Talk:Ron Paul: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:56, 25 December 2008 edit70.105.228.24 (talk) →Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:59, 25 December 2008 edit undo75.51.76.94 (talk) →Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV Next edit →
Line 132:		Line 132:

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

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

Revision as of 02:59, 25 December 2008

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Paul article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Ron 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
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
October 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 24, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 20, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
November 17, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

United States: Texas

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anti-war

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Indexing

I have requested that HBC Archive Indexerbot create an index of the talk archives for this article. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose this, but I'm open to discussion if you do. The index, once it is created, will be located here and can be easily accessed by clicking "Index" in the archive box at the top of the page. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

Please help me in getting this article a FA Class.This article deserves to be nominated as a FA class article manchurian candidate 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

What suggestions do you have for bringing this about?--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ron_Paul here is the discussion manchurian candidate 03:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

I think the article is FA material. I'll go put my two cents in on the review page. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the malformed, incomplete Wp:FAR templates; Ron Paul is not a featured article and can't be reviewed at FAR. It's not yet featured quality either; I recommend a peer review, improving the sourcing, and cleaning up citations for starters. Also, pls stop spamming user talk pages. 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a FAC template, if you guys are serious about getting the article to FA, then great. If not, then I guess the nomination will be archived within the next few days. DrKiernan (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two FAC's (1, 2) for this article have taken place already, neither passed. I don't know how significantly the article's content has changed since the two previous discussions, but this would be important to know. If the concerns that kept it from attaining FA status in the past have not been adequately addressed, another nomination would be a waste of time. We should find out if the criteria truly has been met before proceeding with another nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least some of the opposition was based on the fact that Paul was an active candidate for office at the time; that at least has changed.

...if the criteria have been met.... End peeve. --Trovatore (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, the nomination will close early if there is opposition, but it will still help to improve the article if we address the comments made. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the early closing. There are obviously improvements which need to be made to the article (per comments) before it has a reasonable chance of attaining FA status.--JayJasper (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Update needed?

Does anyone think the 2008 presidential campaign section still needs an update tag? The section now contains the results from the 2008 general election. Is there any reason to keep the tag around? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, as there no longer seemed to be a need for it. Of course, if someone can justify a need for it, it can always be re-added.--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously a need for the section to be updated, as made clear here. Although, I don't think it needs a tag; I think it needs someone to actually do the work of updating! DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak first paragraph

Why does the second sentence of the first paragraph, beginning "He is regularly featured on CNN," even exist? I worry about the following aspects:

is it really a telling or worthy accomplishment that the main stream media now ask for his opinion regularly?
it is generally diminutive to describe supporters as followers
if we must group the supporters into ideologies, there should really be a lengthy distinction (as well as some wikilinks) drawn between big-L and small-l libertarians (and probably between big-C and small-c constitutionalists) that is not really appropriate for a lead section
the Revolution is really the 2008 campaign phenomenon, not the ongoing group of people (which would be the Campaign for Liberty)

May I suggest something like this instead:

Well-received Libertarian and Republican presidential campaigns during his political career have made Paul a regular commentator on limited government and liberty. His support base has always extended well beyond his current congressional district, measured in terms of campaign donations, speaking engagements, and media coverage.

-Jiminy pop (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. With new paragraph, although I'd change "regular commentator" to "regularly sought commentator." Also, fixed your fourth bullet point. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. He also has many Democratic supporters, which the paragraph leaves out. --Gloriamarie (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

The article states:

In the 2008 general election, Paul received almost 20,000 votes with 99% of precincts reporting. He was listed on the ballot in Montana on the Constitution Party label, and in Louisiana on the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party" label, and was registered as a write-in candidate in California.

Many states don't count write in votes unless there is a reccount so in actuality he could have recieved many more votes, should something be stated about this in the article?--E tac (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth of note, yes. -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article now states the vote total is the "reported" total, and notes that not all jurisdictions require the counting of write-in notes.--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: