Talk:Ron Paul

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

Heritage Front

His name and address are included in a list of "Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers". http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/lobbyhf.html Must have something to do with this article: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5 It is taken from the Ron Paul Report, surely Ron Paul must have known what he was publishing?220.246.109.181 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He says he wasn't aware of what was being written in his name and so far no one can prove he was. There are African Americans who have known him for decades and have defended him. The fact is that you hear him speak and you can't possibly say that guy's a racist. It goes against everything he is preaching and this guy practices what he preaches. Your "evidence" probes nothing.

The newsletters are covered in this article, and the Ron Paul Report issue you mention is specifically quoted. Paisan30 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Why isn't racism included as one of his criticisms? source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.31.236 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Because the daily Kos is they most untrustworthy sites ever and is a hate site itself.Alex1996Ne (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Does a diary posting on a website constitute a reliable source? If a reliable source indicates that Paul is being criticized for racism (aside from the newsletter controversy which is already included in the article), please let us know. Jogurney (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul is NOT racist. He explains the false claim here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pLUmfZWIZsc --Xach (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when it comes to credibility nothing better than youtube, right guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.175 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that really fair to accuse youtube of not being very credible? Wikipedia faces the exact same scrutiny. - Capt.Nero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.105.40 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is a video of Ron Paul explaining himself I think that yes. You have no argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.27 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of wikipedia is that we can cite reliable sources. The youtube video is just a politician defending himself, we cannot know if he's lying or saying the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.175 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Within the scope of Wikipedia as a journalistic medium, you legally have to assume he is telling the truth--to do otherwise and "factually" accuse an individual of lying without credible evidence to support it is slander. And in the case of a subject such as this to tout one person's words over another does not constitute credible evidence as the naysayer's statements are considered hearsay. Gawain VIII (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't really make sense. CNN does not "assume" Paul is telling the truth, or they wouldn't run a story about the allegations. --- tqbf 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.175 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They run the story because they are journalists and they are doing business. They have to make money somehow and their channel is on 24 hours a day. You run out of stories at some point. The fact that they run the story does not necessarily say if they agree or not with the accusations. The job of a reporter is to give the news, not give opinions. Maybe you have been watching too much Fox News and so you forgot what a reporter's job REALLY is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.27 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION. The article should note that Ron Paul is being ACCUSED of racism by individuals (who exactly) and whether it is having any effect on his campaign.

It does. Paisan30 (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion"

Even after creating an account, I can not edit this article, so I will ask someone else to...

When it says, "affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion" that doesn't really make sense.

I think it should say, "believes states should determine the legality of abortion" instead. Anyone agree? Paulin08 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. Paulin08 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence should clarify the connection between overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting states' rights to determine the legality of abortion. This can be achieved with minor changes to the sentence structure and wording. Terjen (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading when the intro labels Paul as "strongly pro-life", even if the candidate has described himself this way. Paul opposes a Federal ban on abortion[1], hardly a "strong pro-life" position. In addition, he has several times voted against legally restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions and against making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. I suggest we drop the adjective/adverb and leave the label to just "pro-life". Terjen (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Except that he voted in favor of a federal ban on D&C abortions, HR 760 [2]. He *is* a "strong pro-lifer," happy enough to vote for federal bans until the states can do the banning themselves. 71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul is indeed "pro-life". See [3]. There are also a bunch of other bills/resolutions that you could see besides 760, such as 1095 or 1003, or for example 380. There are more, I've got links if you want them. —msikma (user, talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I'm submitting this article for reassessment, as it is neither neutral nor stable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Perhaps it's just because I'm tired but parts of this article seem to be a little too glowing to me, as if this is a PR rather then an encylopaedia. Of particular concern is the relationship with district section. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

imo you're never going to have a "stable" article about a candidate in an ongoing presidential election. Why not assess where things are when this all dies down? SJMNY (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about this claim in general; Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have both been stable during the election, for example, and are FA and GA respectively. They are biographical articles, of which the presidential campaign material is a small portion. It doesn't speak well of Wikipedia if its articles on political figures involved in campaigns cannot by definition be considered excellent or good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Orange Mike. However, SJMNY has a point - maybe the Iowa caucus results will fizzle out the activity on this page. Anyway, I think the "good article" label was a sad joke. (Watch the army come and vandalize my page come Monday, again.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be delisted because of POV issues. Right now, it reads like a press release.

• "Paul is strongly pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion." — We should avoid loaded and controversial terms like "pro-life," unless they are part of a direct quote or a discussion of the term itself. "Anti-abortion" is more neutral.
• "On August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon closed the "gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard, he says he realized what the Austrian School economists wrote was coming true." — Replace this with a direct quote. Otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia is agreeing with his claim that "what the Austrian School economists wrote was coming true."
• "In 1974, alarmed at the turmoil he saw predicted by the Austrian school, Vietnam War funding, rampant inflation, and wholesale welfare[...]" — Again, this should be put as a quote. Say "what he described as..." and then recount it in his own words.
• "In 1980, when a majority of Republicans favored President Jimmy Carter's proposal to reinstate draft registration, he pointed out their views as inconsistent, stating they were more interested in registering their children than they were their guns." — "Pointed out" is POV; it implies Paul was correct.
• "On the House Banking Committee, Paul blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation,[34] and spoke against banking deregulation that allowed for the 1980s savings and loan crisis." — POV and original research.
• "Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of tax cuts, closing agencies, and curbing the UN would have more influence" — describing his goals as Constitutionalist is POV.

This article is salvageable, but it needs work. It also needs a bigger criticism section, since Paul is really a fringe figure and this makes him look much more mainstream and popular than he really is. *** Crotalus *** 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes him more "frindge" and less "mainstream"? I think that thepast couple of months has moved him from fringe to mainstream. Saying that it needs more critisism BECAUSE he is a frindge candidate is a bias issue. It should be constructed as any other candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.100.80 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Crotalus has pointed out some genuine flaws -- I don't agree with the second bullet point, because an indirect quote doesn't imply he's correct any more than a direct one, but the others have some validity. However. As far as I can tell all the candidate articles have a generally positive tone. It's not WP's function to decide who's "fringe" in an ongoing race. I think Crotalus's comments suggest that he himself may not be coming at this from an entirely neutral position. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus is, imo, right about all but one of the things he lists as not NPOV. that one thing is "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion", there is nothing POV about referring to his position as "pro-life" i would infact say that it would be pushing a pro-abortion point of view to call him "anti-abortion". SJMNY (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life is an inherently biased term. Saying "anti-abortion" doesn't take the point of view that an embryo is a human life. MilesAgain (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"anti-abortion" takes the point of view that the removal of the embryo/fetus is whats important as opposed to the life of said embryo/fetus. SJMNY (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delist at GAR, so the article remains listed. The discussion will be added to the GAR archives shortly. Geometry guy 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Paul's Views in summary

Here is my revision to the opening paragraph. Please, suggest changes or clarify if or why you believe it is not NPOV to note the connection between Paul's beliefs and those of Washington. I can cite sources if you don't believe me about that link. He himself can be quoted in agreement.

And again, someone takes out my "the privacy violations codified in" the patriot act. Paul is against those. How is that fact not NPOV? Please enlighten me. 65.54.154.145 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Dragonnas 01/06/2008 11:00pm PST

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He is against partisan politics and favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, instead supporting the idea of strong national sovereignty citing the dangers of "foreign entanglements" as expressed in the wishes of George Washington's farewell address. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the violations of privacy codified in the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion. 65.54.154.145 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)dragonnas

Because "the violations of privacy codified in the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control" (whether one agrees with part or all of the clause or not) is definitely not a neutral description of those matters. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make my change without the part about privacy violations. I Suppose if someone doesn't know that the patriot act causes privacy concerns, they wouldn't be at Ron Paul's page.Dragonnas (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)dragonnas

It should be noted that he voted in favor of a federal ban on late-term D&C abortions, HR 760. This is not consistent with opposing federal regulation of abortions. 71.145.152.70 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is someone deleting all the controversial stuff?

I like Ron Paul as much as everyone else, but this article seems to purposefully overlook certain controversial (divisive) aspects of Ron Paul's persona. It's very long, but it overlooks the fact that he does not believe in evolution (as he stated on several occasions), claims the Constitution is full of references to God (is he really a constitutionalist then, as the article claims), believes that the Fed is a conspiracy. The whole article reads like an ad. See the language it uses like "alarmed by what he saw...". Why not "misinformed by ..." or "confused by information outside his field of expertise". I'm just saying. This needs to be more informative and more NPOV. Ekonomics geek (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No he does not believe in evolution (He's a simple doctor, not a biologist). Does that change what his political views are? Not in the fucking least. He's for individual freedoms, as is evident to his belief that abortion is wrong but his stance that the individual states should decide. You're mistakingly correlating his personal views with his political ones. In no way will his disbelief in evolution make teaching it in schools illegal, for example.

Duh! Another nitwit for Paul. Of course his actions wouldn't make teaching evolution illegal, even he couldn't get away with that one. It WILL, however make it legal for states to decide that teaching 'Creationism' in public schools as an 'alternative theory' is required, as Georgia tried to do recently! Also, It is just unbelievably stupid to think his views on these topics won't affect his policy. Excatly what do you think Paul would do if a funding bill reached his desk as President that including funding for abortion, or funding for stem-cell research, or even funding for scientific study that would 'prove' some aspect of the bible incorrect? VETO! That's what he would do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.199.69 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We have already covered the likelihood that he will veto such legislation. The introduction to Political positions of Ron Paul makes it very clear that Paul will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Terjen (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good detail to capture if stem cell funding becomes a verifiable controversy or criticism of Paul. It does not, however, moot the criticism, just as his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act remains germane to the newsletter controversy, despite his valid explanation. Clearly, the article should weight towards the candidate's simple rationale for these positions, and away from skepticism --- but it should not whitewash the issue out. --- tqbf 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've not heard some of these other claims. Such as the "fed is a conspiracy". In fact the article itself clarifies that he beliefs in no such conspiracies, merely that it's a flawed system. Get your facts straight.

I see nothing controversial about his personal beliefs. Bush has far more worrying beliefs than he does. And since it's been proven his personal beliefs are not impacting his political ones, I do not see how it's controversial.

71.215.220.196 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not voting for Paul, so I am unbiased on this... but you'll have to be more specific if you want something included. The "alarmed" thing is valid, because the cited article does not say he was "alarmed". However, your suggetions were equally NPOV (in the other direction). Paisan30 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale behind David Duke's support:Neo-Secessionism

The Bible Belt Southern States have the historical revanchism against the North, it is not lack of coincidence that David Duke would endorse a candidate that seeks State Rights or smaller Federal Government in order to reinstate racial segregation and enforce biblical teaching in public schools despite the doctrine of Secularism without the oversight from US Supreme Court and other Federal Agencies, simply like Libertarian economist Gary North's promotes smaller role for the Federal Government by way of Neo-Liberal economic policies upon which he is Framing (social sciences) his religious intentions. David Duke and on Storm Front's site endorse the closing of the border to Mexicans is welcomed and applauded by the owner of the site, an obvious appeal to the racialist bias of this audience. Please examine further --220.239.179.128 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter racism controversy exploding

Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic found someone with 20 years worth of Ron Paul Survival Report (formerly Freedom Report) newsletter issues, and it's ugly as hell. Dozens of articles repeatedly published under Paul's name, and never retracted, engaged in lowbrow racist invective. Among many other things, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was called a "gay pedophile," blacks were repeatedly referred to as animals, and apparently Paul was once a featured speaker at a Confederate secessionist conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpADkP4QqY

http://reason.com/blog/show/124265.html

The newsletter archives and more details are coming out Tuesday afternoon at http://www.tnr.com/

How could he have imagined that this crap wouldn't catch up with him? Devpty01 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual article, "Angry White Man"

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca 3:56, 8 January 2008

more newsletter comments surface

A TNR writer did some digging and unearthed many more comments in the newsletters than were previously known. Highlights of the TNR article include:

• "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage.
• "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
• South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"
• In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy
• comments about gays and Jews

but

• Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman... said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

I'd argue that some of this deserves a mention in one of the RP articles, probably this one and probably in the 1996 controversy section. Comments? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I totally failed to notice the comments on this subject directly above. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul's response; newsletter had personal details

Here is the response from the Paul campaign, and Paul also personally denied writing the articles in this interview with Reason magazine.

However, it turns out that the newsletter issue in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is said to have "seduced underage girls and boys," closes with this paragraph:

My wife Carol and I, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big-government types, making America freer and thus truer to her own heritage, in 1991.

If Paul was not indeed the writer, whoever was knew a lot about his family. Devpty01 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suppose the odds are that the unknown "ghostwriter" is just happened to be a grandfather married to a woman named Carol too? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other details that he mentions about his life in the newsletters. In other issues of the newsletter, he mentions he was a flight surgeon for the air force, what part of texas he lives in, that he is currently a physician, etc.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

http://dl1.upload.ws/image-2726043.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are so biased. Anyone could find that out, it's no secret info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.27 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ron Paul Report" material merged into a single section

Justification: 1. The writings in his newsletter have been discussed for 12 years now, not just 1996. 2. The heading "1996 campaign controversy" is misleading, as it gives no indication of what the controversy was about and implies that the incident took place in 1996 only. 3. It is better to have all the material, including the major "The New Republic" feature on Paul's newsletters, in one section rather than scattered piecemeal throughout the article. Vidor (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Vidor's edit and reverted to it. The logic is sound - the material needs to be together, lest it look like we're trying to hide it. Dr Paul's response is prominently included as well, as is appropriate. Breaking it up is obscuring it. (Thanks, N.h., for catching the header that I missed.) Tvoz |talk 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve its own section simply because someone published an attack article against him. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The TNR article isn't its own section - all of the newsletter controversy is, including the explanations. It's not just about the 1996 campaign. Tvoz |talk 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues is such and old and minor part of Paul's life, or even political life, or even his 2008 campaign, that the section raises serious WP:WEIGHT concerns, especially in the context of WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to explore this assertion, that a political newsletter written between congressional terms, by someone who is a politician, could be outdated or relatively insignificant. What makes you say that? Devpty01 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to previous, pre TNR article version

- - The TNR article does not bring anything "new," into the debate in terms of race. They cite more articles, sure, and they are certainly politically correct. But all of the racist quotations with Paul's name on it are from "the newsletter," (involving the fired ghost writer) are not actually racist, but referring to Martin Luther King's philandering and plagiarism. (well documented, per his wikipedia page) - - Others praise David Duke for his views on the economy, yet criticize his racist past, though saying people can change. Remember, Duke (fraudulently) was claiming to have renounced racism at the time. (2) If anyone is interested in what he was saying when he ran, see this video. - - Paul also refers to segregation as "evil," in one of the newsletters. - - Please read the newsletters for yourselves, in their entiriety, before passing judgment on the matter. Especially in such a politically sensitive day as today, we cannot afford to put out inaccurate information. - - Also, read Lew Rockwell'ss link below for the secession thing. (3) - [- http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129 ] -

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fowCMENOeb0 ] - [- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/018418.html]

SkepticMatt (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Lew Rockwell is a neutral source, but the point is that the material should be organized together, not ignored as you seem to be doing. As long as we include what Ron Paul said in response - not Lew Rockwell - we are neutrally presenting material. The fact that TNR brings in more newsletters is exactly the point - it appears not to be an isolated item from 1996, and that is noteworthy. Tvoz |talk 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Lew Rockwell isn't neutral. He worked for Paul and is endorsing him. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly, I'm not convinced you're a neutral source. How about we remove the update until we have all READ the articles. TNR piece was very dishonest in my mind, and it has receieved no mainstream traction... All I want to do is see a reasonable debate between wikipedians on this before we alter a presidential election.

SkepticMatt (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not a source at all, I'm an editor interested in having a neutral, accessible article. And I did read the piece. As for mainstream traction, well, as I suspect you know, Ron Paul has to stand on his head to get any coverage at all, even negative, so that's hardly the criterion we need to use. TNR is considered a reliable source, and I for one would not have agreed to the addition if it did not prominently include Paul's reply, which it does. As for altering a presidential election - I wouldn't worry too much about the power of this article to do so. Tvoz |talk 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given this link, I've upgraded it to full protection for a week. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the addition of the TNR article and Mr. Paul's response is appropriate. Months ago, I thought the newsletter controversy to be hardly notable, but it's renewed publicity has changed my mind. However, I believe we must include Mr. Paul's response to keep the section NPOV. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is very complimentary to Ron Paul. The section about the newsletter is factual and NPOV. Paisan30 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's agreeing, just saying we need to make sure to include Paul's response as well. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... shouldn't have put my reply under his -- I was just commenting in general. And yes, when I added the new story, I had Paul's response in there as well. Paisan30 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, in case no one has, that the New Republic feature includes PDF copies of the actual newsletters. This is the first time that I know of that the newsletters themselves have been available on the internet, as opposed to quotes and excerpts in places like Salon.com and the Houston Chronicle. Vidor (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve its own section simply because someone published a blatantly false attack and smear article against him. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It deserves its own section because it's one of the more significant events in Paul's candidacy (not to mention, there's no reason to think the article is "blatantly false" at all). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than, of course, the fact he had nothing to do with the letters. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is neither a chatroom nor a platform. Please only discuss the content of the article here and not your own opinion on the reporting of others. Bartleby (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing the article. I said it didn't deserve its own section. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

While the page is protected, I made some edits in my userspace: User:Deleuze/Ron_Paul#.22Ron_Paul_Report.22_newsletter_controversy. Comments? Bartleby (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This section should not be removed. These newsletters are real, valid, and important pieces of information people deserve to know about. Most importantly, they are an important subject relating to Mr.Paul's career as a politician. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (^verbalize_generosity) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know! I believe Wikipedia has a duty to ignore the dubious activities of politicians just in case we somehow make people question the torrent of lies that their campaign is made out of. Politicians depend upon those lies to get elected! We'd be taking jobs! Ruining lives! If someone decides not to vote for a candidate because they found out he was actually a gigantic bigot via Wikipedia, could you live with yourself? Could you sleep at night, knowing that Wikipedia was used for the unbiased reporting of facts? I think we can all agree that the Ron Paul page isn't just for the cherry-picked plus points of the man's life and career - it's for outright fabrications and whitewashing, lest somehow the destined saviour of the free world is not elected as President - for life! --FuegoFish (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is still a biography of a living person, and must conform to WP:BLP. Specious attacks and smears from a political opinion magazine hardly pass muster. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reports include the primary sources. The Paul campaign has not disputed these newsletter issues; in fact Paul has taken "moral responsibility" for them and his campaign apologized for them, most recently on the phone to Tucker Carlson, yesterday, according to his own statement on camera. An apology is an explicit acknowledgment of transgression. There are zero sources that disagree with the fact that the PDF files included in the TNR article are the real deal. Devpty01 (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Specious attacks and smears from a political opinion magazine hardly pass muster" I bet if the magazine was endorsing Paul, you'd think they were a "respected media outlet". Why attack the message when you can attack the messenger, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The venue is very much important. It's the basis of WP:RS. The message is specious. The venue is a political opinion magazine. Period. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: This is a bit of hair-splitting, but I can't help myself: With regard to discussions about whether a potential source for material for the article (e.g., Rockwell) is "neutral," I believe the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View does not require that sources be neutral or unbiased. Odd as it may sound, I would argue that sources -- and source material -- are allowed to be blatantly non-neutral and blatantly biased.

Instead, the issue for a source (and, by extension, for source material to be used in an article) is whether that source is reliable.

I would argue that neutrality (i.e., Neutral Point of View) relates instead to how the source material (whether biased or not) is presented. For example: "John Smith says that Mary Jones is a bad person" would arguably be a neutral presentation (even assuming John is biased or "non-neutral" about Mary). However, "John Smith says that Mary Jones a bad person, and John Smith is right" would be non-neutral (i.e., this would be Wikipedia itself taking a stand on whether the source -- John Smith -- is right about Mary).

Merely using material from a source that is biased -- even grossly biased -- does not necessarily violate the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View.

However, on Reliability, I would argue that the bias (if any) of a source might be relevant in evaluating whether that source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. I express no opinion pro or con on whether Rockwell is "reliable". That's my two cents worth. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From the rule on Neutral Point of View:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

See: [4] (bolding added). Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That of course is second to WP:BLP, which states,

poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[5] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

A political opinion magazine is a poor source to include smears and sensationalism about a living person. The actual newsletters are fine, as are neutral sources, such as the AP or NYT. Original research and attack articles in opinion magazines are not. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this OR? There's 20 years of racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and conspiracy minded commentary ina newsletter with RP's name on it (his signature even in some cases). Not new, but the extent of it was not widely known. A magazine editor/journalist writes a piece on how far back these comments go and in the process lets the RP campaign make their case in the story. The story gets national attention. The RP campaign issues an public explanation. All of this has been noted in this article neutrally. For these reasons, WP:BLP is not an issue here either. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor UBeR: I believe your argument seems to be that a political opinion magazine such as The National Review would not be considered a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia on background information about newsletters allegedy issued years ago by Ron Paul, a current candidate for the presidency.

"Titillating" is of course the present participle of the verb "titillate," which in turn means "to excite or stimulate pleasurably"; see Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1492 (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978). For example, a story about the history of the relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky might be considered "titillating."

I would argue that the term "titillating" does not apply very well here. For the report from The National Review, your term "sensationalism" -- in the sense of "the use of strongly emotional subject matter [ . . . ] that is intended to shock, startle, thrill, excite, etc."; see Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1296 (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978) -- seems more appropriate.

Political opinion magazines of all stripes, both left and right, liberal and conservative, may indeed engage in attacks or "hit pieces" in the form of strongly negative articles on political candidates, especially during a political campaign. Some of these articles may or may not be interpreted by a reader as "smears and sensationalism," depending in part on the bias of each reader. Using such sources would not necessarily violate Wikipedia policy.

I think you are correct that the rules on biographies of living persons may be useful here.

Privacy: There does not appear to be a "privacy" issue involved for Ron Paul in a story about a newsletter allegedy put out by Ron Paul.

On the "do no harm" concept, the Wikipedia concept of "do no harm" arguably should not be misinterpreted to mean "report absolutely nothing scandalous or sensationalistic" about a living person." Wikipedia is full of material about lots of living people that is scandalous, sensationalistic -- and properly sourced. We probably aren't going to be able to justify exclusion of material under the rubric of "do not harm" merely because the material is strongly negative toward a living person.

I don't believe we can support exclusion of the material merely because you feel it is "smears and sensationalism."

On your comment about original research, the Wikipedia rule against Original Research prohibits original research only by Wikipedia editors, not by the source (e.g., The National Review) someone is proposing to cite in a Wikipedia article. So, any discussion of "OR" should focus on whether the material constitutes the "OR" of a Wikipedia editor. Merely having a Wikipedia editor summarize and cite sources is not necessarily original research (in the narrow Wikipedia sense) by that Wikipedia editor.

However, that does not end the inquiry.

The issue is not whether The National Review is biased or neutral. We can assume for the sake of argument that it is both biased and unneutral; it's a political opinion magazine, after all.

Issue: Is The National Review considered to be a reliable source, for purposes of Wikipedia, in a story about allegedly bigoted statements in newsletters allegedly published many years ago by Ron Paul, a current candidate for the presidency? Famspear (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: TNR here refers to The New Republic, not the National Review. The New Republic, while considered center-left, is a far less openly partisan publication. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that when I mentioned "Original research," I was referring to people using the primary source to make assumptions and using synthesis--not to the TNR article. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the "ghostwriter"?

Paul and his supporters say that they didn't write these disgusting articles over a couple decades, they say a ghostwriter did. Who is that ghostwriter supposed to be? Has he or she ever admitted to this? If so, that needs to be in the article. Why didn't Paul see what was being written under his own name and repudiate it? Devpty01 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"He did not indicate whether he knew who wrote the articles". He has never identified the writers, if he knows their identities. Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The mastheads say "Ron Paul and Associates, Houston" so presumably he was at least financially involved with the company publishing things he supposedly wasn't reading, under his name, with his photo on the front page. Devpty01 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there is a reliable source that says he was "financially involved" with the publisher, it's reasonable to add. Otherwise, it's not encyclopedic. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying to put it in the article, I'm just saying that if "Ron Paul and Associates" is not financially involved with Paul, I'll eat my hat. Devpty01 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From TNR: "During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman." Bartleby (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole "prove it" thing is a dodge. Paul's own campaign manager admits he owned a "minority share" in Ron Paul and associates. If I published reports today saying "Paul said XYZ" and he did not, it wouldn't take YEARS for him and his supporters to deny it. In 1996, they claimed he wrote these things, but they were being taken out of context. Now he's saying he didn't write them at all. Was he lying then or lying now? Both can't be true. This tactic is the exact sort of dishonest crap that they claim Paul is above and the alternative to. In the end, he's turning out to be just another typical politician. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We honestly don't care for your OR or soapboxing here. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"If I published reports today saying Paul said XYZ and he did not, it wouldn't take YEARS for him and his supporters to deny it." True, but perhaps you don't remember how it was back in the late 80's and early 90's (assuming you lived back in those ancient times). It certainly wasn't like today when it comes to finding out who says what. These small production typewritten newsletters targeted to specific audiences were the blogs of their day, without search facilities and all the other goodies we're used to today. Let's be careful with our expectations. Terjen (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Being asked to believe that a politician was not reading the political newsletter with his name and face on it, and which included his personal family details, requires a suspension of disbelief of far greater magnitude than the disadvantages of the ancient "typewriter" can begin to explain. Devpty01 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we shouldn't make assumptions then write as we know they are facts. This is easily resolved by sticking to WP policies.Terjen (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was alive and had voted for at least 2 presidents. But what you are failing to either realize or acknowledge is that this came up in 1996 for Paul. He didn't deny them. He said they were taken out of context. He had every opportunity then to refute them and did not. For anyone to claim he didn't know about them makes them a fool. He knew then and answered the allegation. How can you now talk about him not knowing? It would have been smarter and easier to do it 10 years ago, during a local election than to wait until the middle of a presidential election and changing his story. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I honestly don't care that you want to complain about it. Just because you and a bunch of Paul fan-boi's want to write a campaign piece about your deity doesn't mean others forfeit the right to be critical or bring forth information that doesn't make him seem like the glowing angel you want to paint him as. The amount of effort the Paul sycophants are putting forth to excise the article of anything critical of him is very telling. It borders on obsessive. Put all the facts out, good and bad, and let people make their choice. Your oppression of dissenting voices smacks of the same bias Paul complained bout when excluded from the FNC debates. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A few names have been suggested lately by people outside the campaign, so we may have something to say about it when the dust settles.Terjen (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

James Kirchick said in a blog entry today that Lew Rockwell denied writing the newsletters. Vidor (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

From CNN: "Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, 'No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on.'"[6] ~ UBeR (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, the point would clearly be to substantiate the claim that someone other than the person whose name, picture, company, and personal details were on the newsletter was the one who actually wrote it. In the absence of someone stepping forward, we have only a politician's word, and that is not worth a whole lot. Any suggestion that Paul did not write the thing should be clearly attributed to him alone. Devpty01 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the rest of the press and alibis who have vouched for him. Any suggestion that he wrote them should be clearly attributed to the author of the attack article published in the political opinion magazine. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth would that be? The burden of proof generally is on the person whose name, picture, company, and personal details were on the newsletter, if he claims that it wasn't him. (Does the NR article even actually say he wrote them, or merely that they were his newsletters?) I'm getting tired of the hagiography around here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth would that be? Because that is the basis behind WP:OR, WP:V, WP:ATT, and WP:BLP, of course. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

50 Most Effective Members of Congress Blurb

This seems to be spin by the Paul Campaign. The actual article seems to have been titled "50 Ways To Do the Job of Congress" as quoted from Paul's own press releases [7]. The article was complimentary to Paul for his "effective advocacy of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and his consistent application of that standard through his votes on the House floor". Being an "effective advocacy" is not the same as being an "effective member of Congress". In the end, there is no connection to the original publication from CQ, and the reference is to a Ron Paul campaign site. I would either delete the statement as poorly sourced or find someone to hike to their nearest library and read the actual statement [8]. I am looking into it at my local library (the Boston Public Library), but unless I can get there copy moved to my local branch, I won't be able to look it up for a while. Burzmali (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletters

The current version of the Newsletter Controversy section opens with the phrase "Paul's newsletters". I think this might be misleading as the extent to which Paul was involved in the newsletters still is in question beyond that a campaign spokesman has stated that they were published by an entity in which Paul owned a minority stake. I suggest the opening sentence is changed to "Newsletters, which date back to 1978 and has been variously titled..." and that the phrase "Paul's newsletters" is changed to "the newsletters" elsewhere. Terjen (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They had his name in the title and they were owned and published by him. Zero debate over whether they were his newsletters. The uncertainty, which the article reflects, is who wrote the words on the page. Vidor (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have learned he owned a "minority stake" in the newsletter publishing company. If somebody owns a minority stake in say Fox, I don't think we should say Fox is "their" company. Likewise in this case. Furthermore, having somebody's name in the title doesn't imply ownership. Case in point, there are currently plenty of websites and activities going on in the name of Ron Paul that are independent of him. Note that I am not claiming proof that the newsletters were not "his", but rather that the entry should stay neutral and avoid implying his ownership unless it is positively proven.Terjen (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. They were newsletters with his name on them, often written in the first person. Ron Paul has accepted moral responsibility for what was written in his name; I wish his partisans would have the dignity to do the same, instead of lawyering. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion that it is correct to label the newsletters as "his" doesn't follow from the stated facts. Let's avoid putting a spin on the story by presenting them as "Paul's".Terjen (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What more do you want? Are they not Paul's if they weren't handwritten by him in his blood and signed with ink made from his tears? We're approaching theater of the absurd here. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the newsletters were written by Paul, sure, I would be fine with labeling them "Paul's". You have a source for that? Note that I don't deny the facts, but rather dispute it follows logically that these are "his newsletters". It is also a question of semiotics: when I hear "Paul's newsletters" I picture him sitting over his typewriter cranking out the latest issue, or at least Paul actively editing and overseeing the publication. I do not picture an operation sixty miles away with ghostwriters publishing a newsletter under his name while Paul is busy delivering babies elsewhere. Claiming we know it is "Paul's newsletter" is misleading.Terjen (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any corroboration that the latter was the case? Devpty01 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not picture an operation sixty miles away with ghostwriters publishing a newsletter under his name while Paul is busy delivering babies elsewhere. Claiming we know it is "Paul's newsletter" is misleading" Really? Funny, I dont picture you splitting that hair when someone says something like "Bush let the dikes in New Orleans break". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(That's an ignorable Ad hominem attack.)Terjen (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not an ad hominem. I simply stated that I can't imagine you doing it. I didn't say you don't. I didn't say you were right, wrong, stupid, brilliant, attack or insult you in any way. I simply said I can't picture you making that fine distinction. If you'd like to prove me wrong and show me where you have split that fine hair before, please feel free to educate me. Be someone else's victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sufficient corroboration yet, only the official statements from Paul and postings on the web from proclaimed insiders in the know. So we shouldn't make reference to "ghostwritten newsletters" as if this was a fact, just as we should avoid claiming the newsletters were "his". Terjen (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a different interpretation of the meaning of "Paul's newsletters" than I do, Terjen. They were Paul's, in the possessive sense: belonging in part to him, written in his name and persona, credited to him. That is not an assertion of sole authorship, but of ownership (fiduciary and/or moral), as a book ghostwritten for and published in the name of Donald Trump is "Trump's book" (for good or ill). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The semantics of the possessive is apparently ambiguous. Your suggested interpretations are just a subset of the possible meanings, and the more obvious ones are misleading. Hence, it should be dropped.Terjen (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking "moral responsibility" means no more than he failed to act duly to oversee that such things did not happen. If someone were to take "moral responsibility" for a death, it does not follow that the person physically killed him. Either which way, you cannot construe "moral responsibility" to "he wrote them." To do so would fly in the face of WP:OR and WP:BLP, policies that cannot be taken lightly. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It also means responsibility for the fact that there were never any retractions, even long after some of the offensive passages were brought to light, does it not? Devpty01 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Published by Paul. HIS NAME ON THEM. Responsibility admitted by Paul. Thus, his newsletters. Vidor (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why all this fuss to keep the claim that these were "Paul's newsletters"? It is not like removing the possessive denies the possibility that the newsletters were written by Paul. Let's keep the language neutral instead of spinning. The readers can make up their own mind about who wrote the newsletters and the extent to which the content should be attributed to Paul. Terjen (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they were Paul's newsletters, this is an absolute known fact, and attempting to obscure or deny this absolute known fact shows a pro-Paul POV and a desire to hide the facts in order to protect Paul's reputation. They were his newsletters. Who wrote the content cannot be proved, and the article reflects that. But suggesting they were not his newsletters is willful denial of fact. Vidor (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, stating that these were "Paul's newsletters" is to jump the gun. Note how at least some professional journalists are handling this issue by avoiding the possessive (CNN UPI). I think we should do likewise. I am of course not suggesting that we deny they were his newsletters, so that's a straw-man. Terjen (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of course not suggesting that we deny they were his newsletters Yes you are. You, as other Paul partisans have done, are trying to distance Paul from the newsletters as much as you can. Vidor (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not responsible for whatever "Paul partisans have done". I have neither said that we should deny nor affirm they were his newsletters. Instead, I have argued we should stick to similar language that you can find in the coverage in these CNN and UPI articles, which avoid the possessive. Are CNN and UPI "trying to distance Paul from the newsletters" as much as they can too? Of course not, so your argument is unreasonable. Terjen (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are responsible for what you are trying to do. And what you are trying to do is do anything you can to distance Paul from the newsletters. In any case, if we're going to compare links, "The New Republic" is not engaging in any hairsplitting on Paul's ownership of the newsletters, and neither is the Dallas Morning News. Vidor (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not even the article you refer to above uses the possessives "Paul's" or "his" when discussing the newsletters, and that's an editorial. However, I would not be surprised about sensational press and opinion pieces using these possessives. I think we should stick to higher standards, with high end journalism as exemplified by CNN and UPI providing a role model.Terjen (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking through a couple reports on the newsletters, most journalists phrased things similarly. Seems pretty persuasive to me. Bartleby (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is fine by way of neutrality, though maybe a bit long. Don't know exactly what I would cut, though. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This talk is verging on OR, I think. Better to just report that Paul either founded or had a stake in the companies putting out the material and that it was published in his name, along with his denial that he was involved in the writing of them. Bartleby (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion we should just present the facts. Site a source of the accusation from a mainstream media source, then also post his reponse from similar source and let readers come up with their own conclusion if Ron Paul really did write, knew about the articles, or at least shared the articles view point. Never the less it should not be excluded and should be heavily quoted to avoid POV--Nyczhugo (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

{tl|editprotected}} Edit request: Per discussion above, in the section Ron_Paul#.22Ron_Paul_Report.22_newsletter_controversy, eliminate the disputed possessives. Specifically, the first sentence should start "Newsletters, which date back to 1978", and other instances of "Paul's newsletters" should be changed to "the newsletters", likewise "his newsletter" should be "the newsletter" and the one instance of "Paul newsletter" should be changed to "of the newsletters". Terjen (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ron Paul camp denies involvement in the newsletters, but there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests he isn't. It's only his word against the fact that the newsletters were published for 20 years, which is well before he became a person notable enough to be a potential target for a libel campaign. Is it really necessary at this point to remove all possessives? I don't think so. —msikma (user, talk) 07:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have proof to support use of the possessive. Your argument to keep the possessives is based on a Negative proof. Terjen (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should present the facts. We can say that he "took moral responsibility" for it, and claimed that he didn't write them during an interview on CNN. Those two things actually happened. But we must also discuss the facts that might lead people to believe that he did write them, even if some editors might not want to include that information. After all, it's also a fact that the newsletters were published not once or twice but continuously for 20 years. And I'm not trying to imply anything here, but it did go on for 20 years. It's a fact that it did. He let it happen for so long, and it's been mentioned in the various media that have ran a story on the newsletters that his claim is dubious. Those are things we can report on. Why should we not discuss the fact that the media has mostly responded negatively to the newsletters? —msikma (user, talk) 07:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between discussing the facts that might lead people to believe that he did write them and essentially suggest that he wrote them by using possessives. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times, New Republic and Houston Chronicle all refer to the newsletters as Paul's. I think we're safe. Paisan30 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should stick to the highest standards in our presentation to avoid being misleading. WP:BLP applies. Terjen (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the fact that these newsletters were sent for 20 years with Ron Paul's name on them is sufficient reason to refer to them as Paul's newsletters. I was just noting the fact that three reputable publications, which also presumably do not want to collectively libel anyone, have used the terminology. Paisan30 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well - and please remember that not only were they sent out with his name on them, they also were written in a manner to suggest that they were written by him - in the first person, including such things as "my wife Carol and our children and grandchildren, wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" in closing. Tvoz |talk 08:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of the "I agree" positions above boils down to that because the editor's point of view is that these were Ron Paul's newsletters, we should write they are his newsletters. Terjen (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done, no apparent consensus for this edit (and if sources refer to it in the same way, not a BLP issue.) —Random832 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to analyze how it was written in a manner to suggest that it was written by him, we should also analyze if the contents of the editorial are consistent to Ron Paul's speeches, votes, and other publications clearly written by him. Obviously we are not here to analyze the text itself, so we can't make that judgment. I agree with Mskima that we should present the facts, but I do question this user's intentions here. The fact that these newsletters were written for 20 years only solidifies the other camps position on how it would be impossible to monitor 20 years worth of newsletters. Also its not 20 years of newsletters articles that are in question, it only a few, which make them even harder to find amidst 20 years of publication. So the point is, let’s stop making judgment on the data. That is for the reader to decide. What is in question is the possessive term of the newsletter. So we should start off like: "A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks." this is how CNN starts the article. Notice the neutrality because the whole question is the authorship, which CNN is not deciding for us. If we say "Paul's newsletters", it sounds like it’s completely his; always written by him and the makes it sound like these newsletters were the main method of communication of his various campaigns. Also we should start this section citing that this controversy was already brought fourth in 2001 and is re-surfacing now.--Nyczhugo (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

{tl|editprotected}} bah, I don't want to be involved in this; someone else can review it. —Random832 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Per discussion above, in the section Ron_Paul#.22Ron_Paul_Report.22_newsletter_controversy, eliminate the disputed possessives. Specifically, the first sentence should start "Newsletters, which date back to 1978", and other instances of "Paul's newsletters" should be changed to "the newsletters", likewise "his newsletter" should be "the newsletter" and the one instance of "Paul newsletter" should be changed to "of the newsletters". Terjen (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Terjen 100%.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I only want what's best for this article, but let's not make a big deal about the possessives. All of the major publications have referred to it as "Paul's newsletters". The reason is that, well, frankly, it's quite ludicrous to suggest that he did not write them. Him saying he didn't is damage control. Why else would he still employ the person who published the newsletters (Jean McIver), after he said he fired everyone involved? It isn't very hard to come to the conclusion that this sort of evidence outweighs Paul's statements, unless you have some reason to believe that everything he says is truth.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the Wikipedia article should state that they were definitely his. But we should state the facts, which will help the reader draw some kind of conclusion. Either he believes it or he doesn't—it doesn't matter either way—but his opinion should be formulated based on the truth, and the truth is that there is little solid evidence that suggests the contrary. I know there are people here who want to avoid people from being able to look up this article and find the facts I speak of, but it really, really is inappropriate to not discuss the newspaper in full detail. If you truly believe that Paul did not write those letters, then by all means, let the article contain all of the arguments by either side and trust the reader to draw the same conclusion as you did. —msikma (user, talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You claim that "All of the major publications have referred to it as 'Paul's newsletters'". Do you have an NPOV source for that statement? If so, we may consider including it in the section with proper citation. But I hope you don't intend to prove your point by cherry-picking media coverage that actively uses the possessive. It is not hard to find examples, particularly from opinion articles and sensationalist press, as well as headlines and obviously blogs. Case in point, The New Republic, listed by another editor above as an example of "three reputable publications" that "have used the terminology", is a limited circulation liberal opinion magazine. No surprise their article "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul" repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters". But that doesn't give us a free pass to frame our section that way.

You emphasize that you are "not suggesting that the Wikipedia article should state that they were definitely his." That's my main point, so I am glad you concur. The controversy section should not suggest they were Paul's newsletters, like it currently does. You also say that "the truth is that there is little solid evidence that suggests the contrary". I am not arguing that we should make it look like he didn't write the newsletters either, so we shouldn't substitute "Paul's newsletters" with e.g. "the ghostwritten newsletters", but instead use a neutral term like "the newsletters". Terjen (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I also mentioned the New York Times and Houston Chronicle. Paisan30 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that if we try hard, we can cherry-pick plenty of examples of sloppy journalism and opinion pieces that provide language we can use to frame the entry to our own POV. Like taking this article from the Chronicles as an argument for using the term "ghostwritten newsletters". But we shouldn't. This is not a question about facts and sourcing of facts, but about using neutral language that doesn't impose our own POV. Terjen (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article (from Jan. 11) does use the language "newsletters in the name of..." in attributing ownership. The Houston Chronicle published a "commentary" (from Jan. 10) which also uses "newsletters published under his name". The Capital Times (Madison, WI) published a letter to the editor (from Jan. 11) with "newsletters written...under the name of..." language. I'm having trouble finding other articles in reliable sources on the incident, but the concensus appears to match User:Terjen's assertion above that a more NPOV method is being used to describe the ownership of the newsletters in published newspapers. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

II agree with Jogurney. No one wants to hide what happened. But as we do not know for sure who wrote these articles, we shouldn't speculate and give the authorship to Ron Paul.--74.65.242.229 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The authorship of many of the articles is verifiably attributable to Paul; he conceded to writing them to the Austin American Statesman and the Dallas Morning News in 1996. All of the articles went out under Ron Paul masthead. Many of the articles contained personal details of Paul's life, specifically intended to make the reader believe it was written in Paul's hand. Paul has admitted "moral responsibility" for the articles.

Clearly, we should not be asserting directly that Paul wrote them (the Economist seems to believe that Paul's friend, Lew Rockwell, is the primary author), but it is not reasonable or neutral to whitewash this important detail of Paul's biography simply because Paul denies it. It's a tricky editing problem, but not an intractable one. --- tqbf 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the DMN article on LexisNexis ("Candidate's comments on blacks questioned", Catalina Camia, 5/22/1996). It attributes authorship to Paul, and according to the article the author interviewed Paul that week and his comments were that the newsletter remarks were being taken out of context. I think based on that article, it would be acceptable to attribute authorship to Paul. Jogurney (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To attributes authorship to Paul, is simply POV spin. Do the letters need to be address yes. Also it must be worded NPOV as he denies writing them. Any one can write anything in first person or give personal anecdotes. There is a huge divide between "moral responsibility" and authorship. Even the Head of the NAACP Texas, has stated Paul did not rite the letters.The section can be framed in a way of speculation, any thing else is just shameful.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] How about we take a look at the PDF files of these newsletters when we are deciding if there should be a possessive "s" after "Ron Paul"? Take a look at some selections. Note the titles Ron Paul Political Report and another one, note the subscription box; The Ron Paul Survival Report. Here's an early one, Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, with signature and photograph. And this one, which is called The Ron Paul Investment Letter, also with photo and clear indication that it's published by Ron Paul & Associates, INc. And this solicitation letter on what is designed to look like Ron Paul's congressional stationery, signed by him, claiming that the newsletters are his. Using the possessive "s" doesn't actually say that he wrote them, it says that they are "his" - as has been widely reported, and as these pdf files clearly show. It seems clear to me that this edit request should be rejected at this time, and the newsletters should continue to be called "Ron Paul's", which is somewhat different from saying that he wrote every - or any - word in them. Tvoz |talk 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You suggestion about going to the newsletters and reject the neutral language edit request based on what we find is in conflict with Wikipedia:No original research. We should not be pushing our own POV. Terjen (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The possessives claiming these were "Ron Paul's newsletters" were added by Paisan30 and expanded by Vidor late January 8, less than two hours before the page was protected against editing byVeinor. The possessives thus does not reflect a historical consensus. Terjen (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no POV on this, Terjen, and I'm not doing research. I merely am providing backup to the reliable sources already provided who refer to the newsletters as Ron Paul's, for editors to be aware of. I didn't say we should use these as citations in the article, I am suggesting we look at them for an understanding of what the RS's were talking about. We are concerned first and foremost with verifiability and reliable sources, and that's what gets into the articles, but we are also interested in accuracy, are we not? Tvoz |talk 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 1996 DMN article is not free, but it contains a passage which strongly suggests that Paul was aware of the contents of the 1992 newsletter at the time of publishing. Here is the relevant passage:

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report." (Hopefully, that isn't a copyvio - I'll delete immediately if it is.) Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fair use to excerpt small, commercially unusable portions of a copyrighted work for the purposes of commenting specifically on that work. =)

Finally the protection is off. I made the small change to eliminate the "Paul's newsletter" POV language as discussed extensively above. Terjen (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa - "discussed extensively", absolutely. But we did not reach consensus on this point at all, so this "small change" was improper. But rather than edit war, I changed it to clarify that first sentence (and fixed the grammatical error and misleading statement that the newsletters "date back to 1978" as if the offending ones were all from that long ago, which they were not), and have made some other additions for balance. Tvoz |talk 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed to neutral language that does not make any claim whether these are "Paul's newsletters", "ghostwritten newsletters" or any other alternatives, instead just referring to "the newsletters". Note that the original claims that these were "Paul's newsletters" were not based on a historical consensus, but added to the entry less than two hours before the page was edit protected for a week. Maybe we should give some Paul fan the opportunity to edit the page and then protect it for editing for another week just to be fair, then discuss the matter here for "consensus"- although I am not in favor of it.

If anybody still opposes neutral language referring to "the newsletters" instead of "Paul's newsletters", let's hear the arguments. The main argument I have heard so far after several days (see above) is that since an editors point of view is that these were Paul's newsletters, we should write they were "Paul's newsletters" (Vidor). The other argument is that there are sources, such as the TNR article, that uses such language (Paisan30). I have addressed both arguments already. I suggest we keep the neutral language, and open the floor for anybody that think they have better reasons for explicitly proclaiming up front as fact that these were "Paul's newsletters" instead of simply leaving the ownership and authorship of the newsletters for the reader to determine based on the information we present. Terjen (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidor reverted again to get his original POV with "Paul's newsletters" as opening to the section, arguing "Paul's name in the title, Paul's name in the publishing company's title, Paul owned stock, Paul listed as editor. Facts are not POV." Another example of the argument that "I think it is Paul's newsletter, ergo we should write it is his newsletter". It is still misleading to insinuate that Paul wrote the newsletters. Let's have a higher standard in our writing. Terjen (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with your position until I read the 1996 DMN article by Camia Catalina. It is an objective, reliable source and asserts that Ron Paul wrote the 1992 newsletter with racial remarks about Barbara Jordan, etc. However, I concede that the contemporary discussion of the newsletters in objective, reliable sources (CNN and The Capital Times) is careful not to attribute ownership. My opinion is that the 1996 DMN article is probably a better source since the author interviewed Mr. Paul for the article while the CNN/CapTimes articles are simply reporting on the TNR article. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We also have RS that others authored much of the content.[9] Both can of course be true, but if it the case that Paul only wrote some of the content, it does not follow that they were "Paul's newsletters". Terjen (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a compromise lurking somewhere in here; I agree that a distinction needs to be drawn between what we know he wrote and what we're coming to know Lew Rockwell and other former Paul staffers wrote, but an article that Paul approved --- as Reason implies he did, even in the worst cases --- has some relation to Paul despite the actual authorship, in the same way as Murdoch and Schulzberg have some relationship between what comes out of the Post and the Times. There's some genetive construct we're looking for, but it's probably not "Paul's newsletters". --- tqbf 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On one hand we can refer to them as "Paul's newsletters", and make those assuming Paul wrote them happy. On the other hand, we can refer to them as the "ghostwritten newsletters", and make the Paul fans happy. A compromise is to simply refer to them as "the newsletters" and leave out any insinuation about who wrote the newsletters, instead discussing this issue with proper sources in the text. Terjen (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] You don't seem to want to get the point that accurately calling them "Paul's newsletters" doesn't mean he wrote them, it means - as he has acknowledged many times - that they went out with his name all over them in the banner, in the masthead, as the publishing entity: they are Ron Paul's responsibility, and they should be identified as his newsletters. Tvoz |talk 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, what it means is not what you think when you write it, but what the readers think when they read it. I don't know what each reader will think when they read those two words that you insist should open the section, but I highly suspect most won't think what you had in mind when they read "Paul's newsletters". I know I picture Paul cranking out newsletters on his typewriter or alternatively actively working editing it. No need to open with an ambiguous phrase that can easily mislead the reader. We can just skip the Paul part and have a neutral beginning that we all should have no problem agreeing on. Terjen (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Paul's authorship

The problem here is that we only have evidence that he wrote some of the newsletters (check the "Criticism" section on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 for a couple more places where he made similar admissions). We also have evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote other newsletters; the Economist also claims it's an "open secret" that Rockwell and another former Paul Chief of Staff wrote most of the newsletters. Even I don't think Paul wrote most of them.

What is relevant is that these admissions from old newspaper articles contradict Paul's current claim, that he wrote none of the racist material in his newsletters. It's especially relevant given Paul's insistence on not "outing" the ghostwriters. That there is verifiable evidence contracting the plain meaning of things Paul is currently saying on television and in print is something that deserves a space in the article. --- tqbf 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, like we do on the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, although we should try to keep the redundancy down and perhaps mostly cover it there. Also, unless this becomes a major point in the press (beyond the Reason Hit & Run editors blog), we should be careful not to give it undue weight. We already mention "Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996", which touches onto the issue. Terjen (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief of Staff 1981-1985

I just wanted to add that John W. Robbins succeeded Lew Rockwell as Chief of Staff until 1985, but I can't because the page is locked. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/whoisjwr.php Brandonadams (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonadams (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Preceded. Devpty01 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

According to my source he was chief of staff after Rockwell (1981-85) Brandonadams (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection?

Is there a need to block the article from editing by all editors? I didn't realize there had been a significant enough vandalism to justify a block on anon editors, but surely there isn't a reason for a block on all editors? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Full protection seems excessive to me as well. Can we remove the block for registered editors please? Terjen (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Where would this go?

I found this source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

Would it go here? or in the Prez campaign article? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is covered in the campaign article. Terjen (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it goes right here, since it doesn't pertain solely to his 2008 campaign. —msikma (user, talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

""Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy" biased and incomplete

The version I would expect to see:7

Newsletters published under Ron Paul’s name, which date back to 1978 and have been variously titled "Ron Paul's Freedom Report", "Ron Paul Political Report", "The Ron Paul Survival Report", and "The Ron Paul Investment Letter",[93] first became an issue in his 1996 run for Congress against Charles Morris. Morris ran numerous attack ads about Paul's newsletters, which included Paul’s alleged ghostwriter’s derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[94][95] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[96][97] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[98][99]

Until 2001, Paul had not contested his authorship of the newsletters. In 2001, Paul lowered his involvement in the newsletters to a state of "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[100] He later remarked that “Several writers contributed to the product [his newsletters],” [102]. The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10] Caldwell noted that when Paul’s Democratic opponent in the 1996 general election, Charles Morris, called on him to release the rest of the newsletters, Paul refused. [10]

In January 2008, the contents of Paul's newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various Paul newsletters. Kirchick said that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".[101] A 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report stated that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities". After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the newsletter referred to African-American rioters as "barbarians" and suggested that the riots only stopped when it came time for "blacks to pick up their welfare checks". Other issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories. Paul’s newsletter also included an opinion on the suggested response to the fall of the Soviet Union according to the Brandeis University Community Newspaper, asking “Why do we need the federal government? There’s no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?” [144] While the newsletters were published under Paul's name, he disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article. Paul said that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, and that "I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts." He has indicated that he does not know who wrote the articles, but again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.[102]” His campaign’s official response did not discuss why, with a political background and future political intentions, he allowed statements to be made under his name that so starkly contrasted with his beliefs. [102]

[144] http://thehoot.net/?p=41

Askpeeves1 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Way too long. Wrad (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly longer than the original, and much less softening in favor of Ron Paul. Askpeeves1 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion the original is too long, so... I think it's too long. It reads like an article about the newsletters, not like part of an article about Ron Paul. Wrad (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If James Kirchick's opinions are quoted in the article, there should at least be some mention of who he is. There is no article in Wikipedia about him. In another of his articles, "The Anti-Neocon Fervor", he accuses people who use the term "neo-con" of being anti-Semites and "McCarthyite", and otherwise defends Bush's Middle East policy. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-11-06jk.html --The Four Deuces (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a neutral source to me. Wrad (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He isn't a neutral source. Wikipedia does not require that sources be neutral, only reliable. Bartleby (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bartleby: the article shows quotes from James Kirchick as well as his opinion about the letter for which he provides no evidence whatsoever. While I accept that his quotes are acceptable, his opinions should not be presented as fact. If they are presented, the article should also point out his political views. If James Kirchick's opinions are shown in the article, why should we not know anything about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his opinions are presented as fact. It's mostly quotes from the newsletters. This article should probably mention that 1) Kirchick made more newsletters public than Morris did in 1996, and 2) the NR story was written during the presidential campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

James Kirchick is the one who brought the articles to the attention of the public again, and thus we should report on the way he did it. He was critical of them, and thus we should mention that he was. There's all the space in the world to use for Ron Paul's response to the accusations, but they must exist alongside the criticism. And I must note that, as of yet, we've seen no substantial proof that acquits Ron Paul. —msikma (user, talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And The New Republic made pdfs available for the first time that I'm aware of, which allows readers to see the material in context. I note that neither Ron Paul nor anyone from his campaign or congressional staff to my knowledge has suggested that the pdf files were not legitimate copies of his newsletters. So Kirchick's political views are beside the point- it is ROn Paul's views, and things that went out over his name, often in the first person so that they look to all the world that he is the one writing them, that this biography is concerned with. I don't think it's too long. Tvoz |talk 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on any responsibility to pass on Kirchick's interpretations and opinions - this isn't a page about Kirchick, nor is he particularly notable. We have better sources for secondary views of the newsletters.Terjen (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about Kirchick, we're talking about The New Republic, which is extremely notable. You've made it sound as if this is something Kirchick blogged; it in fact resides on the front page of NRO right now. TNR may not be The Atlantic --- Mark Twain never wrote for them --- but it has a comparable reputation for editorial integrity. --- tqbf 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should not be talking about Kirchick, which is what I argue above. The New Republic is a liberal opinion magazine. Kirchick's article has an obvious bias, starting with the title "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul". Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source, but we should take care not to pass along its opinions as if they are facts. Currently the section quote and paraphrase Kirchick without making clear that the article may not be an objective source. Terjen (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

TNR isn't Mother Jones, and Kirchick's wasn't an opinion piece. You're trying to convince editors here that TNR would sacrifice its editorial integrity and reputation to fabricate (or poorly fact-check) a takedown of a candidate polling below the margin of error nationally. Also, what aspect of the Kirchick piece seems likely to have been biased? You obviously read it. What is there to it, other than citations to newsletters, which clearly exist? --- tqbf 08:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the first three words of the Kirchick's piece, claiming that Paul is an "angry white man". Is this a fact? Terjen (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. There's no other way to look at it. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful; there are definitely elements of opinion in it, which we have to be careful about --- but there is original reporting in the story. The citations to the uncovered newsletters aren't opinions. There's a valid presumption that TNR fact-checked the piece, as well. --- tqbf 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is a mix of investigative, analysis, and opinion. And the citations to the newsletters aren't in question. Where we need to thread carefully is when the article paraphrase and summarize content from the newsletter, as well as when making obvious statements of opinion. Terjen (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you. --- tqbf 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Groups

Please add the Aspies for Ron Paul page to his list of supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanquerayRangpur (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not. It's mildly amusing satire (I have to admit, a few of the jokes I don't even get; presumably they meant something to the author). If this particular satire got a lot of attention and became notable in itself, it could conceivably be of interest in the article, but certainly not as a group in support of Paul. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

This article lacks section that discusses criticism of Ron Paul. The "Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy section is a start, but it details only one specific thing in a certain context; it's hardly the entire story. We must also discuss other criticisms, and mention the fact that he's been accused of racism before in notable publications. By all standards, this article goes quite easy on him, and for this reason I think we should:

1. Denounce the article's A-status for now;
2. Turn the full protection into semi-protection so that (somewhat) trusted editors can make modifications;
3. Create a Criticism section under which the "Ron Paul Report" newsletter controversy section is moved;
4. Use various sources ([10]) to write a solid account of the criticism that he endures.

I'm not saying we should do this because I'm an opponent of Ron Paul (I'm not even an American, actually), I'm saying this because I consider this article to be biased in his favor (despite the information given on his newsletter articles which certainly don't look good on him), and feel that an A-class article should not have such a serious issue. —msikma (user, talk) 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you don't even have any specific criticism? You just want to put in negative information to "balance" the article? If that's what you're suggesting, that's contrary to WP:NPOV. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Paul supporters won't allow a NPOV. They only allow things that make Paul look good and delete, alter and argue everything that doesn't boost him up. I've looked at the pages of other candidates and don't see the same thing on nearly the same scale. One has to wonder why a candidate tracking at 5% in national polls and not having gotten 10% in any of the primaries yet has so much more disputing going on? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to add negative information to balance out the good information. I'm sorry if it appears like that; the truth is that this article isn't unreasonably positive about him, but there simply isn't any real criticism apart from the newsletter article section. He's been criticized very harshly, just like the other candidates, but places where this could logically be mentioned seem to be devoid of it. —msikma (user, talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Biographies should include both the good and the bad (though the bad requires more careful sourcing). However I don't see any need for a "criticism" section per se. I haven't seen one in any of the other presidential-candidate bios. I would suggest that all the candidate bios should be kept to a reasonably similar format. --Trovatore (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with adding a criticism section. The newsletter controversy should be included (and it is). I do agree that full protection is unnecessary (and no other candidate has it). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, it's difficult to argue against the fact he has a massive fanbase that might make editing this article a bit difficult. So there might be a bit more reason to fully protect this page in comparison to the pages of the other candidates. But I too think that it's unnecessary, since almost all vandalism is removed with semi-protection already. Plus, the article is too positive about this candidate, so that's one very good reason why it should be unlocked. —msikma (user, talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is on Ron Paul 2008, I am merging this information there.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

{tl|editprotected}} User: Jogurney said, "I disagree with adding a criticism section."

User: Trovatore "However I don't see any need for a "criticism" section per se. I haven't seen one in any of the other presidential-candidate bios. I would suggest that all the candidate bios should be kept to a reasonably similar format."

WE/I would like for the criticism section/newsletter controversy to be deleted on the main page, if you look at ALL of the other candidates have their criticism sections are on their 2008 pages, this info can be merged there.Duchamps_comb MFA 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that as far as I can tell this does not indicate support for deleting the newsletter controversy from this page. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake--Jogurney specifically states that the newsletter controversy should be retained here. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

All of this information is in the Ron Paul 2008 page, merge in any useful there, all the other 2008 Candidates have no thing in their Bio.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, YOU want to remove the newsletter text. No one else you've mentioned here has expressly supported that, to my knowledge. And please don't erase your earlier comments and replace them with other ones; it makes keeping track of the conversation difficult.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this biography page handles the controversy properly. The "Ron Paul newsletter controversy" does not ONLY relate to his presidential run. It was an issue in the past, and relates to Paul in general. Paisan30 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User Paisan30 is the one who added the section. [11]--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the section because it was a notable story that relates to Ron Paul. He appeared on CNN to address the story, so I think the notability is clear. Also, my comment above came five days after I originally added the information, so I was commenting on the work of others as much as my own. Paisan30 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that Paisan30 was the one who added the section. But why are you mentioning that, Duchamps_comb? Are you accusing him of COI? The reason why Paisan30 added that section, I would presume, is because this article needs it. He did the right thing by adding it because it's in the best interest of this article. Ron Paul, as with every other candidate, has received criticism for his actions, the newspaper letters being one particularly important issue. It also does not just relate to his 2008 run for presidency, so there is no reason not to have it. Deleting the newspaper section would be a highly biased mistake. —msikma (user, talk) 07:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled the {tl|editprotected}} template. The template was not accompanied by a specific description of an edit request. Sandstein (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

{tl|editprotected}} Delete the entire section "Ron Paul Report newsletter controversy".--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would revert you in a heartbeat (if the page wasn't protected). Terjen (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. The above discussion indicates that there is no consensus for this edit. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, what happened here? My request to be more critical of Ron Paul, since this article seems to be very biased in his favor, ends with someone proposing to remove the only criticism that's there at this moment? Maybe it would speed things up if I were to go out and actually find the sources that we could use, that would make this a lot easier. —msikma (user, talk) 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That information is found here:[12] You can merge the information onto that page. This is the mans BIO, you want to add negative accusations that are unfounded to be more balanced? Besides no other presidential candidate has criticism on their biography page. I believe I can find a few wikipedia reasons to merge...I am not opposed to a redirect--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

???? "no other presidential candidate has criticism on their biography page"???? Say what?! Have you not read any other candidate's biography articles? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other biographies obviously do include controversies-- otherwise they would not be neutral stories. The newsletter thing should probably be sub-heading number 8 under "Later Congressional career", though. Probably a little undue weight in its current state. Paisan30 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Criticism on bio page

Barack Obama=none

Hilary Clinton=Lewinsky scandal=nothing to do with her

John Edwards=none

Mitt Romney=none

John McCain=none

Mike Huckabee =Wayne DuMond case=makes him a forgiving Christian

correct me if I am wrong.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I picked one of these at random --- Mitt Romney, and within 5 seconds found "The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics". I don't think you've provided a trustworthy summary here. (sorry, not productive, poorly worded) --- tqbf 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the whole Romney page twice I could not find your quote. But even if it is there it's one line (and does not need to be there). Now QUIT wp:stalk Wikistalking me you FREAK!--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Duchamps_comb. I think this section should be slimmed down, to say the least. This is a bio. I looked at other candidate's bio and I did not see any on-campaign scandal/negative "news". It should site the issue briefly with the 2001 response. Anything else relating to the re-surfacing of this matter should be on: Ron Paul 2008 which is his presidential campaign page which must contain such materials.--Nyczhugo (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I already pointed out the Barney Frank criticism on Romney's page; now, go to Hillary Clinton and check out the entire section on Whitewater. I'm pretty sure you're not correct about criticism on the other candidates pages. --- tqbf 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

True there is a Whitewater section, that merely showed she has been investigated(many times). A criticism as inflammatory as some of Pauls would be, X said "Hillary had Vince Foster KILLED to protect her from going to jail."--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think that quoting from Ron Paul's newsletters is comparable to an unsubstantiated charge of murder? Yikes. Paisan30 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Asperger's Syndrome

Paul has a substantial fan base with Aspies. It's been suggested he himself suffers from the disorder. Is this worthy enough to add to the article?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/does-ron-paul-have-aspergers-syndrome.php

Speculative. Ignore. Terjen (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It even says on the page that it's a rumor, and that the Aspies for Paul website is a joke. Paisan30 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I didn't realize that this article has an anti-Paul slant to it, as they do refer to him as a racialist. This was before I found out about the controversy over his newsletter. Ignoring it would be a good thing. I just wanted to see what others had to think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.105.40 (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

dsb interwiki

Could somebody add this dsb:Ron Paul interwiki? Thank you, --Dezidor (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.-Wafulz (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I guess some editors have reason to celebrate. Not only have you managed to stall for almost a week the use of more neutral language in our coverage of the Newsletter controversy (in the middle of a presidential election no less!). You have also earned the top spot in Conservapedia's Examples of Liberal Bias in Wikipedia. Perhaps Barnstars would be in place to commemorate the success? Terjen (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, rabid Paul supporters can be proud. Their inability to accept the posting of a single word that doesn't praise their guy is being quite effective. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What's Conservapedia? --- tqbf 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Imagine a wiki run by Stephen Colbert (character). That's Conservapedia. Really though, being mentioned in Conservapedia's "Examples of bias" is like being mentioned in the Flat Earth Society's "Examples of round-earth bias". Anyway, back to the topic at hand....-Wafulz (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?

Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"

"I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."

Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.

If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.

Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.

Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.

Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league. Paisan30 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this anything but inflammatory and in poor taste? Please rethink your priorities. Bartleby (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They are quotes from the newsletters. Apparently some people thought that the newsletters did not give tactical advice to militias. Now that's cleared up. Paisan30 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Paisan, I was referring to Terjan's initial comment and not yours. Sorry if that was unclear. Bartleby (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha-- sorry. Paisan30 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess some editors have reason to celebrate. I know I am. I think that Wikipedia has done a fine job of providing information in a clear, accurate manner on the evolving story of the Ron Paul newsletters, presenting the issue in a neutral fashion while resisting the efforts of Ron Paul partisans to conceal the newsletters or obscure the issue. Kudos to all! By the way, the TNR list of Paul newsletters looks like its been expanded, and includes issues where Paul is listed by name as an editor. Vidor (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidor was the last to edit the newsletter section before it got protected, so I am not surprised he is padding himself on the back, he got his own POV pushed for a week without correction. Terjen (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad if we can all agree that these newsletters are inflammatory and in poor taste. --- tqbf 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Much of the newsletter material is also politically incorrect. Terjen (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why this article can't just be semi-protected instead. It's true that a lot of editing and reverting will take place, but in the end, it will be good for the article. I don't agree with this article at all; I think it's too much in favor of Ron Paul. And I'm willing to help fix it (and remain fair while doing it). Let's just unprotect this article, I'm sure it'll turn out alright in the end. Besides, better to edit the article furiously than sit here and complain about the fact that the article is biased and impossible to edit. —msikma (user, talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC

Remove navigation box that does not point to this article

{tl|editprotected}} Please remove the following navigation box from this article {{2008 U.S. presidential election}}. It does not point to this article, but rather Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Thanks.

Labelling TNR a liberal magazine

I disagree with terjen, but I'm going to try to bury the hatchet with him. I know the wiki article calls it a liberal magazine, but I don't feel it is appropriate to label it here. It is irrelevant to the piece on this page and if someone doesn't know what TNR is, they will go to the article and see for themselves. Calling it liberal is really opinion, even if it is their own opinion. I think the NY Times is liberal, but I suspect a lot of people would revert me if I labelled it as such, even though I could provide ample support from books and magazines to argue it. I feel it is more appropriate, more neutral, to simply provide the WL to TNR and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Republic, being a liberal opinion magazine, is not an objective source. Our readers should be made aware of that. NY Times may be considered liberal by some, but practices objective journalism. In contrast, The New Republic proudly labels themselves liberal, or as their editor proclaims, "invented the modern usage of the term liberal". The article we cite and quote repeatedly, "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul, is not objective journalism but opinion, if that isn't apparent from the title of their piece. Terjen (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a source is not required to be objective, just notable and verifiable. Am I mistaken? And does a liberal magazine mean that it is not being truthful? Why is it not sufficient to allow the reader to read the wiki article about TNR themselves and draw their own conclusion instead of forcing a "warning label" on them? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It's a silly bit of editorializing, unnecessary at best. The opinions of Kirchick and TNR's editorial staff are not the subject of this article.

As for "initially," the point is to show the different responses issued by the campaign. In 1996, he made no claim that he did not author the newsletters, only that they were being misinterpreted. Anyway, it doesn't necessarily imply that Paul doesn't still believe the quotes are out of context, only that the response is different. Bartleby (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed "a liberal magazine" before seeing that it was being discussed here - it jumped out at me as a POV identification for this article. Let readers follow the wiki link and make their own determination of any bias the magazine has. Niteshift is right on this. Tvoz |talk 07:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a POV identification, properly labeling The New Republic as they explicitly has a liberal POV. It's not my POV - in their current incarnation, I would label them "statist warmongers" or something like that, given their long time support for the war on Iraq. If we are going to reference them and quote statements colored by their POV, we owe our readers to alert them to it. I think "liberal opinion magazine" is a shortcut in place of a more thorough exposé. Terjen (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Paul skeptic and a TNR reader, I don't object to the word "liberal", but strongly object to the word "opinion". TNR is no more an "opinion journal" than The Atlantic Monthly --- both have broken stories, both publish long-form and narrative journalism. Foreign Policy is an opinion magazine. The word "opinion" is also a transparent attack on the credibility of the Kirchick article, and it creates the inaccurate impression that Kirchick wrote an editorial. He did not: he broke a story, with original reporting, that has been picked up in a myriad of tertiary sources since. --- tqbf 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point - I was focusing on the "liberal" and didn't think about the "opinion" part: both should be out. Will take it out if you haven't. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

newsletter

article is protected, so someone with privileges can also add this:

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote. [13]

Lakinekaki (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True author and a note on ownership

Added "Reason" magazine piece detailing Lew Rockwell's involvement with the Report. Vidor (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the notion that it is "POV" to refer to the newsletters as "Paul's newsletters", here is something interesting. The president of "Ron Paul and Associates", the publisher of the various forms of the Ron Paul Report? Ron Paul. The message board post is here, and documents listing Ron Paul as the president of "Ron Paul and Associates" are here and here. Vidor (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just write a blurb about the company in the section when you get a secondary source. No need to add your "Paul's newsletter" POV just because you're convinced that he wrote or edited the newsletters. Terjen (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this is looking like one editor (ok, a couple, but one more than others), patrolling Paul articles constantly, battling to keep any unflattering thing out that can possibly be kept out. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you much rather violate Wikipedia policies? ~ UBeR (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the beauty of opinion. Two people can read the same thing and have different opinions. Some things are blatant and obvious, but many more are not. It seems to be the opinion of Paul supporters that anything that doesn't glorify Paul is in violation of some wiki policy. I don't see this level of nitpicking on the articles for Mike Gravel, Fred Thompson or some of the other candidates. I would honestly expect it on Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain or even Huckabee. Those are top tier candidates in a bitter fight. Paul isn't even making a real impact on any of the races thus far. He's the only guy in the primary to lose to Duncan Hunter. But every single word in a Paul article is guarded like it is scripture. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Reason Magazine piece puts to rest any concerns about calling the newsletters Paul's. As I previously noted, the New York Times and Houston Chronicle have already done so. Paisan30 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New issues

Terjen, what is the purpose of including Kirchick's quote? It appears most of us, you included, agreed that his opinions were not relevant and rather his reportage was. I find it odd that you previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint and now are attempting to make it stick out.

Uber, your problem seems to be with citing his article at all. I think you will find that you are the only person who feels there is any BLP issue involved here, and as thus ought to avoid unilaterally removing it. Even if there is an issue here, what you removed were minor facts (that Paul didn't release back issues, that online archives only go back to 1999). I think this is unhelpful. Bartleby (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, backissues (i.e. rest of the newsletters) was kept, per NYT source. "Since 1978" suggests they're still being published, whereas "from 1978 to 1995" is factually accurate. TNR article fine to cite to discuss the fact they have published such an article on Paul, but to use its content as matters of fact in implying Paul wrote the letters violates WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber, are you really going to use the "accuracy" defense? Where was this concern for accuracy when I was statig Paul got 9.96% of the vote and Paul supporters wanted to round it up to 10 since it was "easier to read"? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting that a reliable source asserted Paul was the author does not violate WP:BLP, though of course our article cannot itself make that assertion (until Paul's supporters stop challenging it, which may happen as the story progresses). --- tqbf 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if all Paul supporters suddenly left an no longer paid attention, it would be unethical to make the article assert that Paul was the author. Perhaps we have different philosophies, but I think we all should strive to achieve WP:NPOV rather than impose our own POV to the extreme and rely on somebody with an opposing POV to hopefully provide some balance. Terjen (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html - you will find that publication of Paul's newsletters did not cease in 1995 and has continued until at least July 2007. 1978 to 1995 is just the period of controversy, not the period of publication. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that I "previously wanted to remove any aspect of Kirchick's viewpoint". Rather, I have favored that we explicitly state the viewpoint. I do however think we shouldn't pay any attention to the less notable Kirchick himself in the article, and only mention the The New Republic as source. I don't think Kirchick adds any authority whatsoever to the claims, and it is not our job to inflate his reputation. Terjen (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick owns this story for TNR, has authored all subsequent material about Paul for TNR, and is cited in virtually every tertiary news source covering the story. It's totally inappropriate to source to TNR; some stories really are authored by TNR (ie, the TNR editorial board). This one isn't; it's simply published, fact-checked, and approved by the TNR editors. This isn't a matter of opinion or reputation; it's just professionalism. --- tqbf 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is correct in the sense that you wanted to remove his paraphrasing to avoid his POV. I fear you are trying to make him the issue instead of the reporting. Bartleby (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick is an associate editor for TNR. He is not our story - his name is just clutter on the page as far as I am concerned. Better to emphasize that TNR published the story, as that's what gives the story credibility. His name will be in the reference anyway (unlike in most news sources, which typically has to include such information in the citation in the text). Terjen (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Kirchick's story. If we were writing about the aftermath of 9/11, we would call it "Langewiesche's story", not "The Atlantic's" story. If we were writing about the controversy surrounding Mother Theresa, we'd call it "Hitchen's story", not "Vanity Fair's story". I know Paul supporters don't like this guy, but that's no excuse for unprofessional attribution. --- tqbf 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In many cases we don't even attribute in the text, instead using a simple reference for the citation. Wikipedia is not a place for idolization. We attribute for the benefit of our readers, not for the benefit of the author of the cited source. I suggest we move his name to the article reference. Terjen (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, we disagree about just about everything, but you seem like a smart and reasonable editor. You can't really be saying that proper attribution is "idolization", or that we should conceal or alter the facts of an article's authorship for "the benefit of our readers". I don't know who Jamie Kirchick is; first I heard of him was this story. I don't care about him. But I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by the editorial decisions we make. --- tqbf 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me again lay this out:

• It's proper to cite the actual author of a piece
• It's inaccurate to label Kirchick's piece "The New Republic's piece" --- a "TNR piece" would imply a far stronger endorsement of the story, and multiple authors
• It's unwieldy and confusing, because there will be additional TNR pieces cited in the article, potentially on this very controversy
• It's almost universally the way the piece has been attributed (according to NEWS.GOOGLE.COM)
• The reasoning given to avoid using Kirchick's name is, charitably, inoperative: we don't cite or not cite because of concern for someone's "reputation" or "idolization". He wrote it, so we say he wrote it, and move on.

--- tqbf 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If TNR didn't endorse it, they wouldn't have published it. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but do you really think the editors of Slate and Vanity Fair endorse Hitchens position that Mother Theresa is a fraudulent fanatic? There's a difference between editorial oversight and endorsement. Oversight implies that Kirchick followed professional, responsible journalistic practices in sourcing and writing the story. Endorsement implies that a famous and respected current affairs publications in the US agrees with what Kirchick concluded.

Also, you only responded to one of my arguments. --- tqbf 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should write: "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters..." with a proper citation in the reference including Kirchick attributed as author. As wikipedia supports references, there are no need to mention Kirchick in our text. Terjen (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tgbf is completely right about this - TNR is the publisher, Kirchick is the author and his name should be in the text. More information is what we're supposed to be striving for - not burying of information that apparently has some significance to some portion of our readership, judging by the vehemence with which some want to remove it. Tvoz |talk 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What I heard you say is that you take this position because you think I have some partisan reason for not wanting Kirchick included in the text. Not so, I argue this case for editorial reasons, as I think it will make that part of the article easier to read with less ignorable clutter. But it is limited how much I will bother to spend time on something that are only a minor improvement and that others insist on stalling for purely partisan reasons. Terjen (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your edit summary of "pathetic" if you're referring to my comment, and I was not addressing just you, Terjen. I haven't tried to stall anything, nor have my edits here been partisan - my edits to this article, among the top ten editors on this article in numbers of edits, go back many months and have been largely to reduce the POV edits that this article is subject to. Tvoz |talk 07:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall you got here as early as last summer. You do good work.Terjen (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of May, about 3 months after you did - but back then I believe you and I occasionally agreed, on subjects like non-scientific polls. And thank you. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did my first edit on this page in January 2007, before all this craziness. We have usually had quite compatible editorial policies, as far as my memory goes. BTW, I just checked the edit counts: you are the tenth most active editor of this page.Terjen (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to add, "thank you". --- tqbf 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean me, tgbf? I didn't forget- see above - anyone who says I do good work gets a 'thank you'! And Terjen - actually I think I'm #9 (according to this one), but who's counting. I'm #4 on this talk page, which tells me it's probably time for dinner.... Tvoz |talk 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider for a second the principle behind. I presume it would be that for each cited source, we should explicitly mention both the author(s) and the publication in the text, in the name of striving for more information. Now, I don't want to edit to make a WP:POINT, but we would end up with far more than the current 86Kb text if we consistently adhere to that principle for our citations. Terjen (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know that's not what anyone is saying. Most authors of articles are pretty much invisible - they don't make appearances on shows like Tucker Carlson's to talk about their articles, for example, as Kirchick did. He has a considerably higher profile on this, as evidenced by the negative attention the pro-Paul bloggers pay to him, and eliminating his name just doesn't make sense. Lower profile authors of articles of course would be just in the citation, and even the publication often would be just in the citation. But Kirchick and TNR are part of the story, for better or worse. We mention the author and publisher of the New York Times magazine article too, in the text. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the nature of the piece is. When the piece is itself referenced directly in an article, we attribute the author of the piece. If the piece doesn't merit attribution, it doesn't merit direct reference in the article; demote it to a citation to a fact. --- tqbf 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt' get exactly what you mean by "referenced directly in an article". Can you restate that rule in a less ambiguous way?Terjen (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(<-dent) I'm sorry, I know my comments are prolix and confusing. Restated: if you're writing about the article, and not simply using the findings of the article in the prose and keeping the identity of the source to a reference, then you need to attribute professionally. Even simpler: if you find yourself needing to say "The New Republic", then you're identifying (and writing about) the article, and the author needs to be attributed. --- tqbf 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the consensus that we should write about the article and Kirchick? Currently, writing about the TNR article is used mostly as a coatrack to include quotes directly from the newsletters, a primary source. I think our focus should be on the criticism that has resulted from Kirchick reviving the newsletter controversy, rather than about how Kirchick fueled the fire. But if we cover the latter, we may consider to expand it with additional viewpoints on the article. And we need to use secondary sources.

2. Where can I find the rule you confidently provide for how to attribute sources? I wasn't able to immediately find it in the WP:LOP but perhaps you can help.

3. You talk about us needing to attribute professionally, but this post by CNN (oops, I almost broke your rule: by Brian Todd, another guy with two first names) only mentions The New Republic with not a pip about Kirchic, and other MSN vary in whether they mention Kirchick, TNR, or neither. (BTW: I am glad to hear that you are a professional thus getting paid for doing this - how can I get in on the deal? ;-)

Terjen (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The only guidance WP provides that I can find (I looked too) says "cite the author", but doesn't do so with authority, saying "write it like XXX". WP has a thing about instruction creep.

You're right about CNN, which also did original reporting on the story and minimized TNR's article. Recall, the newsletters were "uncovered by CNN". --- tqbf 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources for revival of newsletter controversy

The claim that "In January 2008, the contents of the newsletters made news again when James Kirchick of The New Republic published a story detailing the contents of various issues of several newsletters and including images of the actual contents of some of them" had a primary source: the TNR articles. I have upgraded this to a NPOV secondary source, the Boston Globe[14]. I moved the primary sources to appropriate locations. The paragraph still appear as a coatrack for quoting from the newsletter. Terjen (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's coatrack about quoting the newsletter? The section is about the newsletter. --- tqbf 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the section should not be about the newsletter, but about the related controversy and criticism. Terjen (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not enough quoting of all the different primary-source offensive excerpts which form the basis of the controversy. People are going to look at the first paragraph in that section and wonder what the fuss is about. You don't describe a controversy with anything but the strongest sources of it. For example, the quote about Martin Luther King seducing boys and girls is probably representative of what is really fueling the controversy. MB83 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the paragraph to mention that the newsletters attacked Martin Luther King, Jr. etc., citing the claims to a secondary source. Terjen (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear enough. Did he attack MLK on racial issues or on social issues? We need to make the distinction. Wrad (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and contentious content in the biography of a living person requires the highest standards and should be written with strict adherence to wikipedia content policies. The views of critics should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully, and avoid original research including synthesis of material serving to advance a position.

The newsletters are primary sources and can easily be misused. With the recent revival of the newsletter controversy, there should be plenty of secondary sources to substantiate claims about the newsletters. We should phase out quoting from the newsletters as primary source and upgrade to broader claims cited to secondary sources, preferably NPOV ones. While this gives less ability to emotionally affect the readers by putting together selected inflammatory quotes, it will also allow more powerful, broader statements to be made about the content of the newsletters.

-- Terjen (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NY Times magazine quotes

I see that the negative quote about Paul's newsletter explanation not being transparent was removed but the positive quote retained. Am I missing a discussion here? (That's possible - I haven't read every word on talk tonight.) Thanks Tvoz |talk 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now in edit summary - no, that's not going to work. The edit summary from the IP who removed the "not transparent" part says: I removed the last comment of that sentence since it contradict the previous one. The guy can't say on the one hand that he believes ron paul and on the other that he was not transparent.. But the actual sentences in the Times piece by Caldwell read as follows:

"Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it."

The editor's opinion notwithstanding, it is misleading at best to include half of what Caldwell said, especially when the two sentences follow one another, and arguably the second point clarifies the first. It would be equally wrong to include the "was not transparent" part and omit the "quite believeably". So, I am reinstating it as it was. Tvoz |talk 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've reinstated David Gergen's comment. Obviously the section has been edited to remove material critical to Paul - exactly what prompted the full protection that expired. So, I'm asking for at least semiprotection again. And now we have to go through all of the edits from tonight to put the piece back together. To the partisan IPs - this is not a campaign piece. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirchick column

Wikipedia articles should report known facts and should not report subjective opinions of columnists without at least telling the readers something about the columnists. In this controversy, CNN reported that the "Ron Paul 90s newsletters rant against gays, blacks", and the Wikipedia article correctly mentions this undisputed fact, which is documented. The Wikipedia article then mentions that Jamers Kirchick concluded that Paul was 'an "angry white man", noting that the writings showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry".' However, aside from the facts presented in CNN, there is no evidence at all for Kirchick's other comments, and the Wikipedia article does not even mention that Kirchick is a columnist and not a reporter.

We see Kirchick's type of argument all the time. Bill O'Reilly reporting on the Toronto Globe and Mail's mocking of Fox News called it "far-left". Would it be sensible to include this opinion in an article about this conservative but respectable newspaper without at least informing readers of who Bill O'Reilly was? Is it really a good idea to use a columnist's opinions rather than a reporter's article as a source?

Surely Wikipedia's standards should be at least as high as CNN. People reading Wikipedia's articles should not be expected to read columns that are quoted in its pages, research the columnists and then search for evidence they have provided, and determine whether it fits the story. If a column is used as a source, only substantiated material should be quoted. If the publication of the column itself is the story (e.g., J'accuse) then the reader wants to know something about the writer.

If the source is unreliable, then so is the article.

Although this article is about a presidential candidate, and therefore controversial, one expects that high standards of objectivity should be maintained about all subjects. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Split Newsletter controvesy to separate article

Reasons:

1. The stability of Ron Paul and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has suffered significantly due to this controversy, to the point that I question whether or not this article should still be listed as GA. A separate article would contain the instability to a single, less important article.

2. Changes to one article don't reflect changes in the other. For ease of maintenance a single article on the controversy with short blurbs on the main articles would help keep the articles in synch.

3. There seems to be some precedence for splitting significant controversies to their own articles, see Whitewater (controversy). I would recommend creating the article Ron Paul newsletters, and merging the relevant information there.

4. If, after the election, everyone loses interest in the newsletters, the new article could be merged back into Ron Paul or Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 as appropriate.

In part, I believe that the newsletters have achieved enough notability in their own right to have an article. Burzmali (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Two words: POV FORK. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Try SPIN OUT instead, better 2 words. Burzmali (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also against forking out the Newsletter controversy into its own entry. I second Burzmali on that it may appear to be a pov fork. I don't think stability is an issue, it seems like mainstream media is mostly done covering the story anyway. Terjen (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this article came out from protection around 40 hours ago, it has had 131 revision. That's at least 1 revision every 20 minutes, and earning the number 22 spot on the most edited article list according to wikirage. That makes for about as unstable an article as you can get. I am more worried about WP:UNDUE because I do not believe the newsletter issue can be covered fully in this article without expanding it to the point that it takes the article over. Burzmali (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider that the recent revisions are a delayed response to the newsletter story making major news a few hours before the article got protected. Expect it to cool down. Terjen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has clocked one edit every 25 minutes over the last eight and a half days with well over half of the edits linked to the controversy in some way, and sometimes reads like a POV fork of the newsletter section in this article. Burzmali (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads differently because I've been working on it there with Terjen and Buspar and about 3 more Paul skeptics, yourself included. I was unaware that the controversy was even mirrored onto this page until Duchamps_comb pointed it out. I object to the notion that is a "fork" of this article; I didn't start with the content here.

Agree that we should contemplate some kind of a merge. Strongly dispute that it has an editorial bias one way or the other. I've gagged down a lot of pro-Paul material there, and I'm sure Terjen feels like he's had to gag down a lot of dubious anti-Paul material, but everything in that section is sourced to first and second tier news sources. --- tqbf 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have stepped in both on apparent pro-Paul and anti-Paul edits. The Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 section on the newsletters still has issues. Terjen (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this too; I thought about it for the same reason you did, Burzmali, but article splits should happen for flow and size reasons, not because we can't resolve content disputes. The newsletters are an exceedingly important detail of Paul's political career, and if a dispute takes GA away from the article, it doesn't deserve to have GA. --- tqbf 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)