Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Same-sex marriage

Here are the two versions:

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

and

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

Looking at our sources, it appears that the first version is inaccurate and violates WP:BLP.

I'll explain by example. Let's say I tell you that I personally oppose abortion. It would be entirely consistent for me to say that, despite this, I support a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion.

That's what it sounds like when we say Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage. But it's not accurate; he supports laws against same-sex marriage. He wants these laws to be at the state level, not the federal level, due to his general opposition to the power of federal government. But his opposition manifests itself in endorsing laws, so it's not just personal. He doesn't neutrally want the states to decide, he wants the states to decide to make same-sex marriage illegal.

The first version is therefore inaccurate and we can't keep it. This applies for identical material in Political positions of Rand Paul. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please do not make new sections for topics already being discussed. You're familiar with TPs (over half of your edits are on TPs), and should no this. Second, Paul states later in the source that he supports states doing whatever they want. Some states (like Kentucky) support one thing, some support another. And that is all fine and dandy. PrairieKid (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We both wrote in parallel, not seeing the other's post.

In any case, Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. This means he is legally opposed, not personally opposed. You are violating WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from the NYT.

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

I think this is pretty clear, the edit by PrairieKid most closely follows the source, the edit proposed by MM is a violation of Original Research. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that he doesn't want federal laws about same-sex marriage, whether pro or con. It's just as clear that he wants state laws against same-sex marriage, which means that his opposition is legal, not personal. Please make an argument whose conclusion is relevant to the content of this article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From Fox, the other source in that section.

PAUL: You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sounds pretty personal to me since he said "I do believe in traditional marriage". I don't know why you feel the need to try and change what people actually say. Please make an argument that is relevant to the sources. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained above what personal opposition it. Your own quote shows that he is legally opposed to it in Kentucky. This means that it is not personal opposition, so you are supporting the violation of BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example, this article correctly states that he is personally but not legally opposed to MJ. This is how the distinction is made in our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That article is a summary of the Fox source and does not support your POV. Why do you feel the need to change the words of a living person? Your reasoning here only strengthens my argument regarding Bernstein. I find it most ironic that you say using the actual words of Paul is a violation of BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a personal opposition leads to endorsing laws. When you can do that, you will have my attention. Until then... MilesMoney (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are past the point of WP:HEAR. We have two sources which clearly state Paul's position, your attempt to change or modify that statement is disruptive and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember when I asked you to explain how personal opposition leads to endorsing laws? Remember when you didn't? Exactly. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to try and explain or modify the opinions or statements of a BLP. Remember when I said just say what he said? Remember when you ignored that and gave your interpretation of what he said? Arzel (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on all counts. We are here to accurately summarize the statements of Rand Paul. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy in my summary. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, time to give up. I'm sorry. Consensus (and the facts) are not on your side. PrairieKid (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to give up, you're free to. However, neither of you has pointed out any inaccuracy in my summary, so I see no reason to stop. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are familiar with WP:TE. That is one reason to stop, perhaps. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit has us reporting that "Paul does not support same-sex marriage". In fact, if you follow the related WP:BLPN thread, you'll see that it quotes the New York Times as saying:

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, which is a lot stronger than not supporting it. Amazingly, we went from sugar-coating all the way to whitewashing. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it a break; whitewashing? Support is an antonym of Oppose. To "not support" something is the same as to "oppose" that thing. That said, since the source says oppose, we should use the wording of the source. I'll let someone else make the change so that it does not appear to be edit-warring. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the wording, it's the concept.

You can oppose, support or remain neutral. If you don't support, you could either be opposing or remaining neutral. But we know that he actively opposes, so suggesting neutrality is inaccurate.

It is not edit-warring to make a change in agreement with consensus. Contrast this with the edit we're talking about, which was made by someone who hasn't discussed it before or after. MilesMoney (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just merged this section, which was headed "Massive understatement" and began with MilesMoney's message of 06:31, 27 October 2013. There was no need to start a new section about the same subject matter within 24 hours of a prior section being opened. The only possible purpose was to enable a point-y/drama-laden entry in the table of contents. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PrairieKid and Arzel. The sources clearly say he opposes same sex marriage, but feels the decision on legality should be left up to the states. He is a member of the federal government. He is not advocating for legal action at the level he works at, and also said he is okay with other states legalizing same-sex marriage. In my view, any other interpretation is original research and a BLP violation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you visit WP:BLPN, you'll see that we have a reliable source that contradicts your view by stating that Paul endorsed the federal amendment against same-sex marriage. MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul opposes gay marriage as a matter of policy

Why exactly are people accusing Miles of tendentious editing? Paul is a federalist who does not believe in imposing national solutions to these issues. However, he opposes gay marriage both personally and as a matter of policy. Wanting to outlaw gay marriage is not incompatible with wanting to let the states decide. This is clear as day from numerous RS. His grounds for supporting federalism on the issue, incidentally, are pragmatic. According to On the Issues, he used to support the Federal Marriage Amendment as recently as 2010 (1), and said in 2013 putting the issue at the state level gives opponents of SSM a chance to uphold traditional marriage (i.e. ban gay marriage) in "25 to 30" states, and keep the debate alive (2). Steeletrap (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's important to remember that there is a main article on the Political positions of Rand Paul. The article on Rand Paul should just have a brief summary of his political positions. Instead, right now it has more on gay marriage than the main article does. It seems like the main points are:

1. He has generally opposed a federal definition of marriage, believing it is better to let individual states decide.

2. Paul personally believes in a traditional definition of marriage

3. He has supported efforts on the state level to define it as such.

If there is agreement on those points, it seems like that could be conveyed in a sentence or two and anything else could go in the other article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of RS-sourced material

Here (1) User:Arzel deletes a lot of material, added by multiple users, sourced by multiple high quality RS. His justification is a vague (and therefore, unhelpful) statement of "NPOV." He made no elaboration upon what this was supposed to mean.

Because Arzel was not specific, it's impossible to know what the basis of his "NPOV" criticism is. The material deleted describes Paul's strong personal views on gay marriage, using his own words (that he "doesn't understand" gay marriage, quoted and covered in multiple RS). Also deleted was the bestiality joke he made to Glenn Beck, which received national attention and controversy, covered in dozens of RS, and therefore deserves to be covered (Rick Santorum's similar gaffe receives extensive treatment in his article). Since it's a sensitive topic, I'm happy to directly quote Paul's joke without elaboration, or adopt alternative paraphrases of his remarks. But I simply can't see the justification for deleting it wholesale.

I'm by no means anti-Rand Paul. I dislike him on a lot of issues and admire him on others (his views on mandatory minimums, drones and the drug war very much enhance our national discourse). I am genuinely puzzled by the claim that my contributions to the article, entirely accurately representing his statements on marriage (an issue that receives loads of media coverage, yet in this article gets far less attention than Paul's anti-choice views) are being criticized as biased. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this was not a Mass Deletion. Try not to make hyperbolic statements. The first section (not added by you) makes a preposterous notion that we have to WP:ATTRIB Paul's opinion. In attempt to try and point out that the NYT is unreliable (good luck with that, even if I agree it is biased). Unfortunately we have Paul's own clear words from a secondary source which make the attribution unneeded. However, then the other editor goes further in trying to say that Paul is a hypocrite with the use of "Despite his commitment to state's rights on the issue,", which is really just a "However," and ties it to another source. This is a clear violation of NPOV. The section that you added is a common POV attack that you see on WP. This is a section on his political positions. This is not a section for editors to attack his positions, that is what Blogs are for. You clearly have a lot of disdain for Paul regarding this issue, which makes it hard to not see this as anything more than trying to make a political point about Paul. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to chime in here and note that Paul never uses the word bestiality. That is a faulty interpretation of his original statement, which the Post article corrected in its headline, despite the fact that the link is still to the original headline. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)