Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Correct: NYT article states 'Randal" not "Randy".

Correct: NYT article states 'Randal" not "Randy". 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "Randy" occurs only once in the article, citing the NYT as its source: "Although Ron Paul was a fan of Ayn Rand, her name was not the inspiration for Randal Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" as a child and "Rand" as an adult.[6]" Here is what the NYT article says: "As a teenager, he studied the Austrian economists that his father revered, as well as the iconic free-market novelist and philosopher, Ayn Rand (she was not the inspiration for Rand’s name, which is short for Randal; he was called Randy growing up)." In other words, the article accurately reflects the NYT mention of "Randy". betsythedevine (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was also interested to see this statement added to an early version of the bio: "His given name is Randy, but started going by Rand during his father's 1988 run for President as a Libertarian in order to invoke the memory of novelist Ayn Rand." It is not a reliable source, but it does support the inference that "Randy" was a longtime nickname. betsythedevine (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic

The article says "Paul also founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those with no health insurance coverage," but Google turns up no mention of such a clinic except in campaign literature for Rand Paul. The Kentucky Lions website lists no clinic by that name. According to a Kentucky Lions fact sheet, in 1995 "Clinic was established in Bowling Green called the South Central Lions Eye Clinic. Dr. Rand Paul helped establish this clinic and still is a major part of this clinic." betsythedevine (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment, so is the basic idea that Rand Paul got the Lions to set up a clinic in his home town, so that the Lions could pay him when he treated patients who had no insurance? betsythedevine (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Medical career section of Rand Paul , "Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those with no health insurance coverage, or who are living on a minimum wage.[16][17]" I ponied up $2.95 to get access to reference #16, an article from Bowling Green News which is now behind a pay wall, and here is what it says about that clinic: "Most recently – in 1995 – the group and other Lions Clubs in the region established the Southern Kentucky Eye Clinic, which provides minor eye surgeries to adults who otherwise couldn’t afford to have the work done." Rand Paul's name is mentioned elsewhere in the article, as follows: "A few years ago, the club financed operations for two Guatemalan boys who came to this country blind and left seeing, thanks to the surgeries by Noon Lions Club member Dr. Rand Paul, who heads the Southern Kentucky Eye Clinic, Nahm said." I do not think Reference #16, which does not support the claim that Paul founded the clinic, should be used as a reference here as if it supported it. Reference #17 is an AP story from January, 2008, which unequivocally states, "He founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, which provides eye surgery and exams for those who otherwise couldn't afford proper care." I am changing the text and removing the non-free "reference" #16. betsythedevine (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How Rand Paul "gained prominence"

Instead of engaging in a revert war with the author of this statement, I would like to ask others for their opinions on the talk page. The disputed sentence placed in the article summary is:

"He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats."

When this article was first created, as a separate article from Ron Paul's "Marriage and family" section, on March 21, 2009, it consisted of exactly one sentence: "Rand Paul is a Kentucky opthalmologist and son of Congressman Ronald Paul."

Now I don't know what my ophthalmologist's political views are, but I am pretty sure that he will not gain "prominence" for them no matter how extreme they are. Rand Paul gained prominence because he was the son of a famous father, a fact that has somehow disappeared from the summary of his bio. It should not be. betsythedevine (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It also seems worth pointing out that Paul's independent stance seems to be a thing of the past already. LA Times, October 10 article: "Once eager to rail against politicians of both parties, Paul now focuses primarily on the one — Obama — Republicans can agree to oppose. Once eager to promote his message, Paul now avoids the national media. References to his tea party base are fewer and farther between, as are references to some of the movement's more controversial pet issues." Courier-Journal, October 3, 2010: "In his primary victory speech, Paul emphasized the tea party and almost completely ignored the GOP, but in his speech at the fundraiser he made only a glancing reference to the movement, saying many in it voice concern about their grandchildren and the national debt...Paul told me before he spoke that his speech would be the same one he had been giving recently." betsythedevine (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

MPP is a perfectly reliable source for a direct quote

Betsy, regarding your removal of the reference I added to the article: I could understand your point if I was referencing some amateur blogspot.com blogger, but we are talking about the Marijuana Policy Project. They are the largest marijuana reform organization in the United States with 19 staffers, 29,000 members, and 100,000 e-mail subscribers. They are a credible organization with a reputation to maintain and are not going to give out fake quotes from Dr. Paul. There is not even any research or opinion contained in this source that could be questioned; they are just DIRECTLY quoting Dr. Paul on an issue they are seeking to clarify his position on. Thomas6274 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that this particular blogger is a reliable source on this issue, accurately quoting a phone call with a staffer who works for Rand Paul. It looks to me as if your current wording fairly represents Paul's position. By the way, I not only agree with Paul that 10 - 20 year sentences are too harsh, I also agree with Conway that marijuana users should not be jailed, but if they have been acting out in such a way that they end up getting arrested, should get education and treatment, as do acting-out drinkers. betsythedevine (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kaitlinpg, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Marijuana What exactly does Paul believe when it comes to drugs? He wants the federal government to dramatically lower its drug enforcement profile. "Paul wants to cut federal funding for undercover drug investigations and drug treatment programs," the AP reported last week. "He said he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. But he also has called drug sentences of 10 to 20 years too harsh."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/this-is-your-race-on-drugs-conway-paul-clash-over-drug-enforcement.php

Kaitlinpg (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be in conflict with the sourced text that is already there. It appears that one would be outdated. How do you request that the text there be written? BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See #Medical Marijuana. His campaign has said that statement is false.mcornelius (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In the news...

Don't know if it fits in the article, so I'll just post the link here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/10/10/moveon-supporter-brutally-attacked-by-rand-paul-supporter/65155/ Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shaking my head--I don't think this belongs in an article about Rand Paul, or on its talk page unlesss the stomper is Rand Paul. I am sorry for the intolerance and anger being promoted by right-wing talk show hosts around the country, but Rand Paul has not stomped anybody or urged any of his supporters to stomp anybody. I hope the link above gets removed under the WP "not-a-forum" policy. betsythedevine (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to one article, the incident "seems to be ballooning into a major political problem". That makes it notable. Of course, it's also notable that Paul condemned the attack.

It turns out that Tim Profitt wasn't just a "supporter" in some general sense, but rather someone who volunteered with the campaign, donated a couple of thousand dollars despite being unemployed, and was praised in Paul's newspaper ad. One article has Profitt claiming to have been protecting Paul from an attack, while this says she was there to give him a fake award.

All of this is being reported by mainstream media, so there's no question of reliable sourcing. The only issue is making sure we are neutral in reporting it here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the incident is making it into mainstream media in connection, the parts of the discussion relevant to Rand Paul and his campaign could be cited here. What I have seen happen in Wikipedia for similar "events" is that an article, usually very contentiously edited, got created for the event itself (e.g. Jeff Gannon, Suicide of Megan Meier, etc.) The good thing about that is that the standalone article draws off some of the crazy that may otherwise end up focusing here on Rand Paul if we create a section in this article that is Wikipedia's only statement. Not sure if Tim Profitt would be a good name for the article...betsythedevine (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but let's start with this article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, somebody who wants something here should write something here and then everybody will work on improving it until there is consensus. I look forward to seeing what you all came up with when I get up tomorrow morning. betsythedevine (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly an event in the campaign and should be included in the daughter article about the campaign. The Rand Paul bio article should summarize major aspects of the campaign, because the campaign is part of Paul's life, but not everything campaign-related can go into the main Rand Paul bio. At first blush this incident doesn't seem that major. Along with proposed text, as suggested by Betsythedevine, I'd like to see some indication that this is one of the salient episodes of the campaign that merits inclusion here. (Contrary to Betsythedevine's other comment, however, inclusion doesn't depend on showing that Rand Paul did the stomping. If something a third person did ends up costing Paul a Senate seat, or even significantly weakening his chances in the election, then that's a notable event in his life, even if some Wikipedians believe that the third person's action should not have had that effect.) JamesMLane t c 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the "ballooning into a major political problem" quote satisfies your request for "some indication that this is one of the salient episodes of the campaign that merits inclusion here". Apparently, this guy just won't shut up: now he's demanding an apology. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this news story, Conway is making an issue of it, and the Kentucky Demnocratic Party is running a TV ad featuring video of the stomping. At this point, therefore, I agree that it deserves mention. JamesMLane t c 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I now agree with you that the event is part of the news of the campaign. betsythedevine (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid volunteering myself, but someone should add this to the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, thank you for introducing the topic into the article. It's a good start.

At this point, the open question is what else, if anything, we should mention. For example, is it important to state that the person doing the stomping was a campaign contributor and volunteer as opposed to merely a supporter? Should we go into any detail about how Conway is making an issue of it? Do we need to mention why this woman was trying to get closer to the candidate?

Our editorial decisions about these details is crucial in ensuring that the section is completely neutral. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This has nothing to do with Rand Paul the person. Is may be something specific to the campaign page, but not Rand Paul. I also find it a little disturbing that the POV version Betsy put into the article fails to mention that she was a Moveon.org activist and that a Conway supporter also roughed up a Paul supporter. It is bad enough to put tangental crap into BLP articles. It is even worse to present one side of the story. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC) .....response--my diff did mention that the stompee was a MoveOn supporter, the roughing-up incident of opposite sign was not mentioned by the 2 sources I cited, and I did attempt to give both sides of the story. It was a short blurb created only after consensus on this page that something should go in the article. Article talk pages are not the venue for attacking other editors. betsythedevine (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We all agree that Paul didn't stomp on anyone, or even approve of the stomping. And we should make sure the article does not lead anyone to such a ridiculous conclusion. However, we have reliable sources that confirm it has something to do with Paul, in that it significantly affects his campaign.

If you believe the current section is not neutral, please contribute tot he discussion above, where I raised some of these issues. For now, what we have is neutral enough to comply with BLP, although we can make it better. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a long-established principle in political articles (not just at WP:USPE) that silly-season (October) news about otherwise nonnotable events that will be forgotten after the inaugurations are not suitable for biographical articles about a person's whole life, especially if the incident is only about an associate of some disputed degree of distance or closeness. If at all worthy it goes in the campaign. Dylan knows that I do report edit-warring. Please try to convince the three of us, as apparently Betsy became convinced against initial resistance, that this has nothing to do with undue weight or the closeness of the election, as WP:DUCK applies on that point as well. JJB 15:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stomping and this article

I would urge those who believe the stomping incident and ad belong in the campaign article to add it to said article. My very short draft of a treatment did mention that the woman was a MoveOn supporter. I am sure the account could be improved. WP Blp is an official policy; the consensus of a 2008 forum on Presidential candidates does not override policy. I would think that with this story in the news you would welcome a chance to create a non-biased account of it somewhere in Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we also have WP:NOTNEWS, and we have that USPE is also called WP:12, and we have that you are saying "this is not BLP" when BLP does not bless content that is failed by other policies like WP:UNDUE. Feel free to try it at United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010, in that the WP:BURDEN is on the inserter. It seems to me to be more news about Conway right now than Paul anyway. Maybe if you can wait until Tuesday 7 pm Eastern time at a minimum, we'll know enough about the encyclopedicity of this event to determine its relative weight. JJB 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is one in the campaign, not about Rand Paul per se, and should probably be inserted at United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010. The stomping incident has become an issue in the race, and with the polls so close, anything could determine the outcome, including this one. The sources (Washington Post and CBS news) are reliable. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I've requested input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rand_Paul_et_al. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should follow the initiative of the article subject to an extent. We should be hesitant about pinning things to a BLP the subject doesn't think is sufficiently related without being able to provide a convincing argument for why it is related. That convincing argument could potentially be supplied by an opposing campaign, but most telling, in my view, would be a candidate who takes the initiative to substantively and notably respond as this would suggest that the candidate feels the matter is indeed sufficiently related that a notable response is needed. To date I don't believe that Paul Rand thinks this "Kentucky Stomper" business is related enough to him that he need do more than just distance himself. If, on the other extreme, the politician said absolutely nothing that might imply he did not object to having the material "pinned" to him such that that might argue for inclusion but that isn't the case here either.Brian Dell (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of medicare quote

I removed the quote "have to bear more of the burden" from Paul's position on medicare. The reason Paul is saying future recipients need to "bear more of the burden" is because higher deductibles introduces price competition into the marketplace, which has the highly desirable benefit of reducing medical costs. He alludes to this in the fuller quote that was provided in the referenced article:

"You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement," Paul replied. "By that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."

The "have to bear more of the burden" quote is a cherry-picked quote that makes it sound like Paul has some kind of vendetta against senior citizens who aren't paying their fair share. This is a very misleading portrayal. This insignificant and out-of-context quote should be left out. Thomas6274 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think the quotation is cherry-picked, the solution is to include whatever additional quotation you think is needed to put the (admittedly correct verbatim) quotation in context. The solution is not the attempt to suppress this information entirely. It's hardly insignificant to report Paul's own words about a major public issue. As for your other edit, it's POV to change what Paul "recently said" to what he "clarified" -- the latter implies that this is what he meant all along, which may or may not be true but is a Paul supporter's spin and is not an objective report. What we know is that this is what he recently said. We shouldn't opine that it was a mere clarification any more than we should say "he recently changed his position to state" something. JamesMLane t c 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the information including the full quote suggested by Thomas above. betsythedevine (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Politico article/quote from college activities section

I don't think the Politico article and the "smoked pot, made fun of Baptists" quote should be included in the article. The original GQ article generated a large amount of news coverage, but the Politico article was basically a rehashing of the GQ article with a few new quotes from some guy claiming to know Paul and some excerpts from the group's newsletter, and did not generate anywhere near the amount of news coverage that the GQ story did. Also I think it is particularly unneccessary to include some defamatory quote from this guy claiming to know Dr. Paul. He is just one person making this claim, and this particular quote did not receive much attention as part of this whole controversy. It is not necessary to go that much into detail on non-essential aspects of this controversy. The essential aspects of the controversy are: Rand Paul belonged to a mysterious college group that sometimes made light of the strict atmosphere of piety on campus, Rand Paul allegely was involved with some strange hijinks with some unknown woman, and Jack Conway ran a TV ad about it all. The "smoked pot, made fun of people" quote is extraneous, otherwise isn't that an example of recentism as recently claimed on the Jack Conway talk page? Thomas6274 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Politico follow-up is relevant and multiply cited. The source of the quote is a person who gave his name; considering the emphasis pro-Paulites have put on the anonymity of the woman who made the first report, I think this is also a strong support for inclusion. Please do not make major changes to this article or to Jack Conway before getting consensus on the talk page that your wishes are in accord with WP:NPOV. It is inappropriate and unworthy of Wikipedia to target candidate articles in the days leading up to election for major changes. The Politico article emphasized the group's mocking Christianity more than had the GQ piece, including links to articles such as "Rapture, still here?" and "I was a teenage savior." Claiming that this group simply mocked Baylor's administration but not Christianity is POV and untrue, unless there is some secret anti-admin coding underlying the teenage savior article e.g. "Last week when my parents lost me in the Temple, a blabbermouthed Sadducee tole me my real dad's some guy named Yahweh. Then he told me that yahweh was dead, but later I learned that he's just detached and uncaring...Actually, I'm lucky. Most guys named Jesus don't even know who their father is." betsythedevine (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If truly defamatory then the whole section should go as the "Aqua Buddha" claim isn't any better supported than the smoking pot claim. If the information is not worth much readers can come to that conclusion on their own. The sourcing is not represented as being stronger than it is.Brian Dell (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Civil Liberties Section

This is the current text of that section:

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.[121] In response to criticism from Bill Clinton, Paul suggested that it might be a good idea to have a law making it illegal for someone in a position of power to have sex with their intern.[122]

His views on the Patriot Act should be included. His response to Bill Clinton should not be. He was not and has never advocated a law banning such behavior. If you check the source provided in the article you will see that Paul's statement was merely made to illustrate his view that Bill Clinton is a hypocrite for criticizing Paul's earlier statements about the civil rights act. The point he was illustrating is that Bill Clinton and Democrats in general are willing to infringe on property rights in order to protect employees and subordinates and while they want regulations and accuse Rand Paul of being someone who will allow employees to be pillaged, Bill Clinton actually did take advantage of his subordinate.

If the statements between Rand Paul and Bill Clinton belong on his Wiki page, they should be in the section regarding the civil rights controversy. The section on Civil Liberties, as it currently stands is highly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.210.215 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Rand Paul's remark about sex with interns was meant as a joke on Bill Clinton, a rather mean-spirited one, but not a serious espousal of some new regulation. I agree that it does not belong in this section, and I will remove it. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

health care

It would be interesting to know if Dr. Paul will be taking advantage of the federal health care program and what his position on giving the rest of the US citizens the same option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.5.140 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My recomendation, if you're interested, would be to email this question to a news organization. Then after they write an article on the answer we will have something we can discuss.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia jumps the gun

Sorry, guys, but as of 3 Jan, Paul isn't a senator yet. This page won't be correct until the 5th. http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/freshmen-are-ready-rock-n-roll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.241 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Balanced budget

Rand says that he will not vote for the raising of the debt limit if there aren't some serious spending cuts. Somebody neutral(I'm not :) ) should put that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.166.138 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut and run from Israel is news

Several groups have commented on Paul's attempt to wean Israel away from Uncle Sam's bosom. I think this deserves a mention. Hcobb (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And the Democrats are all over it: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-senate-democrats-reject-tea-party-leader-s-call-to-cut-israel-aid-1.340601 Hcobb (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing a section on his foreign policy views and adding that information to US Senate section. Note at this point evidently all he did was agree with Wolf Blitzer that cutting all foreign aid would include Israel, as opposed to pronouncing that was his goal. In fact, he said it in a way that probably was too "politically correct" for many of his supporters. Just FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on U.S. Senate career, compared to rest of article?

I realize I added to User: Truthsort's original edit creating the "U.S. Senate career" section; now he's deleted that material. While there's a lot that could be cut in this rather long article because of "undue weight," I think Paul's current activities which are quite notable and the dozens of WP:RS news stories on his first month in office certainly support 6 additional sentences on his early activities and the response. (Perhaps they could be cut to four sentences; but refs should be left in.) If Paul does more notable things in the future over a long career, obviously that material could be cut down more to reflect the current status.

Note that I am generally favorable to Paul and am not adding material out of animus but to make sure NPOV information of interest to readers is in there. I also note you took out some of the same material when someone added it under foreign aid. Right now I think just generally mentioning his opposition to foreign aid in foreign policy is sufficient, if it's mentioned in the historical section on his career, as appropriate over time. Explain why you single out that notable material for deletion and not the mass of less notable and excessive detail elsewhere in the article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I've enjoyed seeing your contributions at the I-P project. When I saw your section title, my immediate reaction was "if that's an issue, start a 'Senate career of' article". That largely applies, although it could also be a 'Political positions of': the 6 sentences in question seem to refer to political positions much more than to actual activity as an official. If there are dozens of RS's, such an article is absolutely indicated. In resolving debates on other politician articles, I've noted that positions in particular require careful nuancing, to steer far clear of the BLP rails in relation to all people named; generally the positions must be almost exactly as the political figure states, in addition to balancing "spin" released by that figure's organization and others. Paul's foreign-aid position, for one, is very carefully stated so as not to offend relations between the US and any of the 100+ countries that might be affected by his proposal. I've also noted that positions articles are a very safe place to put sourced data that may be chargeable as improperly weighted, in that all POVs eventually get collected there, and debates at such a page are much less explosive. Positions successfully balanced there can then be summarized in the main article. I encourage you to have your multiplicity of RS's roughed out in such a new article. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to say that, even now, it is already a demonstrably notable topic. JJB 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Busy right now with other things, but at my leisure I'll check how its done it other articles. But I doubt that another sentence or two on notable incidents is WP:Undue. I guess the Republicans aren't listening to him, from what they've proposed. So does that make it more or less notable? Time may tell. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a whopping six democratic senators and the pro-Israeli lobby oppose it. What makes that notable criticism? BTW, you don't even bother mentioning those who support ending aid.[1][2][3] Truthsort (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that this seems to be the most noteworthy thing he's done, given the ability of Israel lobby to raise such issues, the topic is worth mentioning. I'm not saying those should be only or best articles. Ones about how Israel lobby is singling him out for criticism on this issue and ignoring others also relevant. But I really have other things to do than look for them. If I happen on something better I'll come back for another pass. (Note: since this was first time I was asked, for heck of it I opined on pending changes but don't know what effect that will have and of course since it was my edit you deleted, I guess I shouldn't have. Bad Carol.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Board certification

I think the current text is a fair reflection of the previous expansive text and Truthsort's newer version. Two small paragraphs hardly seems to put undue weight on the issue. The development of that text was debated a fair bit when originally added, IIRC. @Truthsort: I invite you to give your input on why the fairly stable material is in need of fairly drastic change. BigK HeX (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the content that has been added to this article occurred during his campaign and as a result, there is a significant overemphasis on any issue that occurred. The campaign is now over and I have been working on reducing the weight on the certification section. The way I wrote it was perfectly fine. It gave a good account of his board certification and shredded more than half of the unnecessary weight. There is no need for the quote of the spokesperson, no need to mention what percentage of ophthalmologists have ABO ophthalmology certification, or mention again that he is licensed to practice in Kentucky when the very first sentence of the medical career section states that. Truthsort (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why make drastic changes? If its not broken, don't fix it! Bring your copy here and let's look at it! SayHiWorld (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the section was "broken". There was way too much weight given and the BigK HeX's version is still a bit too much. This was my entry. Truthsort (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you some sort of judge of wikipedia who gets to decide what's needed and what's not? SayHiWorld (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think shorter is better, but this version doesn't accurately convey the content of the cited sources. It seems structured as a apologetic rather than a clear representation of the cited sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what is left out as it does accurately show when he passed the boards, when he created his board, when it dissolved and when it was brought back, when his certification ended and that his board is not recognized by the ABMS. Truthsort (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What's left out is why anyone cared enough to write about it. The cited, reliable sources provide clear context: Paul described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist when he was not, in fact, board-certified in the generally accepted sense of the term. I think your edit weakens the sourcing, as well - you replace a reliable, third-party source (Politico) with a Washington Post blog that essentially just recapitulates Paul's version of the matter without additional coverage. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem though is that the article says that Paul states he is "board-certified" but not that he was "board-certified" by the ABO. As it turns out, he is "certified" by his own board, so I am not seeing the contradiction here. The way it is now, makes him look like he was being dishonest. It is better to add the info in an encyclopedic format rather than in this breaking news-like fashion. Truthsort (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been no discussion on this for two weeks, I am reverting back to my version. Truthsort (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though there are 3 editors above disagreeing with his edit, Truthsort has performed the following reverts to push it:

• 17:25, 23 March 2011
• 19:04, 23 March 2011
• 09:53, 1 April 2011
• 06:02, 9 April 2011
• 02:42, 10 April 2011
• 16:50, 11 April 2011

Pursuant to the talk page discussion here, I've attempted compromise texts and reverts of Truthsort's unsupported version. It seems he is determined to persist in this edit. Seems disruptive to me. BigK HeX (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think that this edit by Truthsort is an improvement. As I've stated above, I do not believe that it adequately represents the material in the cited sources, instead seeming to go to great lengths to "apologize" for Paul. We should just be honest with the reader and represent what's in the sources. Secondly, I think that Truthsort's edit weakens the sourcing, as I described above. Third, I don't think it's appropriate to keep re-adding one's edits when there clearly seems to be substantial, if not unanimous, objection, and when one hasn't actually addressed the objections in question. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear before, I agree with all three objections that Mastcell raises. Truthsort's edit does not cover why the topic became notable, and then it has POV issues, and the sourcing is decidedly worse. BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, I applaud you for discussing again after going silent for two weeks. We are not here to report the news angle of this. This was nothing more than news coverage for two-three days before fading away. This is hardly a controversy. Yet, you continue to write to suggest that this was a huge issue in his life and that Paul was dishonest about his certification. He look at the enduring notability of events and it is obvious that this did not any impact on Paul. the article says that Paul states he is "board-certified" but not that he said he was "board-certified" by the ABO. The article gives a brief mention of him saying in a May 18 interview that he had both certifications, but a spokesman said he misspoke because the question was unclear and subsequently stated that his ABO certification lapsed. Of course, the mention of the interview is vague and there are no other details of it.

The edit is not apologizing to Rand Paul, but just bringing out the facts of his medical certification. I even add that his NBO board is not recognized by the ABMS. I highly doubt that is being apologetic to Paul. Your complaint about "weakening" the sourcing is comical. What does the Politico article add that has not been mentioned? Simply put, two objections does not equal to "substantial, if not unanimous, objection", like you claim. Truthsort (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"First off, I applaud you for discussing again after going silent for two weeks."

My position is unchanged. Your edit is not preferred. I went through effort at reducing the weight of the material as a compromise.

Also, I'll ask that you not push your edit using revert as a weapon. No editor should feel obligated to respond to your non-substantive comments; just because you post the last word in this thread, does NOT mean that your edit is any more acceptable. Multiple editors have made clear their feelings on your edit -- please do not be disruptive. Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

The article states that "Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide." Is this correct, and can anyone site anything he actually said that confirms this position? I was under the impression that Rand and Ron agree on almost all issues, but maybe this is an exception. I know that Ron supports the Defense of Marriage Act as a protection of states' rights, but I also know that, in his personal opinion, Ron supports the allowance of same-sex unions.--Jci2297 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The source provided says exactly that. Truthsort (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.193.134.237, 1 April 2011

Recently, Senator Rand Paul has vocally opposed Operation Odyssey Dawn as well as President Obama's handling of the situation in Libya. His concerns rest primarily around alleged Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah elements among the Libyan Rebel Forces and the constitutionality of the War in Libya, citing that Obama went to the UN, the Arab League, NATO, and other international organizations other than the congress.

71.193.134.237 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Stickee (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noted the entirety of Paul's actions in the Senate with a ref. Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the non-binding resolution based on it getting ran through without any debate[4] and this response from Paul.[5] Truthsort (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So you've got blogs against the lamestream press. Let me check who wins in Wikistan rules. Oh, the press. Reverting. Hcobb (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to stop with your sarcastic remarks. I believe Paul has made it clear what his position on this is and adding a non-binding resolution that does not have the power to become law and was rushed through without any debate or discussion on what was in it is inappropriate. Furthermore, that National Journal article is not even accurate. It did not call on implementing a no-fly zone but rather urged the UN to consider the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.[6] John Ensign also pointed out how useless this resolution is and how it was rushed through.[7] Also, the National Review points out that not many senators were present and the no-fly zone part was added in the final version.[8] Truthsort (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

President Paul

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/153555-rand-paul-says-hes-ready-to-run-in-2012

Put at the end of "Electoral history" as a new subheader? Hcobb (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Medical certification issue

Looking for outside opinions on whether or not the certification issue that was presented by the Courier-Journal back in June 2010 was a relevant controversy that had an enduring impact on Rand Paul or whether it was mere news coverage that was never a significant issue. Truthsort (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a significant issue. It speaks to his professional and political credibility. Certification is very important in his field (and to me, personally as a patient). It received national news coverage, so not covering it would be strange. Njsamizdat (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because something received news coverage does not make it okay for inclusion. (see: WP:NOTNEWS) The news coverage on this lasted about 2-3 days with no serious repercussion against him. I really have no idea how you can interpret this to effect his credibility politically or professionally. Certification is not required in Kentucky either and the article points out that he is licensed to practice medicine. Let me just clarify that I am not for a complete removal of the facts surrounding his certification, but I have an issue with how it is being presented in the article presently. Truthsort (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No ... you are for a version of the text that a few editors would consider to be structured as a POV apologetic.[9] Currently, I've cut the text down to two short paragraphs that explain the issue succinctly.[10] BigK HeX (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. I would also like to state that the content in the Paul article is not even accurate as indicated from the Courier-Journal article. The issue was never that Paul said he was certified and then it turns out he wasn't, but rather that his board is not recognized by the ABMS, which only recognizes certifications from the ABO and thus leads them to say he is not certified. In fact, the beginning of the Courier-Journal article begins that Paul says he is certified by his own board, but that his board (and certification) is not recognized by the ABMS. I state that in my edit that his board is not recognized by the ABMS (which your edit does not). Another interesting point is that the article states that after the May 18 interview, the Paul campaign subsequently told the newspaper that his ABO certification lapsed, so it seems that the newspaper was already aware of it. Truthsort (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it out altogether or minimally include as a footnote after the first sentence in the 'Medical career' section to appease our readers' curiosity if it's actually an issue or just a campaign ruse of some sort. Jnast1 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) although there "is no indication that Paul isn't qualified to practice ophthalmology." He has been licensed by the state to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993, and his license is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action. In 1995, Paul was certified by the (ABO) for a term of one decade, according to the ABO over 95 percent of the nation’s practicing ophthalmologists have ABO certification. In 1997, after a dispute with the ABO over recertification, Paul, along with 200 ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO). Paul's ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005, and Paul has since been certified by the NBO.

The problem however is that the article was not about Paul saying he was certified only for a newspaper to find out that was not true. It was about his board not being recognized by the ABMS which only recognizes certifications from the ABO. The way it currently is written is not even accurate. Regardless, I still oppose mentioning the news angle of this and would rather have the facts speak for themselves. Truthsort (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Then leave it out. Jnast1 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it'll just be reverted by BigK HeX. Truthsort (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It is significant that he has divorced himself from the standard medical association. Niluop (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is the news angle of it important and can we at least make it accurate? Truthsort (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is significant and should be given all due coverage in the article. It was a major issue in his first (which generally means most important) campaign for public office. BelloWello (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No it was not a major issue. I don't mind mentioning the facts of his certification but the news angle should be removed. How many times do I have to reiterate this? Truthsort (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, wikipedia is run by consensus and not by what Truthsort minds doing. Thank you for your blatant declarations, you can reiterate your beliefs as many times as you would like, but however many times you do so in that manner, they will not alter mine. BelloWello (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm sure you didn't even bother reading the discussion given that you just gave the same baseless reason that everyone else has given. Truthsort (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Speeches

Rand Paul does speeches for the former White Citizens Council, now called the Council of Conservative Citizens. No where in this article does it mention how he publicly feels about black people...and its locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.194 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be some chatter about his questionable funding, and he is so libertarian that he doesn't want the Government to uphold civil rights, so there might be something here. - JeffJonez (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing here given that there are no reliable sources on these alleged speeches. Truthsort (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ORLY? He takes great pains to deny any bias based on race, but Paul's stance on not enforcing civil rights is quite plain. Please to observe: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/19/paul-civil-rights/ - JeffJonez (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he can oppose civil rights laws without being a white supremacist. What would calling him one add to the article or to anyone's understanding of him or his ideas? It could maybe be added to the (already bloated) political views section, I guess, but he seemed conflicted about the issue so good luck pinning it down. Since he's a freshman senator with no prior legislative experience, he should be given time to work this out.Njsamizdat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a very serious charge and it needs serious proof, like say... http://www.mediaite.com/online/haley-barbour-praises-civil-rights-era-white-supremacist-citizens-councils/ Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to believe that he's an actual supremacist as the anonymous questioner stated, but his casual disregard for civil rights coupled with support from the Tea Party which has racism issues of its own will have me doing some weekend research. - JeffJonez (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The area I'd suggest looking into is the anti-redistributionists. We got ours (possibly by exploiting other people) and you can't have any of it now. This group is not against government programs that are structured to tax low wage earners (i.e. minorities) in order to favor longer-lived groups (i.e. whites) such as say Social Security. Hcobb (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The backup refers to Haley Barbour, not Rand Paul. I find no references to Paul chatting with CCC groups. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun Control

The link provided as evidence that Rand Paul would support no gun control is false. He does not state the removal of all gun control. "Gun rights advocates need to know that the 2nd amendment is only as good as the fourth amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6015 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that quote him not supporting gun control? Truthsort (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction

The clinic Rand Paul worked at in Bowling Green is the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, not the Gilbert Graves Clinic. He was my doc when I was a youngster. Not a big enough issue for me to bother creating an account and waiting four days or whatnot to edit it myself, but someone ought to correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.139.9 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Truthsort (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)