy around his birth certificate, etc. Your problem is with the media, if they had persued this more than just one interview about it on cnn maybe it would be topical enough to be inclouded in Ron Paul's page. However it's a non-story. Go look for controversy sections in Obama's page, and many others and report back what you've found. You lose.

Neither Obama, Ayers, Wright, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Batman, Santa Claus, the Devil, your Grandma, nor any other red herring figure you may wish to name, have anything to do with my point regarding Ron Paul, who is the subject of this particular article.

Wrong again clown. Everything I mentioned has to do with Controversy, as in content related to Obama for instance, which is not mentioned in his wikipedia page. Similarly you will find many controversies are not mentioned in multiple politician wikipedia articles. I was not making a judgment about Obama, I was pointing out well known controversies that got about 10,000 times more media exposure than the newsletter controversy that ended after a single Wolf Blitzer interview. Take your personal vendettas to the slum pages like encyclopedia dramatica, or get all the controversies that were big news into the mainline articles before you complain about it here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.76.94 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, lack of objectivity, whether through obfuscation or omission, whether real or imagined, whether in articles on Obama, Blitzer, Donner, Dasher, Rudolph, Barney the Dinosaur, the Easter Bunny, the Wizard of Oz, or any other person, place or thing, has precisely zero to do with the same phenomenon here at this particular article on this particular subject, namely, one Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul. Have I clarified this point yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't so laughably moronic your case would almost be tragic and a thing to pity. The significance of media exposure is a key incentive to any controversy appearing on the final wikipedia edit of a politician's article. For you to cast this aside and ignore multifarious examples where items were reviewed hundreds of times more by the press but were exclouded from other candidate's pages is very telling. Again, if you want every controversy, inclouding this one, (that lasted by a single interview on CNN during the election), you should be crusading Obama's page with the same incentive to add controversies that you feel are ignored. Your lack of objectivity is evident below when you talk about NWO-tinged philosophy, etc and other strawmen, and in the fact that you take issue with a buried controversy as an injustice when much more prevalent ones are ignored. And you, or whoever else wants the newsletters added, is not even fully aware of the facts as is evident by Foofighter20x's reponse at the very bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.46.162 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to break through your veil of obtuseness one last time: John kills a man and is caught and brought to trial. John concedes moral responsibility for the killing, but argues that he ought not be punished until all previous killings be solved and the killers be brought to justice. The jury laughs at John and finds him guilty, and the media has the audacity to publish the story for everyone to see. John's friends never come to terms with John's crime, and defend his reputation to the bitter end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just the point though. Neither you, nor the media, have proved Paul authored the text. Paul denies it, though he admits he should have kept a more watchful eye on what was being published in a newsletter bearing his name in its title, thus ultimately he is responsible for the statements having been published. Those close enough to the situation to reasonably know who authored the texts have all pointed to Lew Rockwell. Those are the facts, kiddo.

Since you seem to like to argue by analogy, try this one: Bill Cross is a politico with rock-star stature in his own niche and also track-and-field athelete. After defeat in the primaries for an elected office, Cross goes back to doing his sport full-time, but gives his political acquantances the opportunity to use his name in order to cash in on his fame by attaching it to the title of a newsletter; they name it "Cross Country." Cross's acquintances run the newletter and write most of the text, though Cross contributes from time to time. Then, one day the acquantances, using then-present-day academic reports and sarcasm, make some highly questionable comments on a very sensitive topic. Since no one is really paying any attention, it goes unnoticed. However, one day Cross decides to run for public office again. His opposition does the standard dig for dirt and finds these questionable statements, and uses them out of context to make them 10 times worse than they would actually be. The media grabs the story and runs with it. However, every person who has met Cross and listened to him says that it just doesn't sound like something he would say or write. ... So, until you come up with better sources to back your assertions other than reading into articles what you are predisposed to believe, then all your ranting and raving amounts to nothing more that WP:OR and your opinion. And that's that.

Sorry if you disagree. We have to appreciate the likes of your type, though. If not for your intellectual kind, someone like Clarence Earl Gideon would never have been wrongly imprisioned; we would have never had the awesome, landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright; and we wouldn't have the right to counsel we all cherish so much today.

If you are going to fault Paul for anything, let it be for the poor handling of this whole mess. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch this flaw in the anon user's argument the first time I skimmed through it, but the analogy of "John kills a man and is caught and brought to trial" is not useful. In that example, Anon is assuming and asserting guilt and conveniently leaving out that ultimately the accused is contesting the charge. A more appropriate analogy would follow this example: a man was shot/killed with John's gun; at first John argues that the man deserved to be shot instead of pleading his innocence or revealing to whom he had given his gun; later he denies having fired the weapon, though he had occasionally used it for other purposes. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. However, after the first couple sentences I could see that you're overlooking the point of my seemingly endless attempts to say, simply, that THE SITUATION AT OTHER ARTICLES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ONE. I'm not here to argue about the authorship of the newsletters. I'm here to suggest that we might want to mention them in a distinct "Criticism" section, like we do on every other article (except those that the other IP will name shortly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Article does not explore the newsletter controversy thoroughly enough.

The Article Fails to mention that Ron Paul lied about his involvement in the newsletter,and changed his story over the years in order to cover his tracks as new information emerged.

For example. http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html This Article points out how Ron Paul defended the comments made in the newsletter when they first appeared. For example "Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation."(1),and furthermore Paul added ""If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said."(1)

The issue was then raised again in 1996,and Ron Paul once again defended the racist publications.

May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."(1).

Ron Paul would often state that his writings were being taken out of context,but after James Kirchick's angry white man Ron Paul suddenly changed his story,and denied all claims that he had any involvement. This is because Ron Paul new that the newsletter had inflammatory remarks aimed at African Americans and the LGBT community.

Because of this i think it is important to include both the angry white man article,and the reason article.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. History has proven that it is extremely difficult to add criticism to the articles of some politicians. Ron Paul has a VERY strong following on some corners on the Internet, and with Barack Obama having won the presidency, most of the people fighting this following have turned around and moved on. As a result, the criticism that used to be in this article, such as Ron Paul's rampant and inexcusable racism that has been retroactively attributed to mostly unidentified ghost writers, is almost completely gone and won't find its way back. Of course, you're just a guy who doesn't even sign his comments and I'm not even logged in (despite the fact I have an inactive account), but that's just because everybody who wants to keep his sanity has already given up. I myself have been wanting to fix this article up "after the election", because "things will have calmed down then", but now I don't care anymore about an idiotic political party whose viewpoints are either demonstrably stupid or indemonstrable but still highly dubious. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (a Very Very Angry Wikipedian...)

I appreciate your anger. Be that as it may, gangs of Wiki-thugs can't be allowed to run roughshod over the place. At least not without a few skirmishes now and then. You're right though, ultimately they will carry the day because they care more. And why? Because the subjects at hand are semi-religious in nature to them, but not to us. Examples of things that are several orders of magnitude more intensely supported online than in the real world: Young Earth creationism; Austrian School economics; NWO & Bilderberg conspiracy theories; etc. In a way, it's actually a positive thing that these ideas flourish (and sputter themselves out) in cyberspace, where they are kept relatively contained. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be added in regards to the newsletter issue.

In 2008 James Kirchick "angry white man" article revealed that Ron Paul's newsletters had made racist,sexist,and derogatory comments geared towards African Americans,women,and the LGBT community [1]. Ron Paul attempted to deny any involvement in an interview with CNN,but his attempt to cover up the newsletter failed when it was revealed that he had actually admitted to writing them,and he even defended the articles. "Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics." [2].

its rough,but ill leave like this with hopes that one day someone will clean it up and make it apart of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I've done what I can to tell the story as neutrally as possible. Hope this helps. Foofighter20x (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And before anyone accuses me of being one-sided, I'll have you know this: I voted for Paul. I gave the man $2300 for the primaries. I have Ron Paul T-shirts I still wear. Finally, I'm one of the moderators on ronpaulforums.com. Hope that shows my evenhandedness in this dispute. Foofighter20x (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address this earlier,but i think it would have been better if what i wrote was moved to the newsletter section. unfortunately what i wrote was completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No. What you wrote was used. I suggest you read the whole thing next time, hmm? There was already a sentence on the Kirchick article which was combined with yours. Also, the quote you used from the old 1996 article was even put in a blockquote. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What you need to realize though is that Ron Paul changed his story about the newsletters each time they were mentioned. At first he accepted responsibility and accused his opponent of taking his written commentaries out of context, but only until 2008 did he began to flat out deny any involvement.

I am going to make sure that the article points out how Ron Paul's statements surrounding the newsletters changed over time.

The Article also has this one sentence that needs to change: Paul was defended by a "shocked" Wolf Blitzer,[133] and by Nelson Linder, president of the Austin NAACP chapter.

Wolf Blitzer did not defend Ron Paul in the interview,and it was not Wolf Blitzer's job to do so. Furthermore Nelson Linder did not defend Ron Paul,and he changed his statements. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect.

1. Paul never admitted to authoring the articles, but still accepted responsibility for them. If you read the 96 news article themselves, any indication of admission are made in the narrative of the journalist, and not explicitly by Paul. In short, your assertion of Paul's admission of authorship is weak, at best. As the articles say, in toto, Paul only allowed his name to be used in the banner of the newsletter. Lew Rockwell was the author of the passages in question, which when put into the context of the article lose most of their preceived racist tone and come off mostly as sarcasm. The worst of the phrases was the "fleet of foot" comment, which is really a tongue-in-cheek compliment. When confronted by the media about the statements in 96, Paul admitted nothing. A campaign spokesman stated Paul still wrote the report, which is not an admission by Paul. Also, out of loyalty to his as-yet unnamed author (his friend Rockwell), Paul didn't out him. In 2001, he explained the story in full to Texas Monthly. In 2008, the accusation resurfaced and his story stayed the same as in 2001. The best that you can offer is the Oct 11 Houston Chronicle article which makes an weak and indirect claim against Paul. Where's a direct quote from Paul stating he said something to that effect verbatim, as opposed to a summarized narrative of the newspaper which characterizes a statement he made as such?
2. As to Wolf Blitzer, read the transcripted quote in note 133; what Blitzer says can fairly be read as a defense, though a weak one.
3. As to Nelson Linder, even if he made the statement as a private citizen, that does not change the fact that he was the President of the NAACP in Austin, TX and in no way warrants the removal of that fact so mentioned. That fact is actually a relevant detail to establishing why it's even included in the article in the first place. If Linder was just an average citizen and did not hold the position he did with the NAACP, then what would be the point of including his opinion?
4. Finally, please sign your remarks with a ~~~~. Also, you don't need to create a new section every time you respond. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No i am not incorrect about Ron Paul's involvement in the newsletter.

1. This is a joke,and especially so since Ron Paul clearly defended the article,and never denied that it was his written until this election.

2. It is important to know that Nelson Linder retracted his statements,becuase it shows that followers of Ron Paul misconstrued the man's statements in an attempt to show that Ron Paul was not a racist.

3. This page will never be neutral because their enough Ron Paul supporters that will never concede even a minor point. They attempt to erase or get rid of any criticisms even when it is only minor. I remember various times when i had to correct Ron Paul supporters on the funding of congressional medals. They claimed that Ron Paul voted against congressional medals because these medals were tax payer funded,but non-supporters had to point out that these medals were funded through the sales of replicas and were not tax payer funded. even after numerous explanations of how the US mint operates they still insisted that congressional medals were tax payer funded. If many of these Ron Paul supporters can not even concede a minor point then what is the likely hood that articles on the internet about ron paul are going to be balanced if they are being edited by their supporters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? He denied authoring the letter in 2001, caveating that he didn't deny in 96 since such an explanation would be confusing and distract from the real issues at hand in the election. Also of note, he never admitted to authorship at any time. I suggest you read the 2001 Texas monthly article for context.

Also, where is any cite for your assertion that Linder retracted his statement?

Finally, you talk about RP supporters not giving an inch, yet you fail to acknowledge the edits I've made to the article which both incorporated your suggested comments, and gathered the "atomized" parts of the article into one section (with the sole exception of the narrative of the 96 election, as it's needed there). So, really, where have I not conceded something? I'm starting to think you are just trolling. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

no i am not trolling,and do not call me troll just because i am raising a few issues that you may not agree with. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm This is the article that shows that Nelson linder did indeed retract his statements UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.

//he never admitted to authorship at any time.// he never denied authorship,and furthermore he defended the newsletters remarks numerous times in other interviews made with local newspapers in the early-mid 90's.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793 the article makes frequent references in the first person, talking about Ron Paul's personal experiences, and even makes references to previous articles on the subject of race. Second, the article makes reference to "expert Burt Blumert." Blumert is a coin dealer, as well as a close, personal friend of Ron Paul.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-lied-about-not-being.html This article is also written in the first person and the blog points out how Ron Paul did more then just edit the newsletter,but also authored some of the articles. Iam showing you blogs,but all of this information can be found in local newspapers,and the news letter itself. Perhaps Ron Paul did not author all of the content in his newsletter,but at various times he did write his own articles,and has editor it was easy for him to include them.

Perhaps the best example comes from the January 1991 edition, where Ron Paul writes that:

In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf Why in the world would the writer bring this specific incident up, unless it actually happened to him, and unless he was still bitter over the experience? And who else could this experience have happened to, other than Ron Paul?

However, even if these pieces were written by a ghostwriter, it still wouldn't matter. The point is that Ron Paul signed off on them and never offered a retraction, which suggests that at the very least, he would have agreed with them.

you suggest that i should have read the texas monthly article in order to understand the context or whatever. The whole newsletter issue rests upon whether or not Ron Paul was involved,and if he was involved then to what extent. Thus it is important to include as much evidence as possible that not only outlines Ron Paul's involvement,but also shows his varying degrees of involvement. The evidence shows that Ron Paul not only singed off on the newsletter,but also provided his own writings.

Ron Paul's 2001 version of events sounds very heart-felt. Unfortunately, his story doesn't mesh with past events. Here is what Ron Paul was saying five years earlier, in a 1996 edition of the Austin Chronicle:

In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too. http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.html

For the record, Barbara Jordan passed away earlier in that very same year. Ron Paul's story for the Texas Monthly may sound sympathetic, but it isn't supported by past events. If he's felt any regret over his comments, then it doesn't seem to show here.

furthermore why would anyone put the blame on lewrockwell if Ron Paul already made statements that basicaly said that " I was the writer and editor"? This does not make any sense how could lewRockwell be responsible if Ron Paul already claimed responsibilty? the only way this could ever be possible is if Ron Paul and Lewrockwell are the same people,and the only way this could happen is if the individual were a shape shiffting reptilian that works for the Illuminati.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

and their is allott more but whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First link: No byline. No proof of anything other than being in the newletter. No proof of authorship.

Second link: Manages to highlight specific self references in a few newsletters, but only to show portions of those newletters refered to Paul specifically. What is notably missing from that page is scans of the whole page that connect that particular issue to the specific comments. Also fails to show if a special byline appeared over those pages which didn't appear over articles with questionable statements. I find it rather odd the blog you cite has failed to show the newsletter in full. If they have enough to scan a page, they have enough to scan the whole document.

Third link: Nothing in that article is incorrect, especially the allegations of immoral behavior. See Martin Luther King, Jr.#Legacy. The work the newsletter cites, that of David Garrow, won the Pulitzer Prize. Thus it appears the newsletter was citing a reliable source. Also, when one employs a ghostwriter, third person statements can easily be changed to first person. Don't agree? Just watch how easy it is...

I am a left-of-Lenin liberal who has no clue how to critically weigh evidence or analyze arguments in order to arrive at an obvious conclusion. To make up for this personal deficiency, I try to vandalize Wikipedia pages with content that's been long settled. Also, I don't know how to sign my comments; it's kind of embarassing considering how easy it is... Sadly, I can't spell "a lot." At least my mom thinks I'm cool. Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. It must be difficult for you to admit all that.

Fourth link: Again, nothing about Paul specifically authoring text, nor any statement of admission by Paul. Article accuses Paul of authorship, yet provides no proof.

Fifth link: Production of a newsletter does not imply direct authorship. I produce Wikipedia, same as you. Doesn't mean either of us are teh authors of valdalist edits... You really need to take a logic course at your local college. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing through and saw this thread - this has been extensively discussed here in the past - see the Talk archives. Ron Paul's name was on the newsletters; some had a personal note from him and his wife included; and he took responsibility for them. Any attempt to whitewash this has no place in this article. Tvoz/talk 09:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point. The article as it was when this discussion started hid the controversy by breaking it up into several small pieces sprinkled through the article. Those who objected to this had a fair point, so I edited the article to group them together, and only changed the narrative enough to merge everything together while staying true as possible to what was already in the article. I even added what was suggested in this discussion that wasn't WP:OR or blatantly pushed a specific point-of-view to such an extent as to violate WP:NPOV. Their trick here though is to do it in such a subtle way as to be tantamount to manipulation. For example: claiming Paul lied; that Paul defended "his" articles, not "the" articles; claiming Paul "changed his story" when it can be equally argued that he never had a story to begin with, explained it later, and then stuck by that explanation; that blame has been assigned "retroactively"; that a lack of denial is proof of admission; also, consider how mangled the chronology of the narrative of those attacking Paul is; claiming Paul "signed off" on the passages when Paul himself contests that fact (which is why he says he's morally responsible, in that he should have been signing off on the newsletters, meaning he should have played a more active role in the publication, which would have stopped statements like this from being published in the first place); claiming Paul "basically made statements" saying he was the author and editor when no such statements exist (also, the qualification of "basically" screams that this is Hoffman's judgment and personal opinion); claiming that Paul wrote the letter and then upon that presumption asking how Rockwell could have been the author.

All of these show that these guys are coming here with their presupposed notions with, at best, very tenuous support. As I've said before and illustrated above, while Paul is morally responsible for the publication of the passages (which even Paul admits), none of his actions at any time have fundamentally been inconsistent with his explanation. Not denying authorship is not equivalent to admitting authorship (this is simple logic). Defending the passages as taken out of context is not an admission or affirmation of authorship. Stating he produced, wrote, or contriubted to the newsletter is not direct proof of authorship, nor can it even firmly prove indirect authorship (imagine an auto exec saying he "makes cars" for a living; such a statement doesn't mean he's specifically down on the assembly line installing parts; it's a general reference to a complex process, not a specific admission to responsibility to every step included therein; in the same vein, imagine a NYT editor saying he writes a newspaper for a living). Not offering a retraction is not equivalant to ratifying or even agreeing with the statments (again, simple logic).

There's an old Wendy's commercial with a bunch of old ladies inspecting competitor's burgers. They ask: Where's the beef? Indeed, Hoffman, where's the substance of your argument? You offer what a philosophy professor friend of mine calls a "slender reed", in that it's so flimsy a supposrt as to not be capable of supporting the argument. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I meant that comment as supportive to what you've done, Foo, if I didn't say that clearly. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The beef is easy to come by. The newsletter has his name emblazoned on it and was published by his organization. That is damning enough for 90% of the population. Burzmali (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of a byline. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

←No, I don't agree about bylines - in the absence of bylines, something called "Ron Paul's Blah blah", sent over his name, has to be assumed to be written by him or in his name which amounts to the same thing, as Burzmali said. I have not been following this article closely for a while, because frankly I couldn't take it. So I really don't know how you'all got to this point, having only noticed this recent thread and I don't want to get into it. But I want to be clear about my hurried note in the middle of the night last night: My position always was that while I don't know who literally wrote each of the words, as far as I'm concerned the newsletters were called "Ron Paul's" in the title, I recall seeing at least one, maybe more, that included a first-person note from Paul and his wife - as in, "my wife Carol and I wish you a happy new year" or something like that - first person, strongly and deliberately implying his direct authorship of the entire document or conceivably that ghostwriters wrote it but that it all was being sent out as Ron Paul's ideas/positions/words, and he has taken responsibility for them in the past literally and more recently in a moral way. In the absence of any bylines assigning authorship to anyone else, then, it is entirely appropriate to assume that Paul is in effect the author as he is responsible for what they said, and in fact I'd say it was likely that whoever wrote them at least believed that these were his beliefs. So I think the point is moot about who took pen to paper - these newsletters are Ron Paul's and they went on for a long time, speaking in his name. So I don;t see what the argument is exactly. It's great that now he is appalled by some of the ideas and language, but honestly it doesn't matter - for all intents and purposes they're his. What I was and am supportive of is including the explanation about the authorship controversy, because it was notable during the campaign (and may have contributed to the fizzling out of his support in some camps). Tvoz/talk 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I said above: yes, the report is named after him, and yes, there were references to the author using the self-reference of "I"; but while it can be strongly infered from that reference that Paul was the author, it's only been shown so far to have occurred in one issue, and is limited to statements of "how I voted" and "my wife and I." As indicative of authorship as that could be, it is still not proof of authorship. A ghostwriter would certainly be familiar with Paul's wife's name and Paul's voting record. As I showed above, it doesn't take much effort for a ghostwriter to write things from the first-person view and narrative of who the author is supposed to be. As far a Paul's version of events go, even this is consistent with Paul's account, and is not proof to the otherwise. For all we know, Paul dispatched a letter from TX to Rockwell in AL summarizing what he'd like in the newsletter, such as a story on military waste and a mention of how he voted, and also a holiday greeting; then, Rockwell did the rest, without input or approval. It in no way supports assertions of Paul authoring the whole newsletter from those few passages that could have easily been written by a ghostwriter. Tvoz, I nominate you to clean up the rest of the article concerning this. (No good deed goes unpunished.) Foofighter20x (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah - "if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" ... or, "thanks, but no thanks" ... either way, been there, done that. I'm afraid you'll have to find some other soul. Tvoz/talk 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ok whatever this is not my opinion

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html

Ron Paul never directly stated that he was the Author,but he did say that they were his written commentaries. Just because he does not use the word Author does not mean that he was not the Author. For example when i say that i wrote something i do not need to say "yes i was the Author".--Hoffmanjohn (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's the writer of the article who attributed the writing to Paul with the word "his" and is not Paul claiming them as his own. Keep trying. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

LoL. Foofighter20x you are a legend.

scanned newspaper article where Paul admits ownership and defends writings

• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OTsKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3075,4519477&dq=ron-paul+newsletter

After reading the article, I see no admission by Paul. I do see a defense by Paul, and a bunch of statments and quotes from Mike Sullivan, Paul's '96 campaign press secretary, but I see no claim of ownership by Paul. Care to point out what it is exactly that leads you to believe Paul directly admitted authorship? Foofighter20x (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like his press secretary attributes the comments to RP, that is significant and should make it onto the article.--scuro (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are reading what you want to see into the article. If Paul's press secretary said in anyway that the writings were Paul's, you'd see an entirely different story. Just looking at the text, it is the reporter stating the writings are Paul's, colored by statements from the press secretary claiming the media and the Democratic opposition are taking statements made in a newletter bearing Paul's name out of context, and are the ones who ought to apologize. I think I'm more disappointed that you guys believe everything you read in newspapers. Take a few courses on modern journalism and realize that editors will do what they can to scandalize and sex up a story as much as possible. It's all a game to increase circulation. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is in the article, in the section about the 1996 campaign. But I think it would be wrong to add it to the 2008 controversy, unless it came up at that time, even if it should have come up. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Legislation

1. we the people act(clearly violates due process)
2. Voted againts the voting rights act but at the same time he also voted for the misleading "Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006." This bill would basically create voter suppression at a national level.
3. Would have voted against the CRA
4. has consistently voted against congressional medals despite the fact that they are not funded through tax payer dollars like Ron Paul claims. --Hoffmanjohn (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So... what changes to the article need to be made? JazzMan 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Nice little opinion piece here, I'll entertain - the WTP act would prevent the courts from ruling on some material that the 10th amendment delegates authority to the states. The purpose is to keep the power of the states isolated from the power of the federal government. It however does not prevent the courts from hearing anything regarding constitutionality. Basically this keeps judges from going on a power trip and pseudo-legislating on things the fed has no authority over, or is it's intended purpose, there is a wiki article on it at wiki/We_the_People_Act. The FEI act of 06 only 'creates voter suppression at a national level' for illegal immigrants and anyone else not capable of providing some form of identification - it does not appear to create any problems for anyone who is a legal citizen because of the provision that says
2. "Requires states to establish a program to provide photo IDs in accordance with this Act to individuals who desire to vote but do not otherwise possess a government-issued photo ID."
3. Without this it would simply be a matter of the government only issuing ID's to people who they want to vote, but they can't legally do that anyways, and this bill reiterated it.
4. The CRA is the exact kind of bill that exacerbated the housing crisis by forcing businesses to do things they wouldn't normally do, this is in direct opposition to everything Ron Paul believes in and espouses. Not exactly controversial material there either.
5. Not sure what to say about the Congressional Medal thing - usually he does odd things that he normally wouldn't care about / support just to make a point - like when he asked congress to declare war for the iraq war, instead of just delegating its power to the executive branch, because it would atleast be constitutional.76.84.48.122 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It could potentially limit the rights of individuals that are protected under the "equal protection clause",and so forth. Many Libertarians have been very critical of those individuals with in the movement that suggest that state rights should be absolute.

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), sexual practices (see Lawrence v. Texas), and same-sex unions, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act#cite_note-rhodes-0

Furthermore i was talking about Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil rights act,and not the community reinvestment act. --Hoffmanjohn (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

by the way i disagree with those who think that community reinvestment act had anything to do with this crisis for several reasons.

1. Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office.
2. It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
3. 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.” --Hoffmanjohn (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So... what changes to the article need to be made? JazzMan 06:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, look at the discussion above. He's come here to argue, not to add anything substantive, whether for good or for ill, to the article. I tried to meet him halfway on the newsletter thing, but apparently it just wasn't good enough because it wasn't exactly what he wanted. Besides, Randi Rhodes is hardly a reliable source for any substantive discussion of Constitutional Law in regards to Due Process, especially when considering that Air America was the left's attempt at an answer to the right's media joke that is Fox News. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fansite

After going through the archives, I too would agree that the article reads like a fansite. The article should get a fansite tag or as a bare minimum a pov tag. Does anyone else agree?--scuro (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really just the early life and family sections that are the problem, and some of the information should be deleted. But the rest of the article is mainly about Paul's political positions and electoral history. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those sections are gushing in their admiration, a good tweaking could solve that. I see the problem being that viewpoints are put in a very positive light...which is pov pushing. The overall sense of the article I get is that he is a great mainstream type politician doing great things. But he is a bit of a controversial figure, a lightening rod of sorts. He is very opinionated and some of his viewpoints are controversial, if not way out there. One doesn't get that sense of the man from the article. His policies are not covered well either. For instance his take on entitlements, Ron Paul does not think that anyone should receive entitlements from the federal government, including those with disabilities. RP is very much a media guy and he is not shy to state an opinion, but the article fluffs or steers away from controversial material.--scuro (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many of Paul's positions and votes are listed, but there is little mention of his major beliefs, like dismantling most of the US federal government. However he said that many entitlements would continue because it would be unfair to end them before alternatives could be developed. One of the interesting things about his campaigns is the attraction to extremists, which I think is explained by his intention of abolishing institutions and laws that they associate with oppression. Paul was the subject of a chapter in "Against Long Odds" (Merriner, Senter, 1999) which covered his 1996 campaign, but unfortunately there is no other serious biography of him. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just tag the sections that are the most hagiographic. It may cause some drive-by IP edit-warring from Ron Paul fans, but it really needs to be fixed, and a tag is perhaps the fastest way to get it fixed. LK (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will tag a section or two of the most blatant gushing sections. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JIwxhRfug Here is a campaign video from the last election. I see no mention of tempering the cut to all entitlements. 4D can you cite the case you made about entitlements? --scuro (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the content of the fansite page. It's used for pop culture/fiction pages. This is an inappropriate use of the tag as it falls far beyond its scope. While I agree the detail to which his early life is described, that doesn't make it a fansite, it just makes is unnecessarily detailed. Feel free to pare it down, but don't call it something it's not. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to that describes what a fansite is. After reading it, I agree with you, the banner shouldn't be used. My apologies. WP:BLPSTYLE I would like you to look at the bio-style page. After reading that, the RP doesn't look to have a neutral point of view. Thoughts? --scuro (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro - Here's an earlier youtube video that explains phasing out entitlements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNs4jbUjgg (Dec. 19, 2007) Note that he is talking about federal entitlements. I am not familiar with his writings however which might be a better guide. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro could you tackle the Obama wikipedia article, it is brimming with fansite material and convienently ignoring controversies, it would be really appreciated thank you for your courageous mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This page is not neutral at all.

1. Ron Paul may have never been listed as author, but this does not mean that none of the writings were not his. I am not going to say that Ron Paul wrote every article included in the newsletter,but it is obvious that he did write the MLK piece,and a few other things(that he signed off on,and approved of). Ron Paul may have been listed as editor,but he did contribute to the newsletter with his own writings. Furthermore even if Ron Paul never authored a single page it still does not mean that he was absent from deciding what went into the newsletter. This is because Ron Paul was the editor and thus had a final say into what went into the newsletter,and what stayed out of the newsletter.

Furthermore before the CNN interview Ron Paul not only defended the newsletter but he also took responsibility for the written commentaries. For example:

This article basically bashes MLK,but during the recent presidential campaing Ron Paul pretended that MLK was his hero. Perhaps he said this because he knew that his opposition to the CRA would make him appear racist. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house." http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf

This article is basically full of gay bashing,but it also has the words "Copy Right 1990 Ron Paul& Associates". Many Ron Paul supporters may try to claim that Ron Paul would never actually say these things,or that they may claim"Ron Paul would never force his personal views on the Gay community". Of course anyone who has read "we the people act" might start to think twice about Ron Paul's views on the "homosexual agenda" http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf

1. Ron Paul has changed his story several times,and it keeps getting different whenever the local or national media uncovers more newsletter documents. First Paul claims that his written commentaries were "taken out of context",and then years later he claims that it was a "ghost writer who was eventually fired". Eventually during the CNN interview Ron Paul claimed that he never new what was in that newsletter despite his earlier claims of "firing the ghost writer" or claiming that his written commentaries were being taken out of "context".
2. The newsletter is an important issue because Ron Paul claims that MLK was his hero,but the newsletter suggests other wise. Even If the newsletter did not exist then Ron Paul will still have to explain his logic behind his opposition to "Martin Luther King Day". He voted against the holiday in 1979 and it would appear that associate professor Andrew Austin at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay found such evidence in the paris news. The scans can be found on this page http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-voted-nay-to-mlk-day.html
3. Ron Paul even mentions his opposition to MLK holiday in his newsletter. He writes "In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday."http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf In other words not only is Ron Paul whining about a personal experience,but he is also stating that he indeed opposed the holiday. (We already know that Ron Paul opposed the holiday and the proof of this comes from the post above )
4. Ron Paul was mainly the editor, but why would he hire someone else to write about his personal experiences if he could just do that himself? After all it his newsletter and being an editor does not mean you are going to be absence from adding written commentaries. --Hoffmanjohn (talk)

The article actually does mention the newsletter controversy, in fact an entire section is dedicated to it. Adding commentary on Paul's responses would actually make the article NPOV. If you want to add details about Paul's vote on the MLK holiday, you should add the reasons he gave. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

pov tag added for these reasons

The changes that need to be made is a significant pruning, and then the creation of balance through the examination and insertion of what he really believes in...that hasn't made it onto the article. WP:BLPSTYLE For instance, Ron Paul believes that all federal entitlements should be eliminated. That would mean cutting off everyone on welfare or any form of disability. That is a MAJOR policy platform, yet it isn't mentioned in the article. The article reads like a gushing piece of cotton candy. RP is a controversial figure and one hardly gets the sense of that.--scuro (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, because believing in following the Constitution is really controversial for an American politician.--E tac (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear you are starkly overestimating the impact of RP's concept of ending federal welfare.

1) Just because a federal welfare program might be rolled back doesn't mean everyone receiving benefits would get cut from welfare or any form of disability; Congress would still have authority to provide such services to residents in the military, federal lands and territories, and D.C. So, obviously, your charaterization of "everyone" is just exaggerated. Hell, it wouldn't even be "most people".

2) State welfare programs would still exist. You offer nothing to show they would implode without federal support. Most state welfare programs receive only a small fraction of their funds from federal grants-in-aid, and that money is only offered by Congress because some Congressman feel the need to tell every state how to run their local affairs through the use of conditional grants-in-aid (a.k.a. money with strings) instead of letting the locals figure it out themselves.

3) Additionally, it isn't the rich who pay for social security or medicare/aid; it's the workers. You only pay FICA taxes on somehwere around the first $103K, after which point you pay nothing. It's a regressive tax. It burdens the poor. I see your point, I guess: Ron Paul is bad because he doesn't want to burden the poor with a unsustainable federal welfare program. Right.

4) Imagine you had an extra 6.2% of income in your pocket. If you earn $25K, that's an extra $1550 you get to keep, that you could save or invest in a 401k, or in your own business, or in your own education. It also means you have an extra $1550 that your state could just as well and equally tax away from you for their state programs. I'd imagine people in your own state have more wherewithal about what's going on in your area than some D.C. bureaucrat, and thus would be better able to manage the situation. Not to mention that state governments are much more responsive to popular opinion than the federal government.

5) As E tac said, it isn't really a major policy platform. It's instead based upon Paul's adherance to what is arguably the most reasonable, least tortured, and most grammatically reading of the Constitution. Some politicos out there with their own agenda read what they want into the Constitution; they see the words general welfare as some sort of all encompassing prize and treat the rest of the document's text as some sort of puzzle they have to work around to get at the GWC. Simple fact is that the GWC is not a grant of power: it's a limitation upon the use of the taxing power. As it's not a grant of power, it honestly shouldn't be interpreted to have some implicit grant of a spending power. As such, the "Taxing and Spending Clause" ought to just be called the "Taxing Clause". And once one registers that there is no spending power in that TASC, any support for a power to spend for the general welfare evaporates. Where would Congress have authority to spend then, you might ask? The Necessary and Proper Clause is the obvious and common sense place to place such a power. But if you rely on that, then you have to admit one can only spend to execute the foregoing powers; i.e., you can only spend to enforce the taxing power. Spending for the general welfare was dreamed up by Hamilton, who had no hand in the drafting of that part of the Constitution, and his views were repudiated in 1800, which lasted for a handful of generations. It was only after the progressives and the New Dealers resurrected this tortured logic to implement their agenda that we got to where we are now.

I suggest you read more about this than whatever left-of-Lenin spewage you happen to pick up from DailyKos. Educate yourself. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned why I felt that article is biased. That RP has stated that he would eliminate federal entitlements was only an example of one significant viewpoint not mentioned in the article. How you read such viewpoint or how any contributor reads such a viewpoint means squat. It is significant because it is so different and notable from the viewpoint of mainstream presidential candidates and as such should at least be mentioned. Your lengthy retort in talk while interesting, has not changed any of the bias of the article. By bias I mean proper weighting, and by proper weighting I mean over stating certain things, understating certain things, and excluding other significant things. Finally I would appreciate tags not being unilaterally being removed, and talk happening AFTER the deletion. That is not the way things are supposed to work around here, it shows bad faith. Your personal characterizations of what I should do, don't know, and biases I have also shows bad faith. I'm hoping that we can be a little more civil in the future, it makes life so much more easier. --scuro (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article already says he favors a reduction in federal spending as well as eliminating most federal agencies.--E tac (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are skirting around the main issue of bias and even skirting around the minor issue that he stated all federal entitlements should be eliminated.--scuro (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, you have stated that the article "reads like a gushing piece of cotton candy". Could you please expand on this? Additionally, I don't see how the one example you used (entitlements) really constitutes bias, could you explain that as well? I've read over the article and, to me, it seems more "factual" than "gushing", though depending on your political views you might view some of the facts as praise or condemnation. If you could expand your position it would help me understand your point, and hopefully would keep us out of the nitty-gritty about what XYZ amendment really *means*. Thanks, JazzMan 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated: I see you somewhat addressed my second question in your post above. I will update my question: since his view on entitlements are only a subset of his view on the Constitution, why is it bias to leave them out? The article has already mentioned that he wants to remove the federal income tax as well as the Federal Reserve; is in necessary to include *every* ramification of being a strict constitutionalist? If not, why focus on this one issue? JazzMan 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, Of course the article gushing, its authors are largely his fans. For every unsupported sentence I remove like "Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels;[81] (Ron Paul's own words) [157] (antiwarpresident.com, a bastion of independent journalism to be sure)" two more will be added. Most neutral editors just want to deal with the atmosphere around these shrines. Burzmali (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The gushing piece of cotton candy remark was hyperbole, my bad Still the piece is significantly biased. A good part of the problem is formating...padding also looks to be an issue. Take a look at the Obama article for format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama In that intro, they start with his major accomplishments and avoid establishing policy and position. Policy gets lots of play in the RP intro and but then is regulated to near the last subsection on the main article. Childhood/family life really shouldn't be the openning subsection of the article, and these details are given far too much weight for the size of the article. I'd expect that amount of detail in a biography. Next there looks to be couching going on. Things should be said in plain English. Does Ron Paul see himself as a libertarian? If so lets run with that and not circle around planes in a holding pattern. Does RP believe that all federal entitlements should be eliminated, then say so in plain english. This should be encyclopedic after all. How important are the books he wrote and the movement?...and why? Spell out the importance first and then follow with the details. Same with his political career...start with the recent presidential run and work backwards. Finally there is controversy...or the perception of controversy. RP believes he wasn't given a fair shake. Spell it out simply.

Finally look at this snippet for a microcosm of what is wrong with this article: "Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. was founded in 1984 by Ron Paul who served as President, Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr. served as Vice President, Ron Paul's wife Carol served as Secretary and Lori Pyeatt as Treasurer. The corporation was dissolved in 2001". What does this tell us about RP? It is like a resume entry. Do we need to know what corporate positions everyone held when we know little about the orgainzation or it's notability?--scuro (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the Obama article is your standard, then leaving the article in chronological order ought to be left alone. As I've said above, I believe the article is unnecessarily detailed; however, a lot of editors who don't like the main for partisan reasons come here a lot to snipe at Paul. Most of the stuff they add is conjectural or accusatory where no one has been able to ever prove anything. That's my big concern. All I ask is each editor treat the dude fairly, which seems to be beyond their ability. I tried to work with Hoffmanjohn, who thought the newsletter thing ought to be included, but offered no proof other than press accounts which tell a narrative, but offer nothing conclusory or dispositive of who did what and when. The article is a mess, yes, but I think these revisions need to be a group effort rather than one person just ebarking out on their own. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't get is that the user who demands that it needs a POV tag said that it requires one because the article is apparently omitting information, not because of the tone or anything specific about what is written in the article. Wouldn't it be easier to add the factual information to the article that they claim is missing first instead of tagging the article as POV in an atempt to discredit the whole thing? I am going to remove the tag and until someone can provide a good reason as to why it should stay I will continue to do so. Also if you want to bring up the Obama article as a shining example of non POV ask yourself this why does this article include the newsletter controversey yet there is not one word about Bill Ayers or Jerimiah Wright on Obama's article.--E tac (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the more I read about policy, the more I realize those editors here complaining about a lack of neutrality and tossing out Wikipedia policies clearly haven't read them.

1) WP:BLP - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2) WP:BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

3) WP:BLP - The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit...

Note: while the news clippings and accusations are out there, no editor here has ever offered much proof of anything about the contested newsletters; anything they have put forth is clearly a violation of WP:Synth.

4) WP:NPOVD - The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

I could go on and on, but I think I'm good there. You guys ought to get the point by now. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with eliminating poorly sourced material, especially if it is discussed in talk first. I'll be the first one to remove such material. I believe you are making reference to the RP report which has been well documented by mainstream news sources. WP:BLP has no problem with that. The article needs cleaning up. Either a majority agrees or they don't agree. If a majority doesn't agree, then the POV tag is warranted. If a majority does agree then lets role up the sleeves. Granted I'm biased on the issue but then again so is everyone else. This page is a project for me, I'm purposefully working outside of my normal field of interest here and want to seriously work in a collaborative way. I'm no expert on RP or libertarianism but that shouldn't matter.--scuro (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro the problem is you are an intellectual midget with a clearly biased and one-dimensional agenda. Your ignorance of the welfare system as it relates to Paul's policies is clearly showcased, and to call this a "gushing cotton candy" piece when the newsletter controversy is listed should automatically disqualify you from making edits on this page let alone tagging it as a POV. A POV article? How dare you. Contrast Ron Paul's page to President Obama's, and show me where Bill Ayers or Jerimiah Wright are listed, for starters. The latter controversy got innumerable more press coverage during the election, where is the tic for tac here? I don't know exactly what your egotistical ploy is but this page is not some pet "project" you can scurry into and dominate and dumb down with your half-baked assertions without a fight.

Speaking of focusing on what RP actually espouses compared to rhetoric - he does want to abolish the illegal federal so-called 'life support' systems, but frequently states how that since alot of people are dependent on these programs that we need to quickly implement plans to ween people off of it, first by using the money saved by ending the american empire to contribute to paying everyone currently forced into the welfare system back, then by switching the plan to an optional one, then effectively terminating it after paying people back with the understanding that they can move on to a private system. (source:'the revolution: a manifesto' and almost every time he speaks in detail about his ideas); it seems like the critics dont want the article to be devoid of opinion, merely replace the light positive opinion with their own negative opinions. 76.84.52.147 (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reaction was a bit like a blowfish there bigboy. Let me know when you want to communicate.--scuro (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Congressional Record as a Self Published Source

While revising the section on Paul's political positions, I've noticed that we are frequently citing the Congressional Record to support his positions. Since the Congressional Record is only a transcript of the discussions that take place in Congress, wouldn't it be considered a self published source? For example, how is "He also opposes the federal War on Drugs,[169] (sourced to CR)" any better sourced than a politician calling himself tough on crime in a speech? I've tried to balance where I could adding "he believes" to some sentences, but a lot of the political positions section is sourced to his own words either in interviews, his website, or on the CR. Burzmali (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See, stuff like this is why I don't take you seriously. Is the Congressional Record a self-published source? Too funny.

Also, this wouldn't be the place to get an answer to that question. Instead, you ought to ask that on the WP:SPS talk page. However, be prepared to get ridiculed there for a question like this... Foofighter20x (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I took your advice and posted the question at WP:V's talk page. So far, the opinion is that the CR is a good source for exactly what was said and when, but not the validity of what was said. Paul says he opposes the war on drugs, and the article linked in the reference supports that, but to satisfy WP:RS we really need to find a better source if we are to omit "Paul says" from that sentence. Burzmali (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, The Congressional Record is not a self-published source. It is an official government publication and is not published by Rep. Ron Paul (which should be your first clue that it is not a self-published source.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the article that the reference (164 at the moment, I believe) links to. I reads more like he wrote it and his position allowed him to put it on the website. While that isn't the pure definition of a SPS, he did write it and then use his position to publish it... Burzmali (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked at it and I don't see any problem. The cite is used back the claim that Rep. Paul is opposed to the "war on drugs". The cited source, an opinion piece by Rep. Paul, supports the claim that Rep. Paul is opposed to the "war on drugs". As for your charge that "he did write it and then use his position to publish it", well, of course he did. Just like any editorial writer at any newspaper that writes an opinion piece then uses his position to get it published. That is not at all the same as publishing something oneself. L0b0t (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's just my cynicism about believing anything that comes out of a politician's mouth then. I don't have a problem saying that "Ron Paul has stated that he opposes the war on drugs", or something similar, but the definitive "Paul opposes the war on drugs" sounds a little too strong to be based on nothing more than one of his speeches. Burzmali (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about maintaining an attitude of cynicism and doubt when politicians are speaking. I would contend, however, that Rep. Paul is one of the all too rare examples (alongside Rep.Flake and Rep. Kucinich) of a politician who says what he believes, believes what he says, and sticks to his principles. Furthermore an opinion piece written by Rep. Paul, about an opinion held by Rep. Paul, is a verifiable, reliable source for the opinion of Rep. Paul regardless of the publisher or the circumstances of its publication. You do raise a good point though. Would you be more comfortable with the addition of cites to other examples of Rep. Paul's opinion of the "war on drugs"? I seem to recall he sponsored a bill in 2007 that would have, amongst other things, removed commercial hemp from the statutory definition of marijuana. I'll see if I can find a link to the bill. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get too star struck, Paul's been called out in the past for playing politics by saying one thing and doing another. One trick he pulls is adding pork to bills that are sure things and then voting against them to keep his street cred. Tim Russert took him to the mat on that one. He also submits a huge number of bills, but doesn't do anything to move them through Congress. Sure he sponsored the bill but all he did was present it on the House floor and then watch it die a slow death in committee. For the record, I don't doubt that Paul truly opposes the war on drugs, but if this article is ever going to make FA, linking to his own words and quixotic bill writing won't cut it. Burzmali (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. What sort of sourcing would satisfy you? Generally the published opinion of the subject of an article is considered a reliable source for the opinions of the subject of the article. Please let me know what kind of cites you are looking to see here. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is www.ontheissues.org considered a RS? If so this should work for some of those statements. Burzmali (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more cites, Granite Staters For Medical Marijuana, Send The Right Message.org, and a link to the bill Rep.Paul introduced to allow commercial hemp cultivation [3]. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul and the Don Black (white supremacist) contribution

Did I miss this in the archives? http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpauldonblack.jpg --scuro (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So a racist gave him money, and Ron Paul refused to give it back. I don't see this as a real problem for Paul, but as small-minded people trying to play racial politics. Let me pose a question: if Louis Farrakhan gave a campaign donation to Barack Obama, would you have him refuse it, or would you have Obama openly disavow the views of the man who gave him the money, and then subsequently have Obama use it for his own noble purposes? Why give the money back to some one who may then use it for their own ignoble ideas when you can use their own money they've given you against them? Foofighter20x (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like how the person who posted this didn't reference the fox news Neil Cavuto clip where Ron Paul explains the circumstances around this donation and clears up the matter pretty effiecently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because a politician would never spin an event like that? Burzmali (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, really... now you're just being cynical. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

About a politician? Surely you jest ;) Seriously, Don Black made the donation, the news reported it, Ron Paul spun the issue, and the news reported it. In the end, it's a wash. Since the New York Times didn't suggest that accepting the donation made him a racist, neither should we. Burzmali (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If we suggested things outside of the realm of media coverage and biographical fact then this would be a POV article, remember? Seriously, what is he spinning? You would rather have had him take someone else's donation by the time it was found out and give it back to Don Black? When you send money to a political campaign it's for the ideals of that movement, not vice versa. Last time I checked Ron Paul's campaign does not have racist ideals. Your guilt by association argument is laughably inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be suggested from a contributor. Simply state the facts, if someone feels that more should then that should be said, then find a good news source that states as much and quote that source. If you can't find a good source that makes inferences keep it sweet and simple.--scuro (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Scuro I would just like to ask you something seriously, and I will not insult your intelligence. I honestly want to know your opinion on this. We are talking about a dead news story, literally a single-day controversy that was cleared up, that doubtfully even constitutes the word "controversy"...yet why is it that on President Obama's wikipedia article there is no mention of the Rev Wright or Bill Ayers controversies that got innumerable news stories..there are literally countless "good news sources" on those issues, it was a tangible part of his campaign, yet they are not even mentioned. I am not even talking about inferences on the President's character, I mean simply mentioning these well-documented and talked about moments. How does that willful exclusion not count as a POV by the editors of that page? And you have cited it as an example of a balanced article? Please clear this up for me.

I haven't really taken the time to research it. How much of a none news story was it? Who covered it? Frankly, I'm a one article guy now. I look but don't touch the other ones. RP is my article for the time being. The Obama page? You may have a point, I've heard of those issues. Bring it up on that talk page, see what they say. My role is not that of a judge, I don't have to balance different articles. I'm just here to improve this article. Some of my ideas will end up in the trash, but the exercise of examining this article more closely is not a waste of time. Do you have a name, it helps me remember viewpoints better if I can connect them to a name.--scuro (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My question thus is: What substance does this really add to the article? What does it say about RP himself versus what it says about those who would bring this up in the first place? Again, this is an issue where where his political opponents are simply trying to paint him as a racist when its generally accepted he's hardly that at all. This isn't worth any but the most partisan reader's time, nor Wikipedia's storage space and bandwidth. If they really want this information, let them go dig it up on DailyKos.

To back up this opinion, I'll cite WP policy to that effect. WP:BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Scuro: It was literally one single fox news interview I believe, which I've linked above on youtube. If you watch that video I believe Ron Paul very neatly clears up the matter. The donation was discovered after it was already spent along with a flurry of others, if he had sent back the 500 dollars, it would mean taking it out of the pool of other donations, in effect channeling someone else's monetary support to a different cause. If something so miniscule as this is noteworthy then there is a serious problem of balance on wikipedia because I have not seen anything like that on ANY other politician articles. And again, I have to stress this, it's not even controversial, the princple of the matter is that when someone donates money to a campaign it is for those ideals, regardless of who the individual is. The trouble I have also is if you are in charge of this page, it is deeply disturbing that you've already called it a "gushing cotton candy" piece, it is nowhere near that. I just hope that if there are "improvements", it's not done for partisian reasons and does not allege things beyond the realm of objectivity and fairness. I guess that's why I took a combative tone with you before, which I now regret. I believe Foofighter20x has done a superb job of defending the article, and also compromising when there really was some gap, these archives are proof of that with his substantive replies and attention to detail and the true letter of the law on wikipedia. My name is Nick by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.105.152 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been several claims by white nationalist http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28341_Neo-Nazis_Say-_Ron_Paul_is_One_of_Us&only. Patriotspeople (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education

Suggest that this section be abridged to read:

Paul was born in Green Tree, Pennsylvania to Howard and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. He received a B.S. degree in Biology at Gettysburg College in 1957. After obtaining an M.D. degree from the Duke University School of Medicine, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s.

Any comments? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure you wiki-link everything in there you can. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would keep the existing links and footnotes. I just took them out above so it would be easier to read. Also, I think his track record is probably worth keeping. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I abridged this section and plan to do so for the "marriage and family section" then combine it with "early life and education. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Better then what was there before. In looking at the intro...the first paragraph can and should state most important events in his life first.--scuro (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The lead contains too much detail and should be more of a general summary. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Populist Party

Should Populist Party appear as another afiliation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of connection to White Nationalists

1) WP:BLP - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2) WP:BLP - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

3) WP:BLP - The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit...

4) WP:NPOVD - The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

5) WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

6) WP:SOURCES - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Blogs and webforums are not reliable sources. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I concede blogs and weblogs "may" be presumed as unreliable sources. However, financial transactions such as http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html and photographs of said transactions http://blogs4conservatives.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg as proof of relationship are not of opinion and factual basis. What intent or motivations are involved whiel socializing with "white nationalist" are ambiguous. However, evidence of social interaction is clearly provided.LakeJacksonWN (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't worked in any political campaigns before (not that it's a bad thing, nor does it make you a bad person). Candidates routinely and indiscriminately stop to allow pictures with people who show up at campaign events without asking about their background or screening them for their radical or fringe views. The picture proves nothing except Don Black went out of his way to attend a Ron Paul event and was fortunate enough to have his picture taken with Paul. It's not an endorsement by Paul of Black or Black's views. I'm pretty sure Paul had no clue who the hell the other guy was with whom he was posing. As to the donation, that's been discussed above. Aside from those two things, which are highly tenuous and contentious, you've got nothing from which you can reliably extrapolate what you attempted to put in the article. Even if you could extrapolate it, it would still violate WP:NOR. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly did not view the receipt link provided above. It referenced a payout to the restaurant where reported white nationalists met, it was NOT A DONATION to the Paul campaign. It was a campaign expense. It is very unlikely that any politician could not recognize the most prominent white nationalists, even more so an individual a newsletter with blatant white supremacists themes on his part. I on the other have worked on campaigns, and most knowledgeable national politicians would easily recognize Don Black. Ron Paul has issued no statement on this end, so we can assume it is left ambiguous. Either way, this evidence of interaction is completely provided. Chose to ignore it at your own bias. Piecestory1 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then clearly that further justifies the exclusion of the material from the article. Wikipedia is not in the business of proclaiming guilt by association, whether with people or places. I may go and eat at a restaurant; so may a bunch of racists. Just because I may by happenstance get a meal from that establishment is no form of proof that I agree with the political views of other patrons of the restaurant. Also, I may know the name Louis Farrakhan or Jessie Helms, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recognize either of them should I run across them in my everyday routine. These arguments about Paul's alleged connections are all non sequiturs and guilt-by-some-attentuatedly-alleged-association form of race-baiting. Hell, even the airport cop in Idaho didn't recognize Larry Craig as his own U.S. Senator. With the exception of party leader (which Paul obviously is not), I wouldn't expect too many people to know or recognize radicals with whom the don't associate. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Foofighter entirely, and thank you Foo for staying with this. I had my photo taken with Paul (it may have even been the same event in FL as Mr. Black; it would be ridiculous to demand that Paul do background searches on donors solely to prevent them from being in the same room as him), and my donations to him are public, verifiable, reliable. But guess what! It would be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them in this article or to extrapolate the original research that Paul agrees with all of my nutty extremist views. Rather, it's the other way round. JJB 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if you really wanted to point out Paul's connection to white nationalists, you could mention his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, the guy who make fairly regular appearances on The Political Cesspool, the James Edwards radio show that condemned the movie Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants since, in Edwards' opinion, interracial relationships are a form of white genocide. ;) Burzmali (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Had to work pretty hard on that one, didn't you, my friend? And James Edwards was in a movie with Kevin Bacon, right? You notice that Cesspool was just PRODded as nonnotable. What is your source for "fairly regular appearances" rather than one appearance on the show? Thank you. Actually, that question should be answered on the Baldwin page. JJB 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, if I thought that David Duke should be president, I wouldn't be surprised it people raised their eyebrows. All I'm saying is that there are far too many red flags for the people to easily trust that Ron Paul is friend to all races. When Paul endorses someone who barely even tries to conceal his opinion about the jews if there much surprise that Paul's own character is questioned? Burzmali (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't know David Rockefeller was Jewish. JJB 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are only acceptable if the author of the blog is an established expert on this specific topic and has been published by reliable third-party publications. Here's Wikipedia policy on WP:SPS. Perhaps more important, blogs should never be used as as third-party sources about living persons (even if they qualify as an established expert as defined above). See WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the cite to http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html per the reasons stated above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How does Ryan Sager not meet that requirement? The blog in question isn't a self published source, it's run by the New York Sun, and Ryan is/was a columnist in a major newspaper (the NY Post). Since LatestPolitics has gone down since the demise of the Sun, I can't quickly verify that the blog was "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" but, aside from that, what elements of the requirement do you believe the source lacks?

Also, I'll assume good faith, but I find it interesting that you were able to diagnose a source as bad without actually being able to follow its link. In all fairness, actions like that are what lead to shouts of whitewashing from certain parties. Burzmali (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. According to WP:BOLP, such material should be removed immediately. If anything, I was conservative in my change. There are several other references to blogs that probably should be removed as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Read more carefully. The sentence in WP:BLP reads "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person..." This suggests that the blog needs to be self-published in order to be fail this requirement. That, or every website listed as a source in this article is also out of compliance. Since the blog in question was maintained by the New York Sun, the following sentence "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." applies, or at least I believe it does. Burzmali (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it still fails the very first qualification: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Since the site is dead, it does not meet the requirement of being high quality. In any case, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the blog was hosted by the NY Sun. Technically, it was hosted by latestpolitics.com. Either way, both organizations are now defunct and latestpolitics.com is now a dead site. Even if it wasn't dead, was it subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A dead site means low quality? Actually, I think it just means low profitability. Also, latestpolitics.com was a NY Sun's blog, it wasn't an independent operation. Either way, I'll look up the reference tonight on archive.org and re-add if I can verify the editorial control. If you are really trying to improve the page, why did you just remove a dead link to an article that wasn't complementary to Paul while leaving the material the source supported intact? Burzmali (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the link is broken, it is of zero quality. But yes, if there's an archive of it and it meets requirements, we can add it back. I didn't remove the material because there was a second cite to a New York Times article which seems to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to cite primary sources to argue an opinion in this or any other article. The article should be based on secondary sources. If the media failed to draw connections it is not the role of this article to make up for their omissions. Unfortunately no one so far has written a critical biography of Paul and the 2008 campaign, which would be a helpful source for this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of newsletter section

A couple of IP users keep removing the section on the newsletter. I and a couple others keep reverting the removal. One user stated that the removal was sanctioned on this talk page. Has a resolution been reached on this? ConstRepublic (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We last discussed the newsletter here where, from what I remember, most moderates on both sides stopped fighting at least long enough for what I consider consensus to be declared. I don't think anyone is completely satisfied, but the result is a short section that presents both sides of the issue and is sourced to several reliable sources. Burzmali (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm pretty new to wiki, what's the normal course of action to users who ignore this and keep removing the section? Its getting a little annoying already... ConstRepublic (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically he has violated the three revert rule so I've left him a warning. If he reverts again, we report to an Admin Noticeboard and let them sort it out. If it gets worse, an uninvolved party will probably request that the article be semi-protected to prevent further IP vandalism. Burzmali (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter needs to stay, bhowever, I think it ought to be parred down for the following reason: the subject-matter is covered much more in-depth in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, one paragraph discussing the accusations and one his rebuttals with a link to the full discussion on the sub article should be enough. I'd estimate cutting it in half from what it currently is would be a good start. Burzmali (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the section had the right balance. By the way, does anyone still have any concerns about the overall neurality of the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why this is even in here. If controversial and possibly defamatory information is not allowed in Barack Obama's page, why is it allowed here? The Obama information includes documented court cases, while the information here cites letters with unverified sources. This double-standard indicates political bias on the part of Wikipedia - is that what we want? vt007ken (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Barack Obama can walk on water so no sourced criticism of him is allowed on wikipedia.--E tac (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to the recent edits I made? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems better now. It tells the story concisely and gives links and footnotes for those who want to know more. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section has become filled with minor details when it should present a general outline of the subject. I propose a new lead along the following lines, and would appreciate any input on how this section could be improved.

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman, who gained widespread attention during his campaign for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination. During the campaign he attracted a large, enthusiastic following who made innovative use of the internet and social networking to establish a grass roots campaign despite lack of traditional organization or media attention. He criticised the Republican party for abandoning its principles of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and sound monetary policies, and in particular strongly opposed American involvement in the War in Iraq. He also called for abolition of many federal institutions including the FBI, CIA and Department of Education, abolition of the federal income tax and an end to the war on drugs. Despite surprisingly strong support in some races, he failed to win any state-wide contests. His campaign was known as the Ron Paul Revolution which continues as the Campaign for Liberty.

Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government, and he serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy.

Paul was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign and was himself a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988.

Paul's ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including 'The Revolution: A Manifesto' (2008). His positions have often been highly controversial and have attracted severe criticism from other Republicans. However, he has maintained a reputation for integrity, consistency and affability.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph looks decent. The rest of the information should be rolled in. Also, reword the last two sentences for NPOV. Burzmali (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How's this for the second half?

Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government, and he serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy. He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign and was himself a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988. His ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including 'The Revolution: A Manifesto' (2008). The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now made the changes to the lead section. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see why some editors have been questioning the article's NPOV.

"sound monetary policies"? That needs to be rephrased.

"Widespread attention"? He was a minor candidate and never had any serious shot at winning the nomination.

"He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign." Why is that important?

"numerous published articles and books" Numerous? Ron Paul doesn't seem to be any more prolific than any other politician. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem I see with the lead is that it's supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Yet almost the entire first paragraph is devoted to the 2008 presidential campaign. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign" The article doesn't actually state this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's better than it was before. "Sound monetary policies" - that's how these people talk, "Widespread attention" - he was not well-known before the campaign, "numerous" - actually has published more articles and books than most, "another problem" - the campaign is the most significant aspect, "support of Reagan" against incumbent Republican president establishes "conservative" credentials. That was my thinking anyway. If you can improve this section then more power to you. I suggest though that you post any comments in a new section so that others are more likely to see them. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I neither support nor oppose Ron Paul. I've heard of him before, but know little of him. The introductory paragraph on this page states that he supports "what some consider to be sound monetary policies"? What kind of a completely ambiguous statement is this? For those who've read Neal Stephenson's Anathem, this is bulshytt. Can't someone make a concise and objective descriptive statement regarding his monetary policies? Thank-you. - Casey / doctorcolossus 97.118.229.211 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the article. Paul's monetary policy positions are well covered. The qualifier "what some consider" was vandalism added tonight, it has been removed. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll read some of the rest of the article. However, I disagree with your assessment of that qualifier as vandalism -- it's no more so than what it qualified. Its contributor was apparently trying to transform the statement into an objective one, which IMO is a noble intention. By removing it, you've simply re-transformed the statement into a subjective one -- two different people's ideas of 'sound monetary policies' can be complete opposites. To avoid controversy with this 'vandal', why don't you simply replace that enigma with some kind of statement about his actual policy? I had a kind of vague impression that Ron Paul was somehow 'different' from normal politicians, but the inability or unwillingness of his supporters (which I go out on a limb to assume are the predominant editors of this page; i.e. you [-;) to make concrete statements causes me to doubt this. You should realize that not everyone passing through here wants to read the entire article; those who skim the introduction for basic background information shouldn't be subjected to such meaningless, propogandist mumbo-jumbo as the phrase "sound monetary policies". Doctorcolossus (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Borat appearance

Should this be listed in this article? It seems silly to me. ConstRepublic (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like Da Ali G Show, it seems like unnecessary trivia to me. I'd be fine with it's removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur - Appearances in movies or documentaries are more appropriate for mention in the articles about those specific items, and not here on his bio page. Foofighter20x (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Isn't rand notable enough to have his own page?

Considering he's potentially running for senate, I think it would be justified.

Thanks, 76.192.144.118 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted - check it out.--JayJasper (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Miac Report

Is the miac report scandal notable enough to be in this article?Smallman12q (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it relates to Ron Paul specifically. I am interested to know who supported Ron Paul and why, but so far no one has written about this. If this had happened during the election however I am sure that it would have received greater coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a sentence stating that he was once considered a militia leader... The report does have some signficance and it did get coverage that day. A google search shows that a number of news articles were written in response to it.Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that he was once considered a militia leader? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This bio is missing germane details in summary lead

Where is the summary paragraph of facts saying that he was elected to the US congress in X year and has served off and on since then for x number of years? Where is the summary of his legislative successes and failures? Does he see still see patients or did he give that up when he went to Washington?

I read the first few paragraphs to find out core details about this man's life, and find them missing. Instead there is spin on his failed run for the US presidency in the leading paragraphs. This article reads more like a press release on the subject's political opinions than a bibliographic article for an encyclopedia. This is not fair to the subject or to the reader.

Is anyone who knows the details of his life willing to summarize the factual biographical material as is standard in biographical pieces? Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this in the leading summary paragraphs-- He was one of the first congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign and endorsed Reagan again for President in 1980... . and not this--"Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A.[14]"

Why does the reader have to dig through the article to see the nuance? If Paul's support for Reagan is relevant in the leading summary paragraphs, why is his later opposition to Reagan not afforded equal treatment?

Does anyone object to grouping relevant facts together? Skywriter (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've raised my concerns about this article as well, but I do not have the time to work on it. I do, however, want to say that I don't think the lede should say "failed". I don't think Ron Paul had any illusions as to whether he could actually win the nomination. The point of his presidential campaign was to spread his political message. Contrary to WP:BOLD, I won't revert your edit, but I think "failed" should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If he campaigned for the nomination and did not expect to win, wouldn't it help the reader to state that directly and document it?

Here's an example of the structural problems in this article. "During the campaign he attracted an enthusiastic following which made use of the Internet and social networking to establish a grassroots campaign despite lack of traditional organization or media attention." comment--The same is true of Barack Obama whose campaign was successful. Because Paul is an also-ran in the 2008 contest, the section of this article on his 2008 campaign could flesh this out. Meanwhile, much less reference to the 2008 campaign should be in the summary paragraph that provides the overview of his life.

"Despite strong support in some races, he failed to win any state-wide contests." This claim requires citation, and placement in section dedicated to his 2008 campaign.

The article on Ralph Nader who has a comparable history to Ron Paul is written in a more accessible manner-- with a paragraph at the top summarizing his activities and history. What is your opinion on restructuring this article to reflect a summary paragraph with restructuring the body to more carefully reflect the subheads?

Skywriter (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this talk page, I see there are separate articles on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and the RP revolution. That seems to make it even more important not to regurgitate that information at the beginning of his biography. The man's life is much more that one campaign and that is lost in the blur of emphasizing one campaign that, according to A Quest For Knowledge he knew he could not win.Skywriter (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideas in these two links could be applied to the structure of the Ron Paul biographical article. Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_leadSkywriter (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally made the changes to the lead because it had become overfilled with detail. If anyone wishes to change it may I suggest that they write a proposed replacement so that we can discuss it. Paul's early support for Reagan is important because it established his conservative credentials as one of four Republican congressmen willing to oppose Ford. Ralph Nader's career differs from Paul's because Nader became famous as a consumer rights advocate while Paul only became well-known in the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama's campaign actually did have traditional organization and received considerable media attention. I would think in future if anyone studies the use of the internet in campaigns that the Howard Dean, Obama and Paul campaigns would be key reading. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the answer to the question about why Paul's support for Reagan should appear in the lead summary and not his criticism of Reagan?Skywriter (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a story that mentions Paul's support of Reagan in 1976. [4] (I would take out the 1980 reference btw.) In the history of modern American conservatism, the 1964 Goldwater and 1976 Reagan candidacies were their first two attempts to present candidates against the Republican establishment. Very few elected politicians supported them and for those that did it established them as "conservatives". Paul in fact led the Texas delegation at the convention. The Democrats' equivalent might be Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. The fact that Paul became disillusioned with Reagan does not mean that Paul's viewpoint had changed. And it's clear in the lead that Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988 so his disagreement with the modern Republican party is clear.

Do you think that the Reagan campaign in 1976 was unexceptional or that Paul's support was insignificant? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Than you for the explanation. It does not, however, address the question relevant to the way this article currently reads. What is the answer to the question about why Paul's support for Reagan should appear in the lead summary and not his criticism of Reagan? Skywriter (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to model this article after another one, we should probably use a featured article. There are several on politicians, including John McCain, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge and Barack Obama. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces asked--"Do you think that the Reagan campaign in 1976 was unexceptional or that Paul's support was insignificant?"

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Rather, the point is to question the article's underlying logic, un-Wiki-like structure, and political correctness. Instead of describing the life of a living, breathing lawmaker, this article reads like hagiography reinforcing the beliefs of true believers. If you are happy with that, don't change a thing. The only suggestion, at this point, is to retain the link to the Texas Monthly piece on "Dr. No." Readers who want a less subjective, non-acolyte view of who Ron Paul is will eventually find it and be rewarded with the depth of story lacking in this Wiki article.Skywriter (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was only talking about the lead, not the main body of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems here, one an internal inconsistency and the second a dead link to the inconsistency. One one hand, what should be but is not a summary lead claims Paul's allegiance to Ronald Reagan. Deeper in the article, the reader is surprised to find that Paul kicked Reagan to the curb. Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A.

I asked this question above and it still has not been answered. Does this mean the people who routinely edit this article contend that not explaining internal inconsistencies is OK? I bet Ron Paul would answer promptly and thoughtfully why his position changed over time--and he would not back away from explaining the flip flop. He also would not emphasize one aspect (praise for Reagan) without also discussing his criticism.Skywriter (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What about changing the reference to this?

He was one of only four congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign, but later criticised Reagan as a failure and was himself the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1988.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this?

Though Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign for the US presidency, in 1988, he criticized Reagan as a "failure," citing high deficits racked up during Reagan's eight years in office. In 1988, Paul himself ran and lost as a third-party candidate for the presidency. He had been the nominee of the Libertarian Party. Skywriter (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this version - I've tried to keep it short:

He was one of only four congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign, but in 1988 criticized Reagan in as a "failure," citing high deficits racked up during his eight years in office, and ran as a Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"one of only four congressmen" is irrelevant, raises questions (who are the four? what about congress women etc.?) Can we stick to the subject (Ron Paul). He supported RR's presidential campaign, but in 1988 criticized Reagan in as a "failure," citing high deficits racked up during his eight years in office(End one thought, one sentence with period) (Begin new thought with new sentence.) He ran in 1988 as a Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency.Skywriter (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think "one of only four congressmen" is irrelevant? (We can change the term to "members of congress". Do you think the lead should list the other three members?) The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re--Why do you think "one of only four congressmen" is irrelevant? Does anyone care who supported whom 33 years ago? It is relevant to stick to the subject and not veer off into the periphery. Going this far back in time on an obscure subject tells the reader nothing about Ron Paul or his character. Listing all of his political positions in three different articles on Wikipedia also does little to inform the reader about this man's character. I don't think I can be of further help on this.Skywriter (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Currently, Paul's support of Reagan occupies half a sentence in the article: "Paul was the first Republican representative from the area; he also led the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be more detail in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A mere listing of someone's opinions (in 3 articles, no less) does little to inform the reader about the man, his character, influence, or accomplishments. That is my central point. Skywriter (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I disagreed with your comments. I was just providing some ancillary information about the discussion in general. It wasn't meant as a reply to any of your posts, just about the general discussion. I don't have the time to edit the article myself, but I keep track of the discussions from time to time and (hopefully) provide some helpful information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad link

The following lands on a page that does not exist. ^ a b c Beiler, David (1996-06). "Paul vs. Laughlin — Ron Paul's campaign against Representative Greg Laughlin". Campaigns and Elections. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n6_v17/ai_18535311. Skywriter (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed this so that it now links to Encyclopedia.com which requires a subscription to access the full article. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bio vs. political positions of Ron Paul?

What is the difference between this article and the Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul. It looks like a lot of duplication of material. This is another argument for making the Ron Paul article truly about his biography and having much less of his political positions. Does anyone object to removal of the duplication in this article?Skywriter (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The political positions section here is a summary of Paul's positions which are explained at length in the positions article. If you think the summary is too long then please present here a summarized version we may consider. However a politician's political positions are relevant to his biography and should be described in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the people who routinely edit this article are happy with two long leading paragraphs about his political viewpoints instead of standard biographical material summarizing significant elements in the individual's life, then that is how this article will continue to read. That there are indeed two articles describing his political viewpoints is another anomaly. While this approach does neither the man nor readers justice, so be it.Skywriter (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you write an alternative lead for discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am new to the subject and don't know enough about him to summarize his life story. When I came here to read about him, I found the article bogged down in political viewpoints and lacking in bio detail. The article can be improved; I am not the one to do it.Skywriter (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected vs. Unprotected

I like how anyone can say what they want about Ron Paul but not people like Obama and Clinton. -~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.140.156 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles are protected at the request of editors when there is frequent vandalism and edit wars. At present, no one is vandalizing this article, so protection is unneccessary. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They protect Dennis Kucinich why not Ron Paul? anything could happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. If something does happen then this article with receive protection. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture heading

Look carefully at the heading above the picture: "Bro Man, King of Bros" - please correct if you know how. Mhym (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. The user responsible has been blocked, a second time, for repeatedly adding that. --an odd name 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana

The lead says that Paul supports "legalization of marijuana at the federal level". I believe that his position is that laws against recreational drugs are within the jurisdiction of the states not the federal government. Also he is against these laws at the state level. So the statement is a little confusing and I will remove it unless some wants to word it better. It's probably better to explain it in the body of the article because the lead already says he opposes the War on Drugs. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Affirm, would not be lead material even if correctly stated. JJB 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it out. His views on drugs are important but this statement did not accurately represent his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Submitted for discussion by Ricky Grubb, Sunland Ca. email at nobodyslaw@yahoo.com. My first submission to wikipedia :) follows, I have not changed the page yet;

I would contend Mr. Ron Paul's position is, and he has perennialy coauthored Hemp legislation to this effect, and in particular has spoken out forcefully on this subject in several keynote addresses (will find speeches and references as best as I am able and post soon), unequivocably stating that he opposes the "unconstitutional federal use of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution to ban personal use of and growth of the hemp plant, when all (hemp use) is done wholly within the borders of the individual's state, and is even used within the framework of duly enacted laws of the individual state, such as medical marijuana grown and consumed under the recommendation of a physician, done strictly in Calif. (not interstate), and carried out in full compliance with Calif. prop 215 and sb420.

That said, Mr. Paul has forcefully spoken to this (Hemp prohibition and congress and federal agencies blatantly wrongful scheduling of cannabis drugs to sched 1) as an issue of great importance to him, that federal hemp prohibition is purely political, not scientifically supported, nor beneficial to the public good in any measure, and that (Hemp prohibition) is highly indicitave of harmful (and unconstitutional) federal interference in the rights and buissiness of the individual states and the people residing therin. Mr. Paul speaks to the blatant wrongfulness of this "Drug Marajuana" federal prohibition very eloquently, and citing his longtime medical practice (including writing thousands of prescriptions to patients for hundreds of different drugs) Dr. Paul would know wherefore he speaks on this subject, and his undisputed extensive health care qualifications give him (presumably) professional standing, current and practical "drugs" knowledge and in short "expertise" on the subject of the dangerousness of drugs, or the lack thereof, he has expertise that includes the dangers or risks to patients from taking "prescription drugs" states this knowledge regarding how dangerous and even potentially fatal (see the LD50 rating on all prescription medications labeling) many to most of today's commonly prescribed "medications" more correctly called "drugs" usually are and that the use of Hemp as drugs poses NO risk of fatality (no LD50) no matter how they might be abused! and extensive experience in his longtime practice as a physician prescribing federally approved (and widely precsribed by doctors all across america) drugs listed on schedule II, III and IIII lets call them "conventional medications" that he correctly describes as potentially fatal medications he asserts rightly are "dangerous drugs" pose far greater risks to patients well being and can be fatal even when taken as prescribed, while Hemp "Drug" use under the direction of a physician has virtually no risks to patients life (no LD50) and negligible potential side effects, and low potential for abuse also.

Comment on article.

Hello, I've been doing a read through, and I got to this part:

"In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[38] and The Ron Paul Survival Report;[8][39] it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987.[40] Articles were largely unbylined but often invoked Paul's name or persona. In 1992, RP&A earned $940,000 and employed Paul's family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president[41] and sometime editor)[42] and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[41] Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters, but attributed the newsletters to "seven or eight freelancers"."

This makes me ask "Why were they controversial, and why is someone later having to "acknowledge[d] involvement"?" as I haven't got to the part of the article that covers that yet. It's not a huge deal, but I just feel it makes the article a little clunky. I think either at this point, we should just not mention the controversy, as that is covered in depth later, or add in some link like "(see Newsletter section)" or the like.

Anyone agree with me on this?

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the other idea i had was just to include a very brief sentence on why they were controversial, just so the reader is filled in and not left unsure. Perhaps something like

"it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987, which was later used by opponents of Paul, to accuse him of making racist remarks"

or something like that, sorry I'm not good at construction of things like this, that particular one is clunky too. I wasn't as satisfied with this idea though, as it then kind of begs a reader to ask "What kind of racist remarks?", bringing back the same problem I'm trying to address. Perhaps a good writer can do it justice though.

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that the newsletter is contained at the end of the 1988 election campaign, but actually pre-dates the campaign. The Four Deuces ([[User talk:The Four

Deuces|talk]]) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It only became controversial during the 1988 campaign, then flared up again during the 2008 campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Relations with Dennis Kucinich

What about his relationship with Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio? 20:17, 17 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk • contribs)

While Paul has made comments that imply that he and he and Kucinich are friends (depite their political differences), this dosen't seem to be particularly noteworthy enough to include in the article. Of course, if you can find reliably sourced content that suggests otherwise, feel to add it in the appropriate section (though it may be best to discuss it here first).--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brüno

Is Paul's appearance in Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno movie noteworthy? See [5] Stonemason89 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, bit it might worth revisiting if the appearance becomes a topic of discussion in notable media sources.--JayJasper (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Double standard? How much of this article isn't backed by material in "notable media sources"? I'm not suggesting that the Bruno piece be included, but plenty of the article is just as specious. Burzmali (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Too transient an incident, and too irrelevant for the purposes of the article. JMHO. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The significance of this story depends on how it is reported in the media. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it reports what mainstream sources are saying. If it becomes a story then it belongs here. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An entire section of society knows him best for his scene in the Bruno film (which has, thus far, been hugely successful on both sides of the Atlantic). It's one of the (many) highlights of the film - Bruno attempting to make a sex tape with an unwitting 73-year-old Republican Congressman, under the misguided impression he's actually RuPaul. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the United States who knows him for anything else. MultipleTom (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You have any third-party compilations of numbers to back up such an assertion? Otherwise, you're just pulling that out of thin air. If you are correct in asserting that this film clip is the only knowledge of Paul which the mass of people who have seen the film have, that but for his appearance they would have no idea who he is, then it's equally as likely that they won't remember him at all in a month or two. So, as I said above: his presence in the film is too transient and isolated of an event for the purposes of the article. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we let people decide whether they are interested in reading about this piece of information or not. The fact is he was featured in a popular movie for a significant (almost 10 minute scene) time. Most people in the world (including me) had not cared to know who Ron Paul was until he was seen in the movie. To confirm that it was him when I looked him up on Wikipedia the information was missing! I think it is wrong to censor such information from a public source like Wikipedia. At least a one line sentence about this information is warranted. Nikhilw (Nikhilw) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a single sentence (w/citation, of course) would be reasonable (as opposed to a separate section, as some have attempted). Not sure where to put it, though.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not "let people decide whether they are interested" by writing about it here. We wait until we find the public finds it interesting before adding it to the article. Also, please see WP:Handling Trivia. I have again deleted this section and ask that you obtain consensus here before adding it to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta hand it to you. The reaction time of you removing it from the site is frighteningly quick ! I wonder why a consensus is not required to delete someone else's contribution. @JayJasper, I agree a separate section is an overkill, I'd appreciate if a single line is included somewhere else though, if not the debate will continue and more attempts will be made in future. Me, I don't give a s*** about Ron Paul. (Nikhilw) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care that much if it gets in the article or not, but this google news search on the subject seems to suggest that a mention might be justified.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose a compromise, since this is going to be added and removed ad nauseam at this rate. Leave a brief description of this appearance in the article while the film is on general release (for the next couple of months, I assume?). Then afterwards we can debate it again with the benefit of historical context. MultipleTom (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This type of thing has been discussed with many similar stories. See WP:Recentism: Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective. Is this event of long-term historical perspective? Maybe, but we must wait to see what the level of coverage is. If you want, we could set up a WP:RfC on the issue to get more input. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of Tom Cruise with Matt Lauer, Sarah Palin and Tina Fey....these couplings made it on to Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of these received extensive media coverage and also related to controversial aspects of the subjects: Cruise's religious beliefs and Palin's unconventional style. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, does Ron Paul ever get extensive media coverage outside of an election? Even the Obama article has a "cultural and political image" section.--scuro (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But there has to be notability. It is not the role of Wikipedia to contribute to the notability of an event, just to report it. We cannot assist in the "media coverage" that Paul may or may not deserve. However the event may become notable, at which point it would make sense to include it. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As a comparison, the Bob Barr article mentions Barr's appearance in the "boob-cheese" scene of Cohen's previous film, Borat. If that's notable enough to merit inclusion, I don't know why Paul's appereance in another Baron Cohen film isn't. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)That's another article. Could you please provide sources that the Ron Paul appearance is notable (while there is nothing in articles about Harrison Ford and Paula Abdul who were also in the movie?) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine that a lot of the viewers of the Bruno movie who have never heard of Ron Paul apart from this movie and are curious as to who Ron Paul is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Harrison Ford's appearance lasts only a few seconds. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please not be flippant. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find plenty of coverage of this incident in reliable sources. Paul himself has commented on the incident in a radio interview. It's notable enough to mention it in a single sentence, linking to the Bruno film, where those interested in learning more about the scene may do so. Nick Graves (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Valid point, IMO. However, the "post campaign activities" section seems a more appropriate place for it than the bottom of the article following the list of publications, so I moved it.--JayJasper (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You should really discuss issues like this before insertion. Could you please explain why this is important. If you think it is then please set up an RfC. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a brief mention of this incident is unreasonable, since it is certainly covered in reliable sources (see my comment above). It happened, it was notable enough for reliable sources to cover it, so I put a mention in with an appropriate citation. Is the event important? Let the readers decide whether they think it's important to them. For our purposes, all that matters is that reliable sources covered it as an incident of note. It's certainly the type of incident that a biographer who aspires to thoroughness would be remiss in failing to mention, however briefly. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to note candidates' and other politicians' interviews, cameos, appearances, etc. in major media. That's what reliable sources have done with regard to Ron Paul's appearance in this major motion picture, and it's what this Wikipedia article ought to do. Nick Graves (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the article. It's been covered by dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources including The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, The Independent, San Francisco Gate, Variety Magazine, Newsweek, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I always laugh at the people who go around deleting stuff that is true from wiki because they claim it not to be noteworthy. The man had a speaking role in a multi-million grossing hollywood film. Of course it should be included.24.207.226.108 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Widespread attention AND lack of media attention?

Which is it? BTW, the summary still reads like a fan page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and am rewriting the summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Four Douces: Please don't revert my changes again. The summary is much better than before and doesn't sound like a fan page. People have been complaining about this articles for months (see the talk page archives). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because I did not see any discussion. However, it is more concise and I think represents an improvement. None of the people who complained about the article being a fansite could provide an suggestions for change. In fact I deleted most of the fansite stuff months ago - where he went to public school, his summer jobs, his high school athletics, how he met his wife etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

Why isn't there any type of opposition in this section? It is written as if to boast the Act with bias and POV. Where is the opposition? The 2 or 3 sentences in the section are not enough. Dumaka (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a fringe position and unlikely to achieve any success there probably isn't a lot of analysis about it. I think that the section itself should be shortened to several sentences and discussed elsewhere. The article United States withdrawal from the United Nations seems to be a good place for it. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I add the link in this article to United States withdrawal from the United Nations, but I didn't touch any of the content here. Dumaka (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this article has a huge section on this one particular bill that Ron Paul introduced. He introduces lots of legislation every year. This isn't even the most notable one (the one to audit the Fed actually has a reasonable chance of passing). I plan on splitting this section in to its own article because it is actually fairly well referenced but it needs more opposing views otherwise it violates NPOV. -- Gudeldar (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually upon second examination, I'm not sure this section is worth saving at all. The subject is of questionable notability, it cites lots of unreliable sources and does a very poor job of having a NPOV. I propose deleting it in its entirety (which I plan to do unless someone has some cogent reasons for opposing that) -- Gudeldar (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, it is worth at best a sentence or two. It is minor legislation and will, like its predecessor, languish in committee and never see the light of day. It will only garner co-sponsorships from a small number of like-minded nativist colleagues and Paul has not made meaningful efforts to move it. More elucidating would be a section on the type of broad-stroke legislation Paul introduces every year: abolish the fed, eliminate most federal taxes, limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, to name a few. Njsamizdat (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, delete section in entirety. Add a sentence or two about this legislation in somewhere else in the article, or perhaps in the political positions of ron paul article. Byates5637 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be deleted. Maybe carved down a little with notable info on its own page. However since the POW warriors tagged it for deletion it now sit here after AFD with "contents were merge". Sit 'n Spin I ques ROFL...--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter controversy

I just don't see why this is in the article. This had more to do with the campaign and I do not see how it is a big part of Ron Paul's life.

This issue has been discussed many times. Please read the archives for the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well during the last FAC, an issue was raised about the presidential campaign section being too long. This was only a big deal for about a week and should be kept off the bio.

The newsletter story probably has too much coverage but is important because it played a role in two of Paul's campaigns. It is also part of his biography. He published a newsletter. It is important that his explanations of the newsletter are properly reported, which they are. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The newsletters being circulated around were largely thought to have been contributed to by Randy Gray, head of the Saginaw MI chapter of the KKK. Just as an FYI, so that Ron Paul does not have his name tarnished, because I truly believe that he is not racist in any way AT ALL. --rock8591 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Randy Gray is 30 years old and the newsletter articles go back over 20 years, it is unlikely he was the writer. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You never know, maybe ten year olds really hate Ron Paul. :P ChocoRokk (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Brüno incident

Is Ron Paul's appearance in the movie "Brüno" noteworthy for inclusion in his article? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevant previous discussion on this can be found here: Talk:Ron Paul#Brüno. Nick Graves (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• It should not be featured because of WP:RECENT. Also the appearances of Paula Abdul and Harrison Ford, who are both celebrities, are not mentioned in their articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't compare this with Harrison Ford. Ford is only in the movie for a few seconds. Literally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Bob Barr's appearance in Sacha Cohen's last film, Borat, is mentioned in Bob Barr's article[6] (even though Bob Barr's appearance in Borat is shorter than Ron Paul's appearance in "Brüno"). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be "featured," but I do think that it should be briefly mentioned. In the Brüno section above, Quest points to coverage by several major and reliable news sources as proof that this incident is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. Something like this would be all the coverage needed in the Wikipedia article. I do believe that anything more would give undue weight to the incident, and the Brüno article is a more appropriate place for details. Nick Graves (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it warrants more than that, but providing so little context makes the reader think such an entry is completely superfluous. I have to admit I've never heard of the incident until reading this page, and think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Jogurney (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's been covered by dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources including The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, The Independent, San Francisco Gate, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Phoenix Times, The Star, Variety Magazine, Newsweek, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surely, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. That you (Jogurney) had not heard of the incident before is not support for not mentioning it, but support for mentioning it, as it makes readers more informed than they would otherwise be about notable events in Paul's life. The context is adequately supplied in the Brüno article linked in the sentence. However, if that is insufficient, then that is grounds for providing a bit more information in the Paul article about this incident, rather than removing mention altogether. The coverage of this incident in reliable news sources is quite wide, and this provides strong support for coverage in this article, regardless of how significant one may personally feel this incident is. Nick Graves (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but those mentions are pretty trivial, and I think the question is whether inclusion in this article is warranted. My vote is no based on what I've read and how superfluous it is to the rest of the article. Sorry. Jogurney (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul is not a household name. Many readers will be reading this article simply because they saw the Bruno film. When they Google Search "Ron Paul" and stumble upon our article, they're going to wonder why a #1 film isn't mentioned at all and whether this is the same Ron Paul as they saw in the Bruno film. If we don't at least mention it, I would be forced to conclude that "Ron Paul" (the politician) is not the same "Ron Paul" who appears in the film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that if they saw the movie and wanted to know who the congressman was they would go to the Brüno article and follow the link to this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Deuces: Those who saw the film and wanted to learn more about Ron Paul would probably go to the film article first. However, those not familiar with the film (Jogurney, for example) who read the Ron Paul biography in its current state would leave the article completely uninformed of this notable event in Paul's life. That indicates a deficiency in this article. Nick Graves (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jogurney: Those articles, considered individually, might appear to be trivial coverage, but the coverage considered as a whole is non-trivial, especially given the international scope of the media cited. Also, Ron Paul did talk about his "involvement" in the film at length in a radio interview. Nick Graves (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "considered as a whole"? The mentions are pretty clearly trivial. Not sure why multiple trivial mentions would constitute significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• A question: why is the debate for inclusion in the article focused solely on one film appearance? Maybe instead of fighting over this, there ought to be a Film Appearances section which covers all his film appearances: not just Brüno, but also other films like American Drug War and I.O.U.S.A.... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB lists over thirty appearances on Film and television which could be entered as a separate section like in the Paula Abdul and Harrison Ford articles. It would look something like this only longer:

Year	Film	Role	Notes
2009	Brüno	Himself	Uncredited
	Mile High: How to Win... and Lose... the White House	Interviewee

I question though whether this is appropriate. Although articles about actors contain filmographies, articles about politicians do not. Ronald Reagan for example does not have a filmography section and this is not a Fansite. It might be better to provide a link to Paul's IMDB page under External Sources.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A question: why is the debate for inclusion in the article focused solely on one film appearance? Probably because it's the most note-worthy. Which other films do you feel are also note-worthy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

4 Deuces wrote: "...articles about politicians do not [contain filmographies]. Ronald Reagan for example does not have a filmography section..." Actually, it does, though it has been split out for length: Ronald Reagan filmography. Of course, that's an apples to oranges comparison, since Reagan is also a notable actor, and Paul is not. A better comparison would be to the articles on Alan Keyes and Bob Barr, both of which mention these politicians' appearances in Baron Cohen's previous film Borat. Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno is even more prominent than Keyes' or Barr's appearances in Borat. Several sources have noted Paul's scene in the movie for its particularly provocative nature, and for the especially deceptive manner through which Baron Cohen elicited Paul's participation. Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Those "several sources" mentioned by Nick Graves include the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Politico, and U.S News & World Report. If the topic is newsworthy enough to be discussed in such prominent media outlets, why would it not be notable enough for a singe-sentence mention in wikipedia?--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of my question got lost. If you are going to include Bruno, why not include other films that received press also, like IOUSA, which got plenty of press, and other films that Paul was in? Any reliance on Bruno being the "most note-worthy" just indicates of a myopic focus on recent events. Also, what criteria is being used to determine how "note-worthy" something is. That's a pretty vague term. Find a standard that conforms to WP policies and guidelines, first. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The same conversation occured on the article about Kazakhstan where a number of people wanted to mention the Borat movie because I think you need to consider that the vast majority of westerners had never heard of Kazakhstan before Borat, who is single-handedly responsible for bringing the country into recognition. There was endless discussion including apparently an RfC, but it was decided NOT to include any mention. Since most of the discussion was the same as what has been presented here I would ask everyone to read Talk:Kazakhstan, beginning with Talk:Kazakhstan#Borat.3F to see why there should be no mention of Brueno in the Paul article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"If you are going to include Bruno, why not include other films that received press also, like IOUSA, which got plenty of press, and other films that Paul was in?" The premise of your question is false. Ron Paul's appearance in IOUSA received a comparatively small fraction of the coverage that his appearance in Bruno received. WP:UNDUE applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with this. It actually says Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It has nothing to do with what events should be reported. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is probably the closest policy/guideline we have. Can you think of a better one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. WP:UNDUE also applies to content: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not even remotely close. The policy that should be followed, as has been pointed out at least twice already in this discussion is WP:RECENT. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Pamela Anderson's article does mention her appearance in Borat. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sacha Baron Cohen's article also mentions his appearance in Borat. What is your point? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:RECENT is not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. Second, WP:RECENT states "Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention.". How is adding a sentence or two about Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno inflating its importance without regard to long-term historical perspective? If anything, that's pretty restrained. No offense, but you don't seem to have an argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. it's still offered by WP as guidance and needs to be considered. Also, in response to my "false premise" above, you myopic focus on his one film appearance is in contravention of WP:Cherry. You want to talk about movie appearances, talk about them all. Don't cherry pick one film which has the propensity of allowing a foot in the door for antagonistic editors to proceed onto making Paul out to be a homophobe; doing that would be a violation of WP:BLP. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it matters. There's a difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay. Even as an essay, including a sentence or two is not in violation. Who says if you mention one film, you have to mention them all? We should only mention films that are 'notable' (for lack of a better term) and to determine that, we look for reliable sources and there are plenty of reliable sources covering Ron Paul's appearance in the film. Nor is it WP:Cherry. WP:Cherry says "instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As I've already pointed out, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources about his appearance so it's not cherry-picking: It's been covered by dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources including The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, The Independent, San Francisco Gate, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Phoenix Times, The Star, Variety Magazine, Newsweek, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. Nobody said anything about saying the Paul is a homophobe. I'm struggling to understand a single valid reason why this should be excluded from this article. 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I made the same point about the other two movies, about their coverage (which each made into nationally recognized media), yet you seem to have ignored that. It's inconsistency like that which has me against inclusion. Generally, I'd leave it out. But you want to include it. I'm fine with that provided the mention is a part of a broader context of film appearances in general. But it appears you think that broader context is overinclusive. Since you want one film, and one film only, I have to ask why. And the only real answer readily available to that is the so-called "controversy" surrounding Cohen's ambush of him and his reaction. Again, why is this film appearance so worthy of mention, but others not? The other films are mentioned in reliable sources, the other films then were obviously notable enough to get mention in those sources. Why is it that only you are right and everyone else, even me, who is trying to meet you halfway, is wrong? Remember that WP is about synthesis of information and consensus over it, not about just what YOU think. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's appearances in IOUSA and Mile High: How to Win... and Lose... the White House didn't receive nearly as much coverage by reliable sources as did his appearance in Bruno. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? By the way, I mentioned IOUSA and American Drug War. And again, your dismissal of any mention of these movies in a Film Appearances section undermines your own argument: they may not have the extent of coverage that Bruno did, but they were still mentioned in reliable sources. I'm pretty sure that if they warranted a mention those nationally-prominent reliable sources, then it was notable enough. The extent of the notability beyond some arbitrarily inflated number of reliable sources which it appear you are relying upon is just ridiculous for the purposes of what I'm suggesting. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability (for lack of a better word) of content is not a binary 1/0 switch. Just because a WP:RS mentions something doesn't necessarily mean it's important enough to belong in an article. Unlike Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno, IOUSA and American Drug War have received very little attention in reliable sources. This is a Wikipedia article, not a fan site. We don't omit information simply because someone doesn't like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Do you think that mentioning Ron Paul's appearance in Brueno has regard to long-term historical perspective? It certainly does not. The most relevant guideline btw is WP:Notability: Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources. However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability..." The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Ron Paul is minor congressman. A hundred years from now, this movie might be all people remember about him. WP:Notability only applies to articles as a whole, not to content within an article. An example of recentism would be if we wrote an entire article about this incident or if we rewrote this article to focus on his appearance. A single sentence or two is hardly an example of WP:RECENT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If Ron Paul is entirely forgotten and all that is remembered is Brueno, then there would be no Ron Paul article, merely a reference in the Brueno article, assuming that people will remember Brueno in 100 years. What you are arguing is that Paul is only well known because he appeared in Brueno. If that was true then you would list his article for deletion. You should give the readers more credit. Most informed people do not form their opinions from undergraduate humor movies, they read newspapers. Incidentally, please read WP:Notability beyond the first paragraph. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• "What you are arguing is that Paul is only well known because he appeared in Brueno. If that was true then you would list his article for deletion." Straw man.
• "Incidentally, please read WP:Notability beyond the first paragraph." Per WP:Notability, "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles" (emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument was not Straw Man, it was Reductio ad absurdum. Please be aware of the difference. Reductio ad absurdum only becomes a straw man argument if one of underlying assumptions is misrepresented. Please advise which underlying argument you believe to be misrepresented.

Your quote is taken from the section "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" (my italics). It says above "They do not directly limit the content of articles." (my italics again). I guess there is a suppostion that people will follow common sense in including material and that readers will have a relative level of sophistication and maturity.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in a meta-discussion about your argument. Do you actually have a valid reason to keep this out of the article? This appears to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use terms like JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I explained my reasons above and will now repeat them since you are asking for a valid reason:

The significance of this story depends on how it is reported in the media. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it reports what mainstream sources are saying. If it becomes a story then it belongs here....We do not "let people decide whether they are interested" by writing about it here. We wait until we find the public finds it interesting before adding it to the article....This type of thing has been discussed with many similar stories. See WP:Recentism: Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective. Is this event of long-term historical perspective? Maybe, but we must wait to see what the level of coverage is....But there has to be notability. It is not the role of Wikipedia to contribute to the notability of an event, just to report it. We cannot assist in the "media coverage" that Paul may or may not deserve. However the event may become notable, at which point it would make sense to include it....It should not be featured because of WP:RECENT. Also the appearances of Paula Abdul and Harrison Ford, who are both celebrities, are not mentioned in their articles....I question though whether this is appropriate. Although articles about actors contain filmographies, articles about politicians do not....The same conversation occured on the article about Kazakhstan where a number of people wanted to mention the Borat movie because I think you need to consider that the vast majority of westerners had never heard of Kazakhstan before Borat, who is single-handedly responsible for bringing the country into recognition. There was endless discussion including apparently an RfC, but it was decided NOT to include any mention. Since most of the discussion was the same as what has been presented here I would ask everyone to read Talk:Kazakhstan, beginning with Talk:Kazakhstan#Borat.3F to see why there should be no mention of Brueno in the Paul article....Do you think that mentioning Ron Paul's appearance in Brueno has regard to long-term historical perspective? It certainly does not. The most relevant guideline btw is WP:Notability: Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources. However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability....If Ron Paul is entirely forgotten and all that is remembered is Brueno, then there would be no Ron Paul article, merely a reference in the Brueno article, assuming that people will remember Brueno in 100 years. What you are arguing is that Paul is only well known because he appeared in Brueno. If that was true then you would list his article for deletion. You should give the readers more credit. Most informed people do not form their opinions from undergraduate humor movies, they read newspapers. Incidentally, please read WP:Notability beyond the first paragraph.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair analogy to compare an article on a single person with an article on an entire nation. As for the rest, I believe all of that has been addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Instead of arguing about inserting trivia into political articals we should strive to ensure that they contain information. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a survey of what several reliable sources have to say about Ron Paul's encounter with Bruno. I have arranged them roughly in order of how significant the coverage is. Though this survey is extensive, it is by no means exhaustive.

If all of these sources were just movie reviews, maybe one could reasonably conclude that this incident isn't really significant enough to mention in Paul's biography. However, there is coverage here from four sources specifically concerned with political news (Slate, Huffington Post, Boston Globe Political Intelligence section, plus the original Curtis Sliwa interview), three of which are entirely dedicated to covering Ron Paul's encounter with Baron Cohen. Some of the movie reviews single out Paul's scene in the movie as particularly notable, for its crass nature, the deceptiveness of Baron Cohen's tactics, or for Paul's use of the epithet "queer." One of the sources notes that Paul has drawn fire for that comment. Two Paul spokespeople have commented to the media on Paul's appearance in the film (Rachel Mills and Jesse Benton), and Paul himself has gone on record regarding the incident.

We are not talking about writing an entire article on this incident, or even an entire section. We are talking about a single-sentence mention of the incident, with a wikilink to the Bruno article, where interested readers can find more details, if they wish. No one doubts this happened. No one can argue it hasn't been covered in reliable sources. And, given the nature and length of much of the following coverage, it's pretty hard to make the case that the incident isn't notable enough to warrant even a mere single-sentence mention.

The "recentism" charge has no merit, because no one is arguing that we take up a lot of space going into minute detail about this incident. The "trivial coverage" charge has no merit, because clearly, much of the following coverage is not trivial, and because that standard is mostly applicable to justifying the existence of entire articles, not the inclusion of individual facts within articles. The "list all of his film appearances or mention none" argument has no merit, because the significance of each appearance must be evaluated individually, based on the extent of coverage in reliable sources. There is adequate coverage to mention Paul's Bruno appearance, regardless of whether other film appearances are also mentioned.

The "but Borat isn't mentioned in the Kazakhstan article" argument has no merit, because Kazakhstan is a country, not a person appearing in the film. You wouldn't expect Borat to be mentioned in the Kazakhstan article any more that you would expect Talladega Nights to be mentioned in the United States article. On the other hand, a presidential candidate getting punked into "playing a role" in a scene in a major motion picture with wide international release and a #1 ranking at the box office is entirely different. A better comparison would be to the Masked Avenger's prank call on Sarah Palin during the 2008 US presidential campaign. This prank is mentioned in one of Palin's sub-articles (Public image of Sarah Palin), and also has its own article: The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin. Is the Bruno incident significant enough to have its own article, like Palin's Masked Avenger incident? No, but it is significant enough to have a brief mention in the Ron Paul article.

What the sources report:

Slate (14 paragraphs)

"Presidential candidates will do almost anything for publicity. But Ron Paul's appearance in Sacha Baron Cohen's upcoming Bruno movie suggests he draws the line at making sex tapes with gay Austrian TV hosts.

"In a five-minute scene, comedian Cohen tries—and fails—to seduce the Texas congressman and former Republican presidential candidate in a Washington hotel room. A spokeswoman for Paul confirmed the appearance but declined to discuss details, which were provided by two people who attended a test screening last week...

"Jesse Benton, senior vice president of Campaign for Liberty and former campaign spokesman for Paul, said Paul was not familiar with Cohen's HBO program, Da Ali G Show. "If it's not on hard-core financial news, he doesn't follow it," Benton said. But, he added, "It sounds like it's going to be pretty funny.""

Huffinton Post (10 paragraphs)

"Sacha Baron Cohen's gay Austrian fashion commentator Bruno did conduct an interview with Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman has confirmed, as had been reported last month...

"Paul just opened up about the encounter on the radio with Curtis Silwa [sic], and he is not pleased, as he thought he had agreed to an interview on Austrian economics.

"When this all gets out, I'm probably going to have to apologize to my supporters because I think most of them are going to figure out why in the world didn't I sock this guy in the nose?...I don't like the idea that he lies his way into an interview. That to me is fraud. But, the fact that he has raunchy material and people buy into it, it's sort of sad that that is a reflection of our culture. To me, it's a real shame that people are going to reward him with millions and millions of dollars for being so crass..."

The Boston Globe, Political Intelligence (8 paragraphs)

"Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who waged a surprisingly successful grassroots campaign for the Republican presidential nomination last year, makes an unwelcome cameo appearance in "Bruno," the latest Sacha Baron Cohen mockumentary that opens today... Well, let Paul, himself, describe what happened, as he did in an April interview with ABC Radio's Curtis Sliwa..."

Entertainment Weekly

"One of Brüno's most prominent targets, Republican congressman Ron Paul, was lured into a supposed interview on economics, only to see it devolve into an awkward attempted seduction. "They lied to us, says Paul's spokesperson, Rachel Mills. "Congressman Paul thinks it's unfortunate that this kind of crass humor gets rewarded monetarily." Paul himself has drawn fire for referring to Brüno as "queer" on camera, but Mills responds, "There are two TV shows that use that term. He certainly didn't mean it to be offensive.""

The Star

"Poor Ron Paul. He just didn't know. How could he? Oh, when the Austrian TV crew invited him to a Washington, D.C., hotel suite for an interview on the economic crisis, he might have wondered why he, an abortion-hating, gun-loving Republican representative from Texas and self-described libertarian, would be cast as the official government spokesman on so important a topic.

"He might have been a little surprised, too, when just before shooting was to begin, the crew's lighting equipment caught fire, causing the show's effete host to usher him quickly to safety, to the room next door.

"But none of it could have prepared the 73-year-old for what came next: candlelight, soft music, and the offer of cheap champagne. The interviewer starts to gyrate slowly; Paul sits on the bed. On camera, an agitated Paul asks what's going on. "Don't worry about it, Dr. Paul," purrs the interviewer, unbuckling his belt, dropping his pants to his knees. Paul, to the surprise of no one, snaps. Sputtering something about "queers," Paul storms past the camera. "This is ENDED!" he shouts, swinging at the lens.

"Paul, you can guess, was probably not much for late-night HBO over the past five years or so, or he might have recognized his interviewer as Brüno, one of British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's unholy trinity of alter egos..."

Wall Street Journal

"One ambush was clearly the real thing, a mirthless encounter with Ron Paul, the Libertarian Texas Representative and former presidential candidate, during which Brüno strips seductively to his skivvies. But the result is only embarrassment. Mr. Paul, disgusted, wants nothing more than to be out of there, and you can’t blame him."

Newsweek

"When he puts the moves on a freaked-out Ron Paul, who is tricked into sitting for an interview allegedly about Austrian economics, Baron Cohen elicits the requisite homophobic reaction: Paul nastily curses the "queer" as he flees the scene. But what straight or gay man wouldn't be put off by this vapid, ass-wriggling Austrian's seduction? This has got to be one of the most uncomfortable scenes in any comedy anywhere, and the aftertaste is anything but triumphant."

Variety

"Pic takes a fateful turn toward the queasy, from which it never entirely recovers, with a noxious "Gotcha!" sequence in which Ron Paul, the libertarian-minded recent presidential aspirant, is played for a sap. Charitably willing to sit for an interview, the clearly clueless politico is led into a bedroom, upon which Bruno begins stripping as if in preparation for a tryst. When Paul realizes he's been set up, he storms out and furiously calls his captor a "queer" a couple of times, which will no doubt rankle some of his erstwhile supporters. But his epithets arguably pale in comparison with the venality of his predator's arachnidan motives."

Phoenix New Times

"Is Congressman Ron Paul, whom Brüno chooses to confuse with RuPaul, really that clueless or was the Republican presidential candidate only desperate for publicity in allowing himself to be inveigled into Brüno's hotel room for an "interview"?"

Forbes

"This time, one felt, the audience knew the game. It wasn't about to laugh at the sight of mere embarrassment or graphic obscenity. Mostly it wasn't going to be bullied into enjoying its own disgust or the sight of humiliation without humor. A case in point: A quietly dignified older gentleman, the former presidential candidate Ron Paul, is hoaxed into a scene where Brüno begins stealthily to strip for a seduction overture. Mr. Paul walks out bewildered and angry. We are quietly on his side. Nothing funny has happened--Brüno might have done the same to a decent old lady with the same effect.

"But then something else happens. As Mr. Paul strides out through the corridor, he shouts back, "He's a crazy queer" or words to that effect. In scene after scene, Brüno pushes matters to extremes, drives our sympathy from himself to his counterfoil only to yank it away."

San Francisco Chronicle

"Many setups that seem as though they should work don't. In one scene, Brüno gets former presidential candidate Ron Paul in a hotel room and tries to seduce him. Paul rushes out of the room horrified, and guess what, it's not funny: A serious, accomplished man takes time out to do an interview. He's treated appallingly, reacts with anger ... and we're supposed to think less of him? Don't think so."

The Independent

"Ron Paul didn't twig, either, that a TV interview that was supposed to be about Austrian economics might end in a candle-lit hotel bedroom, where a blond male journalist would proffer cheap champagne before attempting to seduce him. Never, in his wildest dreams, could the 73-year-old hero of the Republican right have envisioned that a predatory homosexual would have the gall to suddenly drop his trousers. That's why Paul ran away shouting: "This is ENDED!""

The Guardian

"But the film's most glorious scene is absolutely real. Bruno interviews Texas congressman and would-be US presidential candidate Ron Paul in his hotel suite, and then attempts to seduce him to create a sex tape that will kickstart his celebrity career. It is sublime. Baron Cohen's nerve is incredible; Paul's outrage and horror are unmistakably the real thing, and the mistaken-identity punchline is a classic. Did Baron Cohen and his writers, Dan Mazer, Pete Baynham, Anthony Hines and Jeff Schaffer, think of the punchline first and then sucker Paul into getting involved? Or did it occur to them later? Either way, it was inspired."

CBS News

"Whether it is Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom Brüno decides to cast as the lead in a sex tape, or Ayman Abu Aita, the head of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, whom Brüno insults by calling his "King Osama" a "dirty wizard" and a "homeless Santa Claus"--Cohen just can't get a rise out of his male co-stars, who usually respond by ending the interview."

Time

"When Brüno tries to start a cuddle party with Texas Representative Ron Paul — "Has anyone ever told you, you look like Enrique Iglesias?" — the flustered former presidential candidate is definitely not in on the joke. As Paul makes his panicky escape down a hallway, he clues in one of his aides: "This guy is a queer!""

In Wikipedia terms, notability and relevance has nothing at all to do with our personal determinations, but depends entirely on whether the reliable sources found an event notable and relevant enough to document it. Clearly, they did. Nick Graves (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When, oh when, are you going to realize I'm trying to help you out, I'm on your side? Like I said: I'm the one here who has been trying to meet you halfway. Instead of building consensus, however, you [A Quest] are being completely uncooperative from where you stand. A film appearances section which mentions his presence in documentaries and a motion picture is going to get you a lot farther with the people completely against this than your [A Quest's] overweening focus on just this one film. It's like putting your toddler's awful tasting medicine in something that's sugary because you know they'll eat it. WP:CONSENSUS encourages us to find a compromise. My question for you, then, is this: admitting that Bruno has received much more press than the other films (no one is disputing that), what is it about what I'm proposing, taken as a whole, that is unreasonable?

My concern is this: there are editors here who seriously dislike Paul for political reasons--no doubt. My worry is that they are going to try to use this film mention as an attempt to slander him as a homophobe, which is clearly not in accord with WP:BLP. There are also editors who extraordinarily love the man (I for one like the guy; yet go back and look at who resolved the 2008 campaign section on the allegedly racist newsletters: yep, that was me). With these latter guys, my concern is that the editors that love him are going to go Patrick Henry at any mention of Bruno and "smell a rat." This is why I'm offering what I am. It diffuses both sides before there's any problem. Those that want the film mentioned get it in; once the film is in, the political controversy of Cohen's ambush of Paul can be briefly elaborated; finally, by including the material in a broader section on film appearances, you protect the edit from being viewed by those that love the guy as a calculated attempt to attack Paul, and thus avoid an edit war before it begins. They lose any argumentative legs to stand on when you can point at mentions of IOUSA and American Drug War and say that the mention of Borat is in keeping with his other film appearances. Now do you see why I'm making the suggestion I've given? I guess you might call what I'm doing a Wikipedia brand of diplomacy. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not the most diplomatic. Sorry. I do not have anything against Paul, and that is not at all why I thought this should be included. I think it's clear that Baron Cohen made a fool of himself here, not Paul. Just about anyone, gay or straight, would have acted as outraged at Baron Cohen's ugly advances as Paul did. It's clear that it wasn't Bruno's sexuality that prompted Paul to call him "queer as blazes," but Bruno's unseemly behavior in the face of clear disinterest and discomfort from Paul. Mentioning Paul's appearance in the film does give the article a chance to put it in perspective, and allows the words of Paul and his spokespeople to provide a counterpoint against charges of homophobia. Not mentioning it robs the article of that chance, and if anything, does a disservice to the subject. I have no objection to including a filmography of other notable appearances. Nick Graves (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick, my apologies if it appeared my criticisms were directed at you personally. They were not. So if you thought they were, then I fully apologize. My response was more toward User:A Quest for Knowledge in the heavily indented section above. I just put the response at the end since you had made the same case he did, and for some reason I felt the need to put the response to him at the bottom. Bad choice on my part. So again, sorry! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that was directed at me, then you are definitely not on my "side". My interest is in writing a good encyclopedia article and by your own admission, your interest is in how Ron Paul is perceived by other people. The more and more I think this about this, this is really a WP:NPOV dispute. I'm trying to edit this article in accordance to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. I suggest that if you are too emotionally involved in this topic to edit it in a neutral manner, you step aside and let other editors work on it. As of yet, no one has provided a single valid reason why this information should be excluded from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, support Foofighter20x's "Wikipedia brand of diplomacy" proposal. Nick Graves has made a very sold case for inclusion, IMO, while Foofighter has a very sound case for a filmography. This discussion has certainly become more elaborate and in-depth than one might have expected, having stemmed from a proposal to insert one sentence into the article, but I believe a reasonable and fair solution has been found. What say you, fellow wikieditors?--JayJasper (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also support Foofighter20x's proposal. (I think the Bill Moyers appearances should also be mentioned.) By the way, A Quest for Knowledge, valid reasons have been provided for not including Brueno which are quite apparent if you read this discussion. And your comment that Foofighter20x is "too emotionally involved" is gratuitous. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. Which reason do you feel is valid? By his own admission, Foofighter20x is more concerned with how Ron Paul is perceived rather what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines actually state. Honestly, I was hoping that with the RfC request, we'd get some uninvolved editors to provide some perspective. How long does it usually take for the request to get some attention? If the RfC doesn't work, I'll open a NPOV discussion on the noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quest, the Bruno incident will be added if you agree to this compromise. It doesn't matter what Foo's motives are, because two good things will happen if you just agree: (1) The Bruno incident will be mentioned, which is what you want, and (2) other notable film appearances will be mentioned, which certainly does no harm. The article benefits because verifiable information is added, providing a more complete picture. What's not to like about this? And really, the other film appearances are more relevant to Paul's political career, even if they're not as notable as the Bruno appearance. There's really no valid reason to not mention them. What do you say? Let's add a section on notable film appearances and move on. Nick Graves (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. My concern about perception of this article is that including Bruno, and only Bruno, is going to antagonize a certain group of editors. They are most likely going to revert it, which is only going to antagonize you. I could care less about how the article itself depicts Paul beyond the requirements of WP:BLP. The linchpin of my proposal is to avoid the back and forth edit warring by being more comprehensive in the initial approach. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well stated, Nick. I agree that the compromise is fair, reasonable and within WP guidlines. Let's roll with it!--JayJasper (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quest, the RfC has probably not generated much response because the movie Brueno itself is not notable. It has now fallen to no. 10 at the box office and is now so last week. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that Brüno is not notable, I suggest that you nominate its article for deletion. Let us know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is your argument, then you need to put your money where your mouth is. If you think I.O.U.S.A. and American Drug War are not notable, then you need to RfD those two articles. I'm pretty sure once you prusue that you;ll see how bankrupt your argument is. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not my argument. It's a straw man. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that. What's your view on the compromise? It looks like you're the lone hold-out on that. Maybe we should just go ahead with it. Nick Graves (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A filmography for a politician? Seriously? Honestly, it sounds like a stupid idea. How exactly did we go from claiming that Paul's appearance on Bruno isn't notable (even though it's been covered by dozens of reliable sources) to the claim that his appearance on IOUSA is notable (even though it received next-to-nothing coverage in reliable sources)? I mean, is there even a penny's worth of consistency there?

Anyway, I took a look as some of our featured articles on politicians to see if they contained filmographies: Yasser Arafat: 32 entries on IMDB, Wesley Clark: 24 entries on IMDB, Gerald Ford: 82 entries on IMDB, John McCain: 101 entries on IMDB and not one of them featured a filmography. These all passed a peer-review to reach FA status.

To me, it sounds like an attempt to obfuscate, not inform. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about the idea, the more I like it. I checked the Manual of Style, and there is no recommendation against having filmographies in articles about politicians: "These [filmographies] are included for actors, directors, producers and other people who have a list of contributions in film." (emphasis added). And certainly, there is nothing wrong with letting the reader know about notable media appearances. Maybe those other articles attained featured status without such information, but I see no evidence that, if they had had them, it would have been an obstacle to them being promoted. It does not "obfuscate" to mention these other appearances in addition to the Bruno appearance. It's not like having the other films listed somehow makes the Bruno information invisible.

Anyway, we've discussed this thoroughly, and I think consensus has been reached, even if it is not unanimous. If you still feel so strongly against the compromise, I suppose you could filibuster for a while longer, but I think you'll have a tough time convincing anyone else of the "mention only the Bruno film appearance and no other" position. Nick Graves (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a notice at the NPOV notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Please see Wikipedia:Forum_shopping#Forum_shopping. The term "forum shopping", or "asking the other parent", refers to repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like....This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, talk page, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted.... Note too that there is an open RfC on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Forum_shopping refers to repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions. This is the first time I've asked for an outside opinion on this issue. AFAIK, the RfC didn't attract any uninvolved editors so we're still at square one. Nice try, though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the RfC has run its course, especially since we now have rough consensus, and it doesn't appear anyone else is going to step in. I think we're justified at this point adding information on Paul's notable film appearances, perhaps in the "other contributions" section. I notice that that section already lists some contributions to DVD/video media, so it's consistent to add Bruno, IOUSA, etc. there. Nick Graves (talk)

AFAIK, the RfC didn't attract any outside editors so we're still at square one. Hopefully, the notice at the NPOV noticeboard will attract some editors to weigh in on this issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought Jogurney was an outside editor. My apologies if I am mistaken. Regardless, the whole point of an RfC is to move toward consensus. If that consensus can be reached without any or much outside input, then the RfC is mooted. We've reached rough consensus already. Nick Graves (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about one thing: I'm not requesting a filmography. My proposal is not one of have a table that lists films he's appeared in. My proposal is a small TEXT section which highlights his appearances in actual films and documentaries. Have a a line or two about each documentary, and then maybe a little more thatn that on Bruno. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge's new posting can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute on Ron Paul article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Having seen this over on the NPOV board, I can say that while the NPOV board was the wrong place to bring this, the information should be in the article. It's covered in quite a few places, and the incident seems minor enough to not need mention in it's own article, but big enough to get a few lines in this one. Coverage is WP:DUE. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled that the debate has carried on this long. My opinion judging from the discussion is that it is notable enough to warrant at least a one-sentence mention, but definitely not notable enough to have its own section. Colipon+(T) 08:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm baffled as to how a few newspaper mentionings can warrant including a movie no one will remember in 5 years in a politician's bio. There is absolutely NO justification for this, as it violates WP:RECENTISM (can you honestly tell me that in 5 years you think anyone will remember this, or that it will significantly alter Ron Paul's career or the public view of him? no you cannot). Soxwon (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I still remember things from Borat and Ali G. Both done by the same actor and getting similar recognition. For example, I can't think of Pamela Anderson without thinking of Borat. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be that you remember Pamela Anderson from the movie because Borat came to America in order to meet and marry her, and she was a willing participant in the movie. Also, Borat was a much better and more successful movie. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, a short cameo in a movie that is basically Borat II isn't really that notable in the career of a politician that quite's well known compared to most. (Honestly, if you didn't know who Ron Paul was until you saw this movie than you aren't paying much attention to the political process, or at least the 2008 election). As for the argument that you still remember Borat, what about Ladder 49, Shall We Dance, Hero, or any of the other hundreds of films that came out that did decently but have faded from public memory? Soxwon (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's career as politician is quite well known? You've got to be kidding me. Most people (at least Americans) don't know who Ron Paul is or are only vaguely aware of his existance. 25 years from now, his appearance in Bruno could easily be the most notable thing about him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're joking right? Have you followed politics at all in the last year? Soxwon (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, but "Who is Ron Paul?" (a take on "Who is John Galt?" from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged) was one of the slogans we used in his 2008 presidential campaigns. Why? Because most people don't know who Ron Paul is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of this thing called Youtube? He was the most viewed candidate, had more hits than Hillary, Obama, and McCain up until January (and continued to beat our McCain), and has drawn lots of attention for his revolutionary use of the mediums (heck Time Magazine even had an article that called him "candidate 2.0." I can't believe you think that his legacy will ultimately be wittled down to an appearance in a single crappy sequel. Soxwon (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now then, what has been proven here is that Ron Paul's apperance was apparently a significant part of Bruno. However, considering the number of google hits (Bruno movie: 30 million (this includes lots of things that have nothing to do with the movie) Ron Paul: 31 million), the number of G-news hits: (Bruno: 2,600 Ron Paul: 300,000), and the attention and legacy that Ron Paul has established, I'm not sure how you can argue that this movie has proven to have had a major impact on his legacy. Soxwon (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is arguing that this movie has had a major impact on his career at this current time. Instead, I'm arguing that it had a minor impact and thus deserving of a minor mention, one or two sentences. Does that not seem reasonable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently included in the article: "As a junior at Dormont High School, he was the 220-yard dash state champion." How is this at all relevant to Paul's political career? How notable is it, really? The answers: not at all, and not much, respectively. Yet there it is, in his biography. And why? Because it happened, and because it was noted by a reliable source. Therefore, it's notable enough for a mention in his biography. Nick Graves (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then take it out. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand. I said it's notable enough to mention. And the Bruno incident is more notable than that event. Both facts belong in the article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't hurt the article to include factoids about his high-school accomplishments or a cameo appearance in a movie, but WP:TRIVIA certainly warns against it. Jogurney (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to set the line between trivial information and non-trivial information is largely subjective. The guideline you mention has more to do with not creating lists of random facts, but rather integrating such information within the prose in a coherent manner. Do I detect a softening of your view on the matter? Nick Graves (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)The original content about his track and field activities was longer:

Excelling in track and field, he graduated from Dormont High School in 1953 with honors. He had a best mark in the 100-yard dash of 9.7 seconds (the record was then 9.4 seconds); as a junior, he was the 220-yard dash state champion and placed second in the 440-yard run. He was on the wrestling team, played football and baseball, and was student council president. After surgery on a knee injury, he took up swimming as a form of therapy. A major university offered Paul a full scholarship on the chance he could regain his prior speed; however, Paul declined it.[7]

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruno appearance is a clear example of trivia and it shouln't be included in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 10:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision, please read the relevant guideline. Even if you are right that this bit of information is trivial, there is no policy or widely recognized WP editorial standard against integrating trivia within articles. If this were an obscure piece of trivia, maybe you could justify not mentioning this, but given the coverage in so many reliable sources (see above), this is by no means obscure. Nick Graves (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all I think it is safe to say to file it under trivia (for this article). Furthermore, the guideline says "Trivia sections should be avoided." and also points to common sense. My common sense tells me it belongs in "Bruno's" page but not here per wp:UNDUE.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is advocating starting a separate trivia section for this bit of information. It can be integrated within the article. WP:TRIVIA does not advise against such an edit. Also, no one is advocating going into detail about this here, so WP:UNDUE doesn't apply either. Besides, WP:UNDUE has more to do with how minority viewpoints are represented in articles. Paul's notable role in Bruno has nothing to do with viewpoints, and all to do with biographical fact. Based on the coverage in reliable sources, it's at least as appropriate for his biography as his state track championship now mentioned in the article. In terms of headcount, it seems the anti-inclusion camp is gaining back some ground, but I have yet to see a solid, policy and/or guideline based justification for that position. Nick Graves (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You've left out common sense.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the things I'm going by. To me, it seems completely consistent with common sense to mention that the subject of a biography ended up playing a significant role in a controversial scene in a major motion picture. It boggles my mind that there would be any controversy over such a mention, especially given the extensive coverage of the incident. Nick Graves (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So now we're talking; And we just disagree about common sense. Common sense regarding trivia has almost nothing to do with the coverage of such and we, the editors have to choose if it is worth to include in this article or not. I guess we can agree so far and the next step would be to reach consensus one way or the other which this RFC is about. So far,Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics did not draw any comment and so we're on our own. Maybe a "request for consensus" could help? It's not a vote since WP is not a democracy but editors can cast a "vote" with his/her reasoning below in the new section I started, hopefully bringing this issue to an end?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Ron Paul's appearance in the movie "Brüno" noteworthy for inclusion in his article?

Please cast your "vote" with your reasoning. Thanks,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(just to make someone "happy", a "vote" is not the same as a vote as I made clear in my last post in the thread above where I pointed out that WP is not a democracy. That's why editors need to cast a '"vote"' with their reasoning and not just a vote. All clear now? If there is still doubt pass me a line at my talkpage. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. Please see my reasoning above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• No Per Mangificent. Soxwon (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Ron Paul's appearance has been covered by numerous reliable sources. The incident is clearly notable and having one or two sentences is appropriate to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Easily notable., But I have to say, this doesn't seem appropriate, (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). If this is a straw poll to see what consensus is like, that's different, but people should consider this before stating their opinion. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified yes: only in the context of other film appearances, such as IOUSA and American Drug War. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• No Appearance in non-notable film is not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Brüno and Brüno (character) both exist. Whatever you think about the article, saying they aren't is ridiculous. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is noteworthy, because several reliable sources deemed it noteworthy enough to, well, note. This coverage includes not just movie reviews, but sources concerned with political news. This coverage includes not just brief mentions, but also coverage ranging from several sentences to entire articles. This edit contains the bulk of my support for mentioning the fact of Paul's Bruno appearance, which I had rather hopefully and naively labeled my "final arguments." Nick Graves (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. I believe it should be included. I'm of the opinion that wikipedia should as a rough rule of thumb include as much information on a person as possible in biographies and that there should be extremely good reasons why not to include information about people thats easily verifiable.Chhe (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment ...So we should just throw WP:BLP, WP:IINFO, and WP:WEIGHT out the window? Soxwon (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: In what way do these guidelines or policies advise against including this info in the article? Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment ...I don't think that. Its simply that having been familiar with those three rule books I've been unable to find a specific sentence in them that this proposed addition would violate. I guess what I'm saying is I need more specifics to convince me.Chhe (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have taken the liberty of running down the discussion and contacting any and all users who have not voted. Soxwon (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No - the mentions in reliable sources are trivial (the only possible exceptions are blog site coverage which may or may not meet WP:RS). The event is trivia and should generally be excluded from the article along with other trivia about Mr. Paul. Jogurney (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jogurney, the guidelines you refer to are not applicable here. WP:TRIVIA advises against including trivia sections in articles, but goes on to encourage coherently integrating trivia within the prose. WP:NOTE's trivial coverage criterion is concerned with whether coverage is significant enough to warrant an entire article for a subject, not with the coverage needed to include individual facts within articles. It is unreasonable to expect the same level of coverage for a single fact within an article as one would expect for an entire article. The ("possibly") significant coverage that you suggest might not be reliable is indeed from reliable sources. The coverage comes from a newsmagazine and a newspaper (Slate and Boston Globe), as well as an online news aggregator (Huffington Post) which, though it takes the form of the blog, has sufficient editorial oversight to be deemed reliable Nick Graves (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - the only guideline I cited was WP:RS, which is of course relevant here. You have stated that the Slate and HuffPo sources satisfy WP:RS. If that is correct, then we have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources of Paul's appearance in the movie. It certainly warrants mention somewhere. My best guess is that it belongs in the article about the movie, but you seem to disagree. Jogurney (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't believe this is still going on. It is a Yes only if you do it in the right context, i.e. conforming to WP:RECENT, and not starting another section or paragraph purely to describe his Bruno appearance. Ask yourself the question, is anyone going to care that he was in Bruno by 2015? It is not necessary to start a imdb style filmography. Unless in the future, it affects his political life in some significant way, it is not "notable" per se. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No per Jogurney's comment. Scribner (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, per Chhe and Nick Graves' comments. I also agree that other notable film appearances should be mentioned as well, as Foofighter20x pointed out Stonemason89 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
• Yes for the reasons I outlined above. Thank you for notifying me of this poll. MultipleTom (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes per Quest For Knowledge, Nick Graves, and my own comments in the prior discussion, a reliably sourced single-sentence mention would be warranted.--JayJasper (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, If anyone ever rewrites the article, it should be in the Ron Paul and the Media section, along with some on the other screeds he has appeared in. Burzmali (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant yes, but only a sentence or two - More than a couple of sentences would be a definite WP:UNDUE violation. None of his other film appearances are in films of any widespread distribution; this one, appalling though it may be, is worldwide. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe WP:BLP provides the most relevant basis for judging whether this fact should be documented in this article. Near the beginning of the policy, it reads: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject..." Further on, it reads: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article..." The incident is notable, as it has been noted by several reliable, widely-read sources, some of which cover it at length. The incident is relevant, because this is a biography of a political figure, and at least 4 sources specifically concerned with political news covered the incident (Slate, Huffington Post, Boston Globe Political Intelligence, and the original Sliwa interview with Paul). If political news sources found this incident involving Paul relevant enough to cover, then surely it is relevant enough to be covered in his Wikipedia biography. And, of course, the incident is well-documented by several reliable published sources, which are listed and quoted in the above section. Nick Graves (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No, that is not how things work. First of all, WP:BLP says right in the lead: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Therefore, you obviously need to respect other relevant policies like WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IINFO, and WP:RECENT. Secondly, You need mainstream media sources to establish WP:WEIGHT, which sites like Huffington Post and Boston Globe Political Intel don't have. Soxwon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit[8] that was immediately reverted didn't have anything controversial about it, so there are no problems with WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, I agree that the burden of evidence rests on those who wish to include information, but that burden of evidence has been amply met. You've listed a bunch of policies/guidelines, but you haven't specified how including this information would violate any of them. Using common sense actually supports inclusion. Nothing in [WP:IINFO]] warns against including information of this type in this article. There is nothing indiscriminate about mentioning a politician's appearance in a major motion picture when reliable sources for political news deemed it notable enough for coverage. WP:RECENT is not applicable, because the edit in question is a mere mention, and not at all the type of inflated, exhaustively detailed coverage of recent events warned against in that essay. WP:WEIGHT is more concerned with how viewpoints are presented. The information in question is not a viewpoint, but a documented fact. Even if that policy is interpreted liberally and applied to this dispute, the information still does not violate that policy, because a one or two sentence mention of this fact is not the type of disproportionate coverage being warned against. Sources such as Slate and Huffington Post may have a liberal bent, but they are not fringe news sources, any more than conservative-leaning sources such as Forbes or the Wall Street Journal, which also cover the incident. The Boston Globe is certainly a mainstream news source without any significant political leaning to the left or right. Such mainstream news sources as Time, Newsweek and CBS News have also covered the incident. Nick Graves (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are failing to see is that, outside of movie reviews, this "incident" is receiving null coverage in the mainstream press. Sites like Huffington post are good if you already have a MSM source giving the fact creedence, but what you have strung together are a bunch of movie reviews and chance mentionings that will stop (indeed have stopped) as soon as everyone's reviewed the movie. It therefore has little weight or relevance. I think a good example of this on another page would be Richard Nixon's appearance on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In. Arguably one of the most famous television appearances by a politician, it's mentioned in the Rowan and martin page, but not in Richard Nixon's bio. Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not immediately familiar with that incident, but if it was so famous, it should be on Nixon's bio. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a stunning oversight. I found these books about Nixon, and they all cover his Laugh-In appearance. That information definitely belongs in Nixon's Wikipedia biography, perhaps not on the main bio page, but certainly on one of the bio sub-pages, such as Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968. Soxwon wrote: "Sites like Huffington post are good if you already have a MSM source giving the fact creedence..." Are you seriously disputing the fact that Paul appeared in this film? Look, we already have mainstream media confirmation of this in countless movie reviews, and not all of it qualifies as "chance mentionings," as Paul's appearance is singled out as particularly notable by many of them. I reviewed WP:RS, and found nothing insisting that sites such as Huffington Post or Slate are unsuitable sources. They may have political leanings, but they have editorial oversight, and are certainly not extremist. And what about the Boston Globe? It is unquestionably a mainstream media source.

A good heuristic for deciding whether a certain fact ought to be in a Wikipedia biography is to consider whether one might expect to find it reported in a printed biography about that person. It is completely plausible that Ron Paul's run-in with Bruno during the 2008 presidential campaign might appear in such a biography, just as Nixon's 4 seconds on Laugh-In have been covered in print biographies and other sources concerning his life. It is unreasonable to expect there to be continuous coverage of an event to the present moment for that event to be reported in a biography. Yes, it's old news, but the bulk of any biography is going to be old news. Nick Graves (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking forward to Ron Paul's biography, which will be helpful in writing this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Per Burzmali. There should be a Media section for a populist. In that section the movie could be merely mentioned with a few words.--scuro (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• No. Bruno appearance is a clear example of trivia and it shouldn't be included in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please point to a policy or guideline that prohibits or advises against including trivia in articles. Nick Graves (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat myself from above: Trivia in general is not disallowed although "the trivia guideline's says "Trivia sections should be avoided." That brings it to the point bc by that we could include it but we don't have to. Common sense applies there as well in which we obviously disagree.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Naturally this information should be included. It gives readers an idea of Paul's type of mindset. For example, Paul states he watched movies like Gone with the Wind and Sound of Music - well, one is prompted to ask what century he still lives in? It's okay not to have seen the movie, but does Paul read his news selectively? Obviously yes, because he never heard of Bruno. This information is not trivia. I think it should be included. 66.60.241.7 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording if included. Let's try if a compromise is possible so let's work on it.

The following edit(s) could be considered as a compromise and as it doesn't really fit into any existing section my go ahead on this or similar would be only if a trivia section would be added below the "Other contributions" section (and no, this trivia does not fall under the "other contributions" section at all).

• Paul appeared unwittingly in the 2009 mockumentary film Brüno where he left angrily while calling Brüno (the character) "queer as blazes".

Don't like it by myself but it could be improved.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much the type of edit I advocated at the beginning of my involvement. It's actually even a bit more detailed than what I had put forward. I don't think we need to go into specifics about what Paul said, especially since there is not enough space in a brief mention to put his comment into context. We need to avoid leaving the reader with the impression that Paul is a homophobe. Nick Graves (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not a compromise at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces. We're trying to start working on a potential compromise. That's all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces. Are you open for a compromise and if yes, how would you phrase it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Some would interpret the phrase as such so let's leave it out for good.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that:

• Paul appeared, unintentionally, in the 2009 film Brüno, causing a small media uproar .

would be better. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it an uproar, it was an unintentional cameo and was reported as such. Soxwon (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer "unwittingly" over "unintentionally" and I'm not conform with "causing a small media uproar". If it's small it's not really notable and I don't think we should "create" a controversy here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think unwittingly is an odd term, but I don't care about that much. Perhaps just:

• Paul appeared unwittingly in the 2009 film Brüno.

is more to your liking? Irbisgreif (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with you that "unwittingly" is an odd term but more accurate and is used in other articles. I can't think of another term that could replace it besides describe it like "unknowingly and without intention" but that seems to me more odd even if so it would be accurate.

As for your proposed wording, it seems fine to me [if we include it. Sorry, but I have to make this point clear again; You know my initial stand] but with such a short sentence it cannot be a stand-alone in a trivia section. So where do you think should this merged into? You see, we have two problems here: One is to include it at all and if we go for a compromise there might be no existing section to fit it in. Any solution from your side?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with the suggestions made so far is that they don't explain what the scene was about. How about this:

• In 2009 Paul unwittingly appeared in a scene in the mockumentary Brüno, under the premise that the main character Bruno had mistaken him for RuPaul.Chhe (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"In 2009 Paul unwittingly appeared in a scene in the mockumentary Brüno."

What about stopping right there? The details are undue for Paul's bio and are provided in the link.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that looks good, actually. It's concise and to the point, and it leaves the details to a different article, if someone wants to know more. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. So at least we found some common ground. Now we have to wait and see what other have to say about it and just in case, figure out where it would fit (potentionally).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we reach a consensus for inclusion before working on this? I don't believe there is a consensus for inclusion. Jogurney (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that we're in one of those (rare?) occasions where we seem to be unable to reach a consensus one way or the other. So why not try to come up with wording proposals and see how editor's who are against inclusion (like me) react. A compromise can reach consensus too so why not try it out? No commitment and no strings attached.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see a consensus either way. Do I think the arguments against it are "superior"? Yes, I do. Do I think we have a clear consensus? No, I don't.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we have something close to a rough consensus to include the information. In terms of headcount, we have 11 for (two of which were reluctant/qualified) and 6 against. I'm well aware that quality of argument is not always on the side of the majority, and consensus is more than a head count. However, we've discussed this pretty thoroughly, and done what we can to get input from the wider community. And it's pretty hard to compromise between a one-sentence mention, and no mention at all (how about a Solomon solution: half a sentence? "In 2009, Paul was an unwitting-" :-)

I think a previous compromise offer might help us move on. We came pretty close to resolving this earlier with that compromise. How about a subsection within "Other contributions," listing his film appearances that have received secondary coverage? Or, we could just put the information in "Other contributions" without creating a subsection for film appearances. Nick Graves (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Solomon was about to cut a child in half. We don't do this here or do we? The result was an intact child, not cut in half and was giving back to her real mother. But anyway, let's wait for input from editors who take their night rest (also called sleeping) and then go from there? I'll call it a day, have my late dinner and maybe, just maybe take another look before I jump into my bed. Oh, and can you brake down your count by including editor's names for us? Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "Unwitting film appearance" would come closer to what actually happened.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

!Vote count

At Magnificent's request, here is a count of editors' positions on whether and how to include this information. Nick Graves (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes (unqualified, or with the qualification that it be only a brief mention)

1. A Quest For Knowledge
2. Chhe
3. MultipleTom
4. Irbisgreif
5. Nick Graves
6. Stonemason89
7. JayJasper
8. Orange Mike

Yes (In a media section with other appearances/in context of other film appearances, such as IOUSA and American Drug War.)

1. Foofighter20x
2. Burzmali
3. scuro

Yes (But not in an imdb style filmography)

1. Colipon

No (unqualified)

1. The Magnificent Clean-keeper
2. Soxwon
3. The Four Deuces
4. Jogurney
5. Scribner
6. Vision Thing

The counting of votes is bogus. Fighter20x for example said: Maybe instead of fighting over this, there ought to be a Film Appearances section which covers all his film appearances: not just Brüno, but also other films like American Drug War and I.O.U.S.A.. The majority of people who voted yes qualified it this way. However, User:A Quest For Knowledge rejects this view. So basically there is no agreement for anything. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I too must say the count is bogus. Where is user:Colipon just to pick one? I don't have to look further as leaving out just one and what The Four Deuces points out confirms it. Anyway, don't count votes, count arguments. Good night.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my errors/oversights. It can be difficult to get a count when !votes are mixed in with arguments and responses. Four Deuces, I had noted Foofighter's caveat in my original count. Also, Quest's latest !vote did not make that qualification, so s/he may or may not now insist on that. Colipon's !vote was omitted because it was not at the top of hir response, and I overlooked it. If there are any errors in the new count, pasted over the old one above, please speak up. However, I think it is accurate now. Nick Graves (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above count, I still think there is a rough consensus to include this information in some form. If it were between making a new media/appearances section mentioning Bruno and other film appearances, and not mentioning it at all, the ayes would have it, 11 to 7 (assuming Colipon would view that as an imdb style filmography, and would therefore oppose it). The qualifications put forward by Foofighter, Burzmali, scuro, and Colipon might possibly be met by integrating information about Paul's Bruno, IOUSA and American Drug War appearances within the current "Other contributions" section. This would put Paul's film appearances within a media section ("Other contributions" is a mixed list of print and visual media), but it's not an imdb style filmography. This could possibly push the consensus to 12 to 6 in favor, but we'd need another poll to make sure that this would be generally acceptable. Nick Graves (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal: Film appearances sub-section

Please take a look at this possible edit. It adds a film appearances sub-section to Paul's "Other contributions" section that mentions notable films Paul has appeared in. The American Drug War and IOUSA appearances are mentioned along with the Bruno appearance. Certainly, the former two appearances aren't as notable as the latter (in terms of the sheer amount of coverage), but they are definitely much more relevant to Paul's career, so it makes sense to include them. Surely, these appearances are all at least as significant as the foreword that Paul wrote to a book, which is currently listed in the "Other contributions" section. It's not exactly an imdb style filmography, but I'll leave it to Colipon to weigh in with whether s/he considers it acceptable. I think we have here a fairly unobjectionable addition to the article that increases its informative value. Can we agree that such an edit would be at least a tolerable resolution to this dispute? Nick Graves (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The other two films are so obscure that they barely qualify for articles. My biggest concern is that creating a whole subsection for his film appearances adds to the undue emphasis on what is an extremely minor aspect of his career. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. So obscure that both films have their own WP articles... Sorry, but there's no nexus between what is and your statement. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "they don't qualify for articles", I said "they barely qualify for articles". A lot of films with their own WP articles, like a lot of songs and even albums, are borderline cases that in my opinion might not have survived a well-reasoned AfD. (So sue me; I'm a bit of a deletionist.) This is all trivial in the broader context. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is unecessary. Has severe WP:NOTABILITY issues. My concern is that these two other films do not warrant notability and would not be a topic of discussion if the Bruno appearance didn't happen. I still maintain that the Bruno appearance is notable, but it does not have to be lumped together with the other films just for the sake of aggregating his "contributions". Colipon+(Talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My proposal wasn't for the sake of anything other than to be a compromise between the two opposing camps. As you can see above, one proposed edit was already rejected for making Paul sound like a homophobe, something I warned everyone here about. As I said above, with a shield of a little bit of comprehensiveness, Bruno can not only be discussed, but at greater length and without antagonizing either side entirely. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If any of the articles for the other films were deleted for lack of sufficient notability, then we could certainly remove any mention of them from this article. As it is, they are currently deemed notable enough for articles, and Paul's appearances in them were deemed notable enough to be covered by secondary sources, so it's reasonable to include this information. And surely these appearances are at least as notable as many of the articles, writings, etc. that are currently listed in "Other contributions," such as the aforementioned foreword. I don't believe the proposal gives undue emphasis, as a single sentence is dedicated to each film appearance. Their inclusion in a sub-section is not to over-emphasize their importance, but is merely for the sake of presenting the information in an organized and useful manner. I suppose we could distribute the film appearances within the regular "Other contributions" list (ordered chronologically by year), if you're that concerned about putting undue emphasis on this relatively minor aspect of his career. I personally feel that would sort of bury the information, but it is acceptable to me.

Orange Mike, you had earlier indicated your support for including the Bruno information. Perhaps my proposal is not, for you, an ideal arrangement for accomplishing this. However, it does address the concerns of some other editors. Given that there is no solution that everyone will agree is perfect, and in the spirit of achieving a compromise, would you be willing to support this proposal as something that's at least tolerable, even if it's not perfect? Nick Graves (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That chronological order idea under "Other contributions" is a good one. I agree that a lot of these other articles are not as notable as his film appearances. Colipon+(Talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's interaction with the media has been a bit different than most politicians, at least to my eye. Can anyone find a general source verifying that some WP:RS feels the same way? I think a media section like Nick suggests would be warranted if we can source it for general notability first. Burzmali (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some more advice

Looking through this article and it is immediately clear to me that there are many more important issues than this Bruno appearance that everyone here could probably better focus their energies on.

For one, there is immense undue emphasis on the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, something that needs to be shortened to probably two or three paragraphs (and if need be, can be its own article). Secondly, there is also undue emphasis on the 2008 Presidential campaign, another clear symptom of WP:RECENT. It can definitely be toned down and I urge all of you to redirect your attention to these topics.

As for Bruno, it is not a bad idea to just slide it under "other contributions" with a bulleted point. "In addition, Paul has appeared in Bruno and other films... etc. etc".

Colipon+(Talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act can't be it's own article. The AfD consensus for it was to merge it into here. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of article not visible once you sign in

The article says, "He is an underground niggerfaggot.", right after the second sentence of the second paragraph, "Despite the lack of traditional organization or media attention, his 2008 Republican primary campaign attracted an enthusiastic following by making extensive use of the Internet and social networking." However, this third sentence was not visible to me once I signed in. I also could not edit it out.

Does anyone know how to fix this obvious vandalism or how it has been made to be invisible to those of us who are signed in?

The most likely scenario seems to be that the vandalism was removed by someone else, right about the time you signed in, which explains why you didn't see it after that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted by ClueBot, less than a minute after it appeared, which would explain why you didn't see it the second time you looked.--JayJasper (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A further proposal

We could provide a link to Ron Paul's page on IMDb under External links. It could appear as follows:

• Ron Paul (II) at IMDb

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, that could be a compromise in my view. There are (or where) other BLP's that added such to the external links.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that could be a compromise. As Magnificent points out, there is precedent for such a move. Another idea might be to add a link to the Bruno article in the "See also" sec (After all, Paul is mentioned in the article). Something like this:

==See also==

• Brüno, 2009 mockumentary in which Paul is an unwitting participant

It would mention the appearance on the page, which several of us believe is warranted, but it would not be included in the "official" text of the article, where several editors feel it should not be. We might also include links to the American War on Drugs and IOUSA articles under the same heading as well, followed a brief line about Paul's appearance in them. What say you, fellow editors?--JayJasper (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The IMDb link is better than nothing, but not as useful, given that there is no link between the Paul article and the films in which he appears. Nick Graves (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The IMDb link seems okay, but I really like the idea of a see-also section. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with weighting is that IOUSA and other documentaries were critically acclaimed and the interiews with Bill Moyers are significant because of his stature. User:A Quest For Knowledge said "Many readers will be reading this article simply because they saw the Bruno film." May I suggest that User:A Quest For Knowledge request that IMDb provide its users with an external link to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly how weighting is supposed to be determined. Weight should be given based off its prominence in reliable sources. Whether a film is critically acclaimed or panned in those sources is irrelevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I.O.U.S.A. probably received more coverage over a longer period of time than Brueno. It is certainly a more noteworthy film than a summer comedy. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to reliable sources? It's not even close. Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno probably received 20x more coverage than his appearance in IOUSA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Could you please provide evidence that Brueno received 20x more coverage than IOUSA. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My Google search for "I.O.U.S.A" showed 235,000 hits, while "Brueno" showed 152,000. (The overwhelming number of Brueno hits did not even refer to the movie.) Obviously a critically acclaimed documentary will receive more coverage than a so-so comedy. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you include "Ron Paul" in your search as well as "Brüno". Sources that are not reliable don't count. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I now get 140,000 hits. But go to Google scholar. "Ron Paul" Brueno returns 34 hits,[9] only one of which refers to the movie. (Apparently there are a lot of real people called Brueno.) But I.O.U.S.A. returns 133 hits.[10] Clearly I.O.U.S.A. is more notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you misspelled Bruno. Second, if you're going to use Google Scholar, the more appropriate searches are [11] and [12]. Third, not all sources returned by Google Scholar are necessarily reliable. Fourth, Google Scholar doesn't search all reliable sources. Fifth, you still need to examine each hit to make sure that it's a reliable source. Need I go on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No I did not misspell Brueno. When a word that has letters with an umlaut is changed into English, the letters are usually written as ae, oe, or ue instead of ä, ö, or ü.[13] Wir sprechen auf englisch, nicht wahr? Incidentally your Google scholar search returned the same 34 hits as mine. There is no need to look up all the Google scholar hits for I.O.U.S.A because I am not suggesting that it is notable enough to insert in this article merely that it is far more notable movie than Brueno. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then to achieve fair and accurate results, you should include this other spelling. So, if you're going to use Google Scholar, the more appropriate searches are [14] and [15]. I noticed that you failed to address the rest of my rebuttal, so I'll repeat it here: Not all sources returned by Google Scholar are necessarily reliable nor are all reliable sources searched by Google Scholar. A better way would be to use Google's regular search and then examine all the hits and only look at ones that are reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Just out of curiosity, Quest, why are you so hung up on this movie? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with him, I won't assume any bad faith. It's probably just because he's invested in the position he's staked out in the discussion, and the length at which he's defended it. Happens to everyone: you make your choice, you stick to it, and you vociferously defend it when challenged. That's all. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a major motion picture and Ron Paul's appearance has been covered by numerous reliable sources. The other movies that have been mentioned are not nearly as notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine apparently thought that Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno was significant enough to warrant one of ten questions asked of Ron Paul in this interview.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation: new section entitled Cultural phenomenon

Where is the section about the Ron Paul Cultural Phenomenon? I mean, there are likely millions of people who view this guy as a spokesperson for their particular neo-libertarian sensibilities. His appearances especially among younger and more disenfranchised politicos is especially notable, but is not really dealt with substantively in this article which instead focuses primarily on his biographical history and political positions. I recommend that a new section be added, "Cultural Phenomenon". There's a lot that can be discussed including his Daily-Show-esque following, his shadow conventions, his supporters who were more dedicated than any other political faction in 2008, etc. Oh yeah, and that's where a single sentence about Bruno could be folded in.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ron Paul campaign is of historical significance. However we must wait until the story is written before adding it to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RON PAUL 2012!

Does Ron Paul have anything to do with the video 'We Didn't Start the Flame War', the College Humor video? 114.77.223.5 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It dosen't appear that Paul had anything to do with the making of that video, and a Google search on the topic produced no reliable sources that would make it worthy of consideration for inclusion in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Paul does not seem to have any formal education within the field of economics, but is stated as being an economist. This is a somewhat unusual and should be either explained or corrected.Rhbjorn (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It actually states that his profession is "economist" which is inaccurate. So you should remove it. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WPMED banner update

The fact that Ron Paul is a politician that happens to have been trained as a physician does not automatically place his biography within the scope of WP:WikiProject Medicine, which is much, much more concerned with diseases and treatments. I have no expectation that my fellow members at WikiProject Medicine will provide any assistance in developing this article.

Also, I removed the small archive box, because the same archives are linked (and searchable) in the talk header. Having both seemed to increase clutter while providing no additional utility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with this. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

Why is there nothing on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009? The bill appears to be fairly notable and worthy of inclusion given that it has 308 cosponsors and the amount of media and hence public attention it has received.Smallman12q (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you but please ensure that it receives appropriate space in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree this bill needs more than a redirect IMHO.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes this bill notable?Njsamizdat (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It has received a lot of media coverage. Paul and others claim the fed has never been properly audited and the fed is resisting calls for an audit. It is significant to this article because Paul introduced it and it has found widespread support. (See Federal Reserve Transparency Act.) The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right! On reflection I see it currently has 317 co-sponsors and has actually been heard in Financial Services Committee. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)