The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

---

Ron Paul[edit]

This article has grown from a relatively obscure one with little information to one of the most well-written and well-sourced on Wikipedia. It has already achieved A-Class status, and as far as I can tell it meets all the criteria for a featured article. - Prezboy1 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the Ron Paul article I think would be a great candidate for the featured article Gang14 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a Ron Paul popularity contest. —Verrai 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions:
  • Is this article stable enough (per 1e) to be featured?
  • What are the implications of featuring a current candidate for political office? I'm aware that products have been featured, but seeing as Paul has a committed and well organized Internet campaign, is there a potential issue of Wikipedia being used for as a form of advertising or promoting Paul's candidacy? I'm not saying that this necessarily disqualifies Ron Paul from featured status, but rather that this is something to be cautious about, especially in light of the NPOV concerns that continue to surface on the talk page.
  • Over the past few months, a lot of information has been added as various editors have attempted to achieve balance. The result has been a meticulously sourced and very detailed article. But per criterion 4, at 94kb, is the article a little long? ---Proper tea is theft 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ron Paul as FAC.
  • I think we can still work somewhat on stability (the truces are taking shape), length (some can be trimmed, but much of the 94K is the footnotes), writing (some dryness can be enlivened), and citations (some can be made more reliable or subsumed). Current candidacy is IMHO irrelevant. Not only has Obama been featured forever, but Wes Clark has been featured since March when he was an entirely viable candidate (some think he still is). Neutrally stated, Paul, Clark, and Obama, via lifetime and campaign activity, are notable enough to attract much larger cadres of editors from across the board than the other candidates, thus promoting more community-neutral and more readily featured articles. FAC merely reflects and accepts this fact, but does not prohibit anyone from improving or recommending any other "candidates". John J. Bulten 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Deleting the word "oppose" which was misinserted into my comment.) John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And look who's in line ahead of us by 11 days. John J. Bulten 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, how about that. As the nominator of that FAC, I've been fighting this very battle. I've argued as strongly as I can that her being a candidate shouldn't disqualify the article from FA consideration, but I haven't had much success changing doubters' minds. Wasted Time R 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I didn't outright oppose on these grounds, but I thought it should at least be mentioned. As we know, Ron Paul has a pretty committed core of online supporters (YouTube subscribers, MySpace friends, online poll voters and, apparently, Wikipedia editors), and I'm not sure how to feel about them using Wikipedia to get their message out (and let's be honest, that's exactly what's going on here). On the other hand, if those supporters improve an article, making it more useful (and I do feel that you have improved it; it's a lot easier on the eyes these days), then why shouldn't it become a featured article, as long as the article doesn't become an non-neutral advertisement? --Proper tea is theft 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Unless you have specific examples where this has occurred on a regular basis, I don't think it's a reason to elevate the article to featured status or not (that this may happen and people may use the article in some way to "get their message out.") It's already on Wikipedia, already there for anyone to see, and for supporters or non-supporters to edit. Yes, there has been pro-Paul commentary vandalism inserted, but so many people watch the article that it gets taken care of immediately. If the article is good enough to have FAC status, whether someone is "getting their message out" should be irrelevant to the candidacy of the article; the same applies to the above HRC article. I would say the biggest problem on the article has not been any Paul supporter(s), but the sockpuppetry of BenB4, who certainly would not qualify as a Paul supporter.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I think this page is relatively well done. One of my big pet peeves is the overuse of citations, especially back to back citations for relatively minor statements. Check the example below:
  • His family owned a dairy farm in the small town, which lies just outside of Pittsburgh.[35][36][37][38]
  • This is directly from the article. I haven't even checked the sources because before I do that I have to ask, why? Why are four sources necessary to know that his family once owned a dairy farm? This citation overuse makes the article hard to read and choppy in some places. Also, why should we expect a reader to go digging through multiple citations. From my experience, the majority of these multiple citing statements only have one (or zero) actual citations that verify the text. I won't support this article (or any article) until this is taken care of. Turtlescrubber 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turtle, this morning I was just thinking about how to trim footnotes. I added the last two of those because someone questioned other facts mentioned in that section. They can be redistributed, along with a bunch of others, which I will be working on. Many are just added to be trigger-happy. John J. Bulten 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a lot of this is left over from the sockpuppetry of BenB4. He would fight over the smallest detail not having a citation; at one point, he even tried to say that Paul could not be considered libertarian and could not be referred to as such in the opening paragraph, as just one example of that nonsense. To prevent his ceaseless fighting on the talk page, many editors inserted extra citations to small details. This is something that can be easily worked on.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • "Having pledged never to raise taxes,[8][9] he would abolish the federal income tax[9][10] and reduce government spending by sharply lowering taxes and abolishing most federal agencies;[9][11] he states he has never approved an unbalanced budget." That's a logical fallacy. Lowering taxes won't reduce government spending.
  • The paragraph on his college education doesn't say what he majored in. That might be worth mentioning.
  • "He has not signed up for a Congressional pension for the same reason." What reason is this referring to?
  • "His speech, 35 "Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq",[94] was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began." "published in publications" sounds pretty odd, but I can't think of a better way of phrasing this.--Carabinieri 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. It was biology. John J. Bulten 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I support now.--Carabinieri 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "reduce government spending by sharply lowering taxes and abolishing most federal agencies;" I'm confused. Why wouldn't "abolishing most federal agencies" reduce government spending? Thanks, Unimaginative Username 03:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree that abolishing federal agencies would reduce spending, as would getting out of wars. Perhaps it could be made clear in the same sentence that Paul is also against any form of government debt; without the government being allowed to go into debt, government spending certainly would be limited by reducing taxes. There simply wouldn't be as much money for the government to spend or waste.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excellent suggestion, Gloriamarie. The sentence that was questioned had two prongs; I answered one, but your idea shows that lowering taxes also causes reduced spending, if debt is not allowed and if there is a real-money (e. g., gold) standard to prevent the Government from inflating the currency as a "hidden tax" and enabler of higher de facto spending. Unimaginative Username 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lead section has some pro-Paul skewing that needs to be fixed:
  • Saying that he "placed third in the 1988 presidential election" is true but potentially quite misleading. He only got 0.5% of the vote and was not a factor in the race at any point. Readers might think he played a comparable role to other recent third-place finishers such as Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, John Anderson, or George Wallace, all of whom did have an effect.
  • Statements such as "Paul has generated strong support on the Internet[16] and is the top presidential candidate Internet search term as measured by Hitwise,[17] Alexa,[18] and Technorati.[19]" need to be tempered by the observation that all things libertarian are heavily overrepresented on the Internet compared to the general population. If you doubt this observation, do a Google on <libertarians overrepresented on internet>.
  • The final sentence "While he places in the top tier in Republican straw polls[30] and fundraising receipts,[31] he polls lower among phone samples of Republican voters.[32][33][34]" is kind of an understatement, don't you think? He polls vastly lower among random samples of Republican voters, and is currently not in the top tier of Republican candidates. This needs to be said.
  • Once you do that, the statement "against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media" will make some sense. Right now it doesn't.
  • One impressive attribute of Paul's campaign is his fundraising results (almost beat McCain in the last quarter), yet this goes unmentioned. I think this is more meritorious of inclusion than some of these dubious Internet metrics.
    • Oops, I see you did mention fundraising receipts, I missed it. My bad. Wasted Time R 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, the biographical and political positions parts of the lead section seem okay to me. Wasted Time R 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks Wasted! I don't think the rest of the editors will stand long for your idea that the Internet's libertarian slant is directly appropriate for the lead of this article, but I tried to slip it in as "generated strong support from the Internet's notably liberty-minded populace". John J. Bulten 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but ... "with 0.5%" should be "with 0.5% of the vote". More importantly, you're still burying the lede, as they say in the newspaper business, by sticking "he polls significantly lower among phone samples of Republican voters" at the end. You need to say first that he has commanded only 2 - 5% support (or whatever his range has been) in polls (not the obfuscratory "phone samples") over the course of 2007, which does not place him in the top tier of GOP candidates. Then you can explain that despite this, he has this heavy following in online metrics, impressive fundraising, blah blah. Look at Raul's Razor - "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." Right now, it's very clear that the author of this lead section is pro-Paul. And hint: it's Raul who ultimately judges if you get promoted to FA or not. Wasted Time R 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, two new comments about the lead section: The parenthesized "(ob/gyn)" is unnecessary here. The "at the same time as the Vietnam War" location is awkward; why not just say 1963-1965, or mid-1960s. Wasted Time R 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Worked this; "ob/gyn" is an abbreviation properly named on first cite and used 5x in article; Vietnam War was a compromise (mention war but not give war hero status), for which I've tried another phrasing now. But as for polls, remember (1) we mostly thought the Internet boom and the straw polls were the lead; (2) favoring one valid form of poll over another is POV; (3) favoring one negative measurement in a sea of other valid positive measurements is UW (I moved it up to second though); (4) stating one poll number alone in lead may be cherry-picking (I have now also decided to cut the YouTube and debate poll counts). The text has reflected that his top-tier straw-poll and fundraising results are as equally measurable as his lower-tier phone-poll results. John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say that his phone poll results do not place him in the top tier of candidates; however, in recent Gallup polls he placed within the statistical margin of error to Romney. The fact is, he's done well in state straw polls and on the Internet and is starting to place better in Gallup polls, etc, and there are numerous sources now to back this up. Why not mention these in the opening? It's a summary of the presidential campaign.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I ...
          • These are not "two valid forms of polls". Straw polls, internet polls, YouTube counts, etc. are self-selecting samples that are useless as predictors of election results. Only regular conventional demographically-adjusted random sampling polls do that. Yes, there are troubles with those kinds of polls too, but most of the time they give reasonably accurate predictions, certainly regarding top-tier versus lower-tier finishers. What the straw/internet/YouTube measurements do indicate is the level of enthusiasm for a candidate among his or her supporters, and here Paul excels. That's interesting, but at the end of the day it doesn't tell you if the person is going to win. If our electoral system weighted votes by the enthusiasm with which the voter is casting the vote, it's possible that Ron Paul and Barack Obama would be in the lead. But it doesn't and they aren't. The good news is that in three months we can dispense with all this; we'll be having real caucus and primary results and delegate counts and we'll be able to report those. Wasted Time R 12:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Proper tea is theft, who trimmed this (libertarian-leaning Internet John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)) back from the lead. It is mentioned in the article, so affirming the web's Libertarian leaning is properly placed in the Internet section and properly provides the tempering needed. John J. Bulten 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • • • "self-selecting samples that are useless as predictors of election results." Actually, the actual voting for primaries and the presidential election are self-selecting (people decide themselves whether they will register and vote or not), so this is not something that's the same as a scientific study of something that's inherently not self-selecting, such as sleeping habits or history of disease or something to that effect. --Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • ... officially give up on this one. Put in whatever metrics you like. Say he's in the top tier. Say he's actually the leader. Then in a few months you can write, "Ron Paul would have won the XYZ primary except that the wrong people selected themselves to vote." Wasted Time R 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment - References. There's inconsistency in the cite formats. A bunch have non-wlinked dates, such as 2007-06-10, when they need to be [[2007-06-10]], so that they get rendered according to the reader's "my preferences" settings and locales. Another bunch of references don't have "Retrieved" dates. Publisher names (Wall Street Journal, CNN, Lew Rockwell, etc.) should be wikilinked. A few citations are just too threadbare altogether: "^ The Liberty Committee. Retrieved on 24 June 2007." or "^ "ABC analysis of "The Ron Paul Effect"". Wasted Time R 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was actually on my to-do list, will get done along with the thinning of footnote overuse. John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment - Body of article, random comments.
  • What unit(s) was he in, in the Air Force?
  • "M.D." is used before it's introduced as an abbreviation. I would bag it altogether, and say the kids also became doctors.
    • Done: had gotten rearranged before the first reference. John J. Bulten 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the election, Paul had a coin business,[49] began his own think tank, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, published an investment newsletter,[46] and continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress.[16][49]" What years for each of these? This is an eight-year span.
  • Paul says he won't run as a third party or independent candidate if he loses the GOP nom. [1] This should be included in the presidential campaign section, because unlike 1988, if he ran this time he could quite possibly have an effect on the general election.
  • In general I think the article's pretty good, although I haven't given it a full close read. Wasted Time R 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also have at least eighteen grandchildren" sounds very awkward - this "at least" phrase is usually used about children of figures like Mick Jagger or Rod Stewart, where the "illegitimate" count is unknown even to the subject.
    • Done: there had been a pregnancy rumor, but we can wait for it. John J. Bulten 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as the coin business, investment newsletter, etc.-- I added all those in at different times from different sources. There's little information about him in those days because he wasn't a public figure after he left Congress and before he ran for president in 1988. Perhaps eventually, years and details can be added, but for now, we're lucky to have those tidbits.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a question - is this guy the most successful libertarian political figure in U.S. history? Meaning, won the most elections of the most magnitude while having and acting upon reasonably pure libertarian views? If true, that's a real accomplishment and deserves mentioning in the lead. Of course, he's done it as a GOP instead of LP candidate, but still ... To me, the most interesting section of the whole article is "Relationship with district", which explains how he keeps winning congressional elections when most avowed libertarians can't get 2% of the vote for dogcatcher ... Wasted Time R 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a libertarian disguised as a Republican, or using the Republican banner to get elected - he is essentially an old-line conservative Republican with old-line libertarian views. I think there's a subtle difference, and that may account for his repeated re-election. That, and the fact that he delivered all of the babies in the district. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole question of what he is, and how he intersects with strains of both Libertarian and Republican thought, and how he has attained his level of popularity and congressional electoral success, is to me the most interesting question to examine in the article. There's a well-written Reason Magazine article "Is He Good for the Libertarians?" that addresses a lot of this - some of its observations should be worked into the article. (An earlier Reason article/interview by the same author already is cited.) I'd also like to see some analysis by a political scientist or other academic, if they exist yet (try Google Books and Google Scholar). Wasted Time R 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are good notes; yes, that would be very interesting info to add.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain is my final verdict on this FAC. The editors of this article are on some slightly different plane of reality from me. Can assess no more. Wasted Time R 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, but I don't think the article is likely to be stable enough in the future to warrant FA status. Editors are going to have to repeatedly update it in order to keep track of his actions in the current presidential campaign, and I think that would unfortunately violate the stability conditions. I'd vote for it after the election, however. JKBrooks85 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We have promoted articles in the past of politicians in office or gaining office. Tony Blair comes to my mind. The stability requirement mostly goes for this: is there any significant edit wars and is the entire format and contents being changed completely in hours or minutes? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have in mind to synchronize the campaign summary with the campaign article so that the summary will not invite frequent change even though the subarticle will. The rest is stable. From my unexperienced perspective, the mostly amicable debate (including a WP:BRD) has been below the "war" level for awhile. John J. Bulten 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for the moment Oppose Is there not a NPOV dispute going on right now on the article's talk page? I think one person even asked someone else not to put up a NPOV tag. KnightLago

• • There is no NPOV dispute, although there was a brief attempt to reopen the same one as last month. In response I asked Photouploaded, "Would you mind if we used your version here and no POV tag until we get this settled? And would you mind interacting with Talk:Ron_Paul#My_pro-life_summary?" to which Photouploaded replied, "Yes, I will." Photo seems to support the current sentence on Paul's pro-life position (now slightly edited from Photo's latest version); it had undergone regular tweaking, but I have reviewed the whole debate and know of no objections that would arise against the current text. John J. Bulten 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: needs work - these are just some of the areas needing work. I don't have time to do a line by line edit - but someone needs to. The prose is not in as good shape as it should be. Some of it is quite list-y, even though done in horizontal prose form - made worse by the fact that some paragraphs have way too many sentences that start with "He". See 2nd graf of "Legislation" and much of "Political positions", for example. Rewriting those areas with this in mind would help. A few specific points at this time that jumped out at me:
  • (And I agree with the fine-toothed comb idea; the first overhaul I did was essentially for style and logic, and I wasn't yet comfortable enough trying to wordsmith at the same time and achieve really compelling writing. But I am now.) -jjb
• 1 Intro: "and its 22nd district, 1976 – 1977 and 1979 – 1985" should be written out something like "and before that the 22nd district, from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985" Same comment elsewhere in the article regarding writing out range of dates.
  • No change besides spacing: I had reviewed WP:MOS#En_dashes, which implies that when wording does not demand from-to, the en dash is preferred. However, I had the spacing rules wrong and have fixed that. John J. Bulten 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 "he served in the U.S. Air Force as a flight surgeon at the same time as the Vietnam War." - maybe say where he was based, and "in the Vietnam War era" or just list the years - "at the same time as the Vietnam War" is awkward and the meaning doesn't come across.
  • Try it now. -jjb
• 3 next sentence in intro, take out "also" - "Ron Paul placed third..." and actually I think it would be better to say "Ron Paul placed a distant third" - you don't want to imply that he was actually in the running as a viable third party candidate when he got one half of one percent of the votes.
  • Done -jjb
• 4 There have been many arguments on the talk page, as I recall, about how to present his pro-life stance - I think having it in the lede is absolutely necessary, but I'm not sure that the import of his legislation that life begins at conception is clear enough in the lede. And I am very concerned about whether consensus has actually been reached on how to present his pro-life stance, and that it will remain clearly stated and stable - I recall numerous arguments on talk that abortion isn't really an issue in the forefront right now, or that he sees it as a states' rights issue only and I vehemently disagree with those characterizations - it is one of the top social issues of our time, and his position needs to be abundantly clear here, because he does have a strenuous position about it. To be clear: my concern about stability here is not because it's an ongoing campaign and by definition there will be updates needed - I think featured article status can be given to articles like that - my concern is that there has been disagreement among editors of the article about if and how to include this matter - and perhaps about other items - and I would want assurances that the editors have reached consensus and are in agreement with the text now and again as it stands after the revisions that will be needed as a result of this review if you go ahead with the FA candidacy.
  • Agree that more editors should chip in on whether we've reached the best compromise. I don't see any concerns, reviewing their prior comments. -jjb
• 5 "Family section", particularly the graf about his children, should be re-written - it's choppy in part and then has an overly long clause about Rand which would lend itself to being a separate sentence or at least set off by a semicolon. And this: "They also have at least eighteen grandchildren " - at least? I think someone should find out exactly how many grandchildren he has, and say so. This sounds like "one of his children has, I don't know, maybe 3 or 4 kids". In an encyclopedia?
  • Done -jjb
• 6 same section - the citation (now numbered 23, US News & World Reports "10 things you didn't know...") does not support the text regarding why he didn't get federal student loans for his children or why he plans to not take his pension - it is OR as presented.
• 7 in "Military Service" section, date ranges should be expressed in words - as "from 1961 to 1961"
  • No change, see #1 above. -jjb
• 8 in the newsletter discussion: "guest writer" - that should be "ghost", despite what the rather biased source used says. The piece was written in Paul's name - not over some guest writer's name - it was attributed to him. That's what a ghost writer does which is even your wikilink - a guest writer is when someone stands in for a regular writer, with attribution. Paul claims that he had not actually written the words that went out over his name, giving the appearance that they were his words. That's not a guest writer which implies that that guest's name appears, and using the word "guest" minimizes the impact of having the newsletter look as though Ron Paul was making those comments - which is why this is notable.
  • Also, the article's quote of the NYT Magazine assessment of this episode is very selective. The NYT Magazine piece also says: "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." Some of this should be included too. Wasted Time R 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last night I attempted to insert Paul's direct explanation quotes, along with Texas Monthly saying a similar thing as you quote (he should have come forward sooner), but it has been replaced with a shorter version that seems decent at this time. I may re-insert the one sentence.--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 9 2nd graf of "Relationship with district" seems to be stuck in there as if it had no other place to go - doesn't seem to be about his relationship with this district. I wouldn't mind a different heading altogether in fact.
  • Please clarify why, looks good to me. -jjb
• 10 "Paul is a potential nominee of both parties independently of the Republican National Convention's nomination." - should it be "independent"?
  • Done -jjb
    • Disagree. "independently" answers the question of how he is a nominee. Words that answer "how" are adverbs. "Independently" is an adverb, and so should be used in preference to "independent", which is an adjective. Unimaginative Username 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, that's a simplistic definition of an adverb, and not all adverbs have to end with "-ly."--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course not all adverbs end in "-ly", but according to the dictionary, "independent" is an adjective, and "independently" is an adverb. Using more complex definitions of adj/adv yields the same result. Adjectives "modify a noun or pronoun". "Ron Paul", "Candidate", and "candidacy" are nouns, so Paul can be independent, or be an independent candidate, or have an independent candidacy. But in the sentence in question, "independent(ly)" modifies "is" - He is a potential nominee - How is he a potential nominee? He is, independently of what happens here or there. But no, this isn't the most important point in the debate over this article, and yes, I do need to get a life :) Cheers, Unimaginative Username 00:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • • Well, I started this, so I'll jump back in and say that if people are stumbling on a sentence, as I did, then regardless of whether it is grammatically correct, the sentence should probably be re-cast. How about: Paul is a potential nominee of both parties, whether or not he receives the Republican nomination. Is that what is being said here? Tvoz |talk 01:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that! (The suggestion, and the underlying philosophy of composition as well). Congratulations on cutting the Gordian Knot! Unimaginative Username 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wish they were all that easy to fix. John, what do you think? Tvoz |talk 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 "Actions in Congress" - only one "action" and what is an action anyway? Don't get why this paragraph is a separate sub-section.
• 12 "Political positions" - "along with his medical degree" hangs there and sounds silly. Use a few more words to explain what you mean.
  • Done -jjb
• 13 "Political positions" This sentence assumes that people know what the policy currently means: "He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues." Use a few more words to explain - what does "focus on disruptive behavior" mean and how is that different from current policy? Can't tell in this sentence.
• 14 "Political positions" section in particular is very listy, and relies too heavily on video and audio clips of the candidate and position papers by him stating his positions. Many items are not footnoted - how are those positions verified? An example is "birthright citizenship" - and there are many others. Wikilinking them doesn't confirm that they are Ron Paul's positions. Also, can you supplement the citations you do have with sources who analyze and synthesize his positions on various topics, rather than just a clip of him saying the words? Why he takes those positions would be much more valuable than just lists of the positions. As for the listy-ness - the graf on economic issues in this section is better than the others in that it takes the time to explain a few of his positions, rather than just listing them. Also - You Tube posts are not the most reliable sources, in terms of having assurance that they will remain posted. So I'd suggest going more from print sources in any case.
• 15 "Political positions" - he is pro-life and against federal death penalty - what does he think about states' death penalties?
• 16 "Books authored" - fill in missing information - ISBNs, publishers, etc.
• 17 Would like to see more neutral third party sources overall. And the references all should be checked for relevance, whether they support the text, are they reliable sources, etc.
• 18 I see almost nothing about how the media have attempted to marginalize his success - that is a major part of his story, but it's barely here. The under-reporting of his successes; incorrect assumptions about whether the Internet support is real; suggestions that online polls and texting replies are done multiple times by fewer individuals which is untrue; mis-reporting of numbers of in-person supporters he has at rallies; general treatment at the debates; etc. This from intro: "Supporters "guard [his] image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media",[5][6] and cite his victories in five out of the first six 2008 GOP debate sponsors' own online and phone text polls to argue he deserves more mainstream recognition.[7][8] While he places in the top tier in Republican straw polls and fundraising receipts,[9] he polls significantly lower among phone samples of Republican voters.[10][11]" is not expanded upon in the article below (unless I missed it) and should have been.
• 19 Also, there are areas with statistics that are overly dry and sleep-inducing. Consider relegating the statistics to footnotes and using prose to talk about, for example, not just how his debate performance was rated, but what he said in the debates if notable - where he got into exchanges with other candidates, etc. We don't get a feel for this guy - it's too dry. For example - campaign finances - reads like an annual report. He raised $5Mil in the 3rd quarter - this is way beyond anyone's expectations - anaylysis from third party reliable sources about why it happened, what it means? Not spin from the campaign or from blogs - actual analysis if there is any.
• 20 In general, I think the article could be more balanced - I didn't notice any criticism of Ron Paul, for example, other than the newsletter - and that's been spun into a positive somehow. Not looking for a "controversies" section, mind you - I would want critical material worked into the text where appropriate - but reading this article one would think that he has spent 10 terms in Congress and two presidential campaigns without critique.
  • Please name some criticisms and controversies that we can reliably source. We do have his anti-Mother-Teresa position in there somewhere. But it's hard to criticize a guy who holds so firm to his convictions. Thanks! And let me reaffirm, I continue to respect your professional input and look forward to your contributions; I'm especially interested in how your viewpoint may not have been heard in the past. John J. Bulten 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that research is your job. I'm pointing out, as I believe was mentioned somewhere above, that this article reads like it was written by supporters rather than by neutral editors, and that the distinct lack of anything critical only feeds into that perception. Perhaps it will be easier to find critical analysis if his standing rises - but for this article to be taken seriously as a featured article candidate, you need more than an homage, and I'm looking for more depth too. Tvoz |talk 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas of what are considered to be notable criticisms that should be included and are not regarding Ron Paul could be helpful (from any editor). In Barack Obama's article, I found only a few sentences critical of him, and I believe this is exceeded by Paul's article. I did have some information in the article at one time how he upset his fellow Republicans so much by not going with their party-line votes, but I believe it was cut out at one point in a space-saving measure. Would including that help?--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't his former aide Dondero claim that Paul's vote for the Afghanistan military intervention was motivated by political self-preservation, instead of principle? Maybe there's something there worth including, but I don't know anything further about it. Wasted Time R 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Dondero really be the best person to quote as far as criticism goes? He was fired, and he doesn't seem like the most reliable source even if he hadn't been.--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just initial thoughts - I think the article needs a good deal of work at this point before being featured. Take a look at, say, Barack Obama or even Diane Keaton for featured articles that have well-written prose. This one has come a long way, but I don't think it's there yet. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1c and 2, lots of elbow grease, spit and polish needed before this article is FAC-ready. Mainly, extensive work is needed on the referencing and reference formatting; I left sample edits. There are missing publishers, missing dates, missing accessdates, misidentified sources (for example cite news vs. cite books), full dates aren't wikified in references resulting in inconsistent date formatting, and more importantly, I found blog posts. I also left sample edits for MOS cleanup needed; overlinking, image captions, incorrect date linking (month-year combos aren't linked, they don't trigger date preferences), etc. The external link farm could be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Some legislation is italicized, some isn't; which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sandy, I appreciated your detailed concerns on the Clinton article and look forward to working with you here. Since I am still learning WP style, please be patient as I review your links and work the stylistic details in. Do you have any content concerns, since these style concerns are easily alleviated? John J. Bulten 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for some signs on the freeway, I had never heard of Ron Paul before seeing this article, so I can't comment on balance or comprehensiveness. I will check the quality of the prose and check for NPOV after cleanup is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I note the offensive newsletter comments published under Paul's name have been relegated to footnotes again, folded under an innocuous date heading. Can you tell that Paul is polling 4% in the lead as has been there for months? No, that's been scrubbed. I'm very unhappy about the POV-pushing by supporters, but what can I do about the whitewashing? 1of3 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1of, you are making false statements. Several offensive comments were retained in text as providing a sufficient taste of them, while only the repetitive and more objectionable racisms were footnoted, as would be proper for any article which needs to list a string of offensive text. (I also intend to re-reference the controversy in a "criticisms" section, which will address your whitewash concern.) Paul has not been 4% for months, he's been consistently climbing 1% every month or two, so 4% would be misleading and "never above 4%" certainly POV. John J. Bulten 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You admitted that the most offensive comments were moved to footnotes, so how is that false? Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, so we don't extrapolate trends. If he makes 5%, I'm sure it will be in the article the next day, as it should be. Those problems have been addressed, but there are still issues with "top tier" as described on article talk, so I'm not withdrawing my opposition. 1of3 13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1of3 is a suspected sock, so I will not be speaking directly to him again and I feel free to revert his edits. To say "the" offenses were relegated is to say none were not relegated, which is false. I believe on the polling dispute the consensus should be to avoid all highly fluctuating stats in lead (including 32,000 YouTube subscribers, 5 of 6 debate victories, etc.). John J. Bulten 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am surprised that the editors of this page are nominating it for FAC. The first few sentences of the lead will change almost constantly (polling figures?). Can we not wait until the election is over, at least? Then the article will gain a measure of stability and perhaps a month of hindsight. :) Awadewit | talk 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think that this article would make make an excellent FAC. As a minor editor here and there and a longtime wikipedia user I've found this article to be an incredible resource, smartly put together, dovetailed off into subarticles in a logical fashion and it's incredibly well cited. Not only that but in the political season, when the need for information on these candidates is high, I've found that Wikipedia articles like this one are actually the most authoritative and definitive information source about the candidates- far broader and more in-depth then the candidates' own websites! Barack Obama's article is another outstanding example as well- and lastly, as another commenter pointed out, if an article like this was featured it would bring thousands of new visitors to wikipedia and create hundreds of new editors and contributors. Yet another reason for FAC, and another reason why I support it. Celerityfm 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.