Jump to content

Talk:Rand Paul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.119.131.212 (talk) at 07:17, 14 August 2013 (→Include Milton Friedman political gaffe?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleRand Paul has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2013Good article nomineeListed

NBO - not neutral source

Rand Paul says there were 200 with him. There are no citations aside from his own word, and he's the only one on record. So... How can Wikipedia approve Rand Paul as a citation for the number of dentists in the NBO? It's not a neutral source. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Rand Paul

A few editors have said they felt the previous political positions section was too long, and they have recently completely deleted a large amount of material.

The argument that it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia bio article to cover the political positions of the person who is the subject of the article does not stand up to scrutiny. Rand Paul's only notability is as a political figure: as the son of and campaign staff member of Ron Paul and as a US Senator in his own right. The bio pages of many other prominent American politicians contain detailed political positions sections (some examples: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Schumer, John Cornyn, Harry Reid, Evan Bayh, Roy Blunt, Jeff Sessions, Dick Durban).

Even if one were to accept the dubious argument that political positions are not appropriate for a bio article, the material should not be completely deleted. At the least it should be used as the basis for a subarticle. Dezastru (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His stances shouldn't be completely omitted, of course. But this is an encyclopedic biography, and it should be written like one. His opinions need to be presented with due weight against his actual career. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We can't include a quotation on every issue he's ever discussed, even if those quotations are verifiable.
Information on his positions should be presented organically in the article. First of all we should focus on successful or high-profile initiatives, such as the filibuster. If his opinions got particular press coverage (such as the Civil Rights Act, or whether he's a libertarian), they should be presented in an appropriate spot. If his opinions led to actual legislation, it can be mentioned in the "tenure" section. Anything that doesn't fit organically in a biographical format should probably be left out.
Secondary sources (news sources and biographies) usually do not devote half of their coverage to the way a Congressman feels about an issue; they focus on what has actually been done. Remember that Wikipedia articles are for posterity, for discussing why the person matters. Look at the articles on long-dead politicians. Even the uninteresting ones (Rutherford B. Hayes) write about work, and mention the man's opinions only where those opinions are relevant. See Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, all of which are heavily edited/reviewed GAs/FAs. They are better models for what a political bio should look like than the ones you listed. Where they do have "Positions" sections, the sections are summaries, not phone books.
"Issues" sections are like "Criticism" sections. If the article's written right, you shouldn't need one. —Designate (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
... was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.... During the time he spent at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team.... He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Gilbert Graves Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green.... his medical work has been praised by Downing and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.... He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.... He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008, traveling as far as Montana.
Quote: "See Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, all of which are heavily edited/reviewed GAs/FAs. They are better models for what a political bio should look like than the ones you listed. Where they do have "Positions" sections, the sections are summaries, not phone books."
Right. And every single article you selected has a whole subarticle exclusively devoted to covering the subject's political positions in great detail. Rand Paul should have such a subarticle as well when he becomes a major national political party's nominee to be president or vice-president, as is the case with Obama, McCain, Biden, and Romney. Perhaps he should have such a subarticle now. But the removal of the information discussing his political positions from Wikipedia cannot be considered to be an improvement, when this bio is telling us about his social activities in high school and college and telling us what hospitals he has admitting privileges at. He has only been in the Senate for a couple of years. He is ultimately only notable, at this early point in his political career, for his political positions. Dezastru (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul deaf?

Howdy- So it was recently added that (to my own surprise), Paul wears two hearing aids. The citation goes to a looping link, so I can not verify this. I couldn't find another source that said Paul is deaf. Are we sure that can be included?

Also, if he does wear hearing aids (just to be overly nitpicky), does the category: Deaf politicians still apply to him? Most deaf people consider the term to mean having no or nearly no hearing. Hard-of-hearing is the term for Paul. Should we include that category? Sorry to be picky, but I did want to make sure it was all right. PrairieKid (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428891366971864.html Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing hearing aids does not mean you are deaf. My grandfather wore hearing aids for the last decade of his life, and went to the grave not being deaf. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the link too; it says that it is only available to Wall Street Journal subscribers. Another website posted the first few paragraphs of the WSJ article: http://www.dailypaul.com/283096/rand-paul-tries-to-transform-a-moment-into-a-movement, but there is no mention of hearing aids. Also, just a quick Google image search doesn't show that he wears any hearing aids, unless he has some unconventional ones that are small enough to actually fit inside the ear canal (unlikely).

I say, delete the current source, and mark it as needing a citation, and give it a few days, but stipulate that a publicly available source is required. If none is provided, just delete it. - A random guy on the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.189.245 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal is a publicly available source. However, with only the single brief – almost throwaway – mention, I wonder if including this in his encyclopedia biography might not be undue weight. In either case, I agree with OuroborosCobra that this doesn't justify classifying him as "deaf". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquabuddha

Why is there no mention of his aquabuddha escapades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because of BLP and the fact that the object of the hazing doesn't want her name revealed. Reference is probably adequate: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/rand_pauls_accuser_clarifies_k.html - 173.26.136.45 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul using bestiality argument against gay marriage

His comments are not redundant since they explain why he feels the need for laws defining marriage. They are also notable in their own right because of the controversy they generated. A quick Google search shows 37 articles on this topic and comments from people like Geraldo about it. His spokesperson called it sarcasm and then Paul himself had to explain himself on Fox News. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia

I've opened a discussion here about whether Ballotpedia should be included as an external link in U.S. Congress articles. —Designate (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include Milton Friedman political gaffe?

Who would your ideal Fed chairman be? Hayek would be good, but he’s deceased. Nondead Fed chairman. Friedman would probably be pretty good, too, and he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have. Dead, too. Yeah. Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.

from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-08/rand-paul-on-republicans-voter-appeal-and-the-federal-reserve 99.119.131.212 (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rand_Paul&oldid=568471175"