Talk:List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul/Archive 1

Notability of this stuff
How are the reams and reams of hopeless legislation that Paul has proposed notable? Burzmali (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again and thank you for inserting your POV ("reams", "hopeless"). The editors of Ron Paul have found this topic notable enough for seven long paragraphs, which I am in process of moving into this article to set up further summary style in that article. Consensus for creating this article was established at Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 6 in addition to the general calls to shorten Ron Paul, found elsewhere in talk. While many pieces of legislation have been regarded as notable in themselves and/or in their association with Paul, I have also added less notable legislation where a one-line summary can't hurt. In general, Paul's high output of legislation has been widely noted by the press, and a categorical review of the topics legislated is much better than the relatively haphazard assembly so far at Ron Paul. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * John, you know that "reams" is simply a reference to the fact that he has introduced more legislation than any other Congressperson, and you know hopeless merely refers to the fact that the overwhelming majority of said legislation has died in committee, only to be reintroduced each year. My point is that few of these pieces of legislation have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:N.  Sure you can verify when each was proposed and when it was killed in committee, maybe the list should just include the legislation that has its own article.  Burzmali (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * POV nonetheless. My friend, a quick check shows each of the following bills is notable enough to have received its own article (or in the last two cases, subarticle coverage):

The following bills have been notable enough to receive coverage in the main Ron Paul article: Virtually all of this was old WP work which I only uncovered independently. A significant number of other bills have been discussed, not per se, but as Political positions of Ron Paul, such as abolishing the Fed and the IRS; I haven't even scoured that article to see if additional bills are covered as bills themselves. In short, most all these bills pass notability criteria on their own merits, and the ones that don't are worthy enough of being included as one-liners in a listlike "broader article providing context". But even though everything can pass notability on its own, "the particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." The topic itself, an encyclopedic categorization of Paul's bills, is notable in itself due to the thorough coverage of that topic WP has already provided in the many articles already alluded. Finally, as already discussed, it's a very appropriate breakout article for the RP article, which consensus still finds too long. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * American Sovereignty Restoration Act
 * Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
 * Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
 * We the People Act
 * Sanctity of Life Act
 * Cures Can Be Found Act
 * Family Education Freedom Act
 * Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
 * Teacher Tax Cut Act
 * Parental Consent Act
 * American Freedom Agenda Act
 * Money supply (Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act)
 * Declaration of war in Iraq
 * Sunset of Public Law 107-243 Act of 2007
 * Earnings limit repeal
 * Eminent domain
 * Lake Texana dam
 * International Criminal Court (ICC)
 * Global tax
 * Surveillance
 * Sunlight Rule
 * Sanctity of life amendment
 * Professional Educators Tax Relief Act of 2007
 * Cancer legislation
 * Ag and rural legislation
 * My point is simple, if you can find a reliable source discussing the an item it should be kept, if not, it should be removed. Some of the articles you've listed above are unsourced cruft(Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007, Parental Consent Act) and other are not (Teacher Tax Cut Act).  I would suggest that only the notable ones be listed at all, being submitted to Congress does not make a piece of legislation notable.  Burzmali (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so I and others can track the redlink crusade, here's some recent AFD's: John J. Bulten (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIZE and normal subarticle policies.--Duchamps_comb 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, User:Angus McLellan, 2007-12-27, kept 2008-01-01.
 * Articles for deletion/Parental Consent Act, User:Burzmali, 2007-12-31, deleted 2008-01-06; I continue to support recreation or merge, starting from the four sources I linked in that debate discussion.
 * Articles for deletion/Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007, User:Burzmali, 2008-01-09, deleted 2008-01-16; related material appears at Stem cell controversy.
 * Articles for deletion/Teacher Tax Cut Act, User:Burzmali, 2008-01-14, deleted 2008-01-27; I wasn't even notified of this discussion, and again reliable sources are being ignored.

Proposed deletion
Diligent Terrier tagged PROD, CU, COI, and NPOV; I removed PROD and COI. I have admitted potential COI on my talk page and that tag is redundant with the others. If, however, potential COI has led to NPOV, that can be documented here.

This page was created from a consensus at Ron Paul to break this section out according to WP:SUMMARY. It would not be easily reinstated as a merge candidate; at breakout time it was already seven paragraphs long (unduly weighted against other sections), and not because of my edits either. I have here since fleshed out the topic, proven notable by the consensus there, with additional details from other articles and new sources on bills notable and less so. Per WP:N, less notable bills may be included if the overall topic (Paul's legislation) is notable, which has not been seriously challenged and which has been established by the consensus for summary previously referred to. There is no evidence this consensus has changed, though there have been negative comments from one other user, who also initiated a couple AFDs on related individual bill topics.

Terrier, please state here your cleanup and NPOV concerns within five days or those tags will be subject to removal as well. Thank you for considering this article. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I am leaving this terminal so if you have something immediate I will need to respond later. Again, thank you for your consideration. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) To expand, the reason COI is redundant is that even if I had a COI, it would only affect the article in ways related to other tags. However, to be fair, please note any COI concerns (quoting specific applicable sentences of policy) here as well, within the next 4.5 days. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting tags as unsupported. Please discuss here before reinserting. JJB 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorized bill?
It appears that "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007" may be in the wrong section. It's presently under Health Freedom, but appears to better fit Agriculture. Is there a reason for keeping it where it is? Intchanter (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No response to the contrary for a week, change made. Intchanter (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging We the People Act
Per this adf discussion I intend to merge We the People Act to this article. If there are substantial objections to the merge, I will not merge and will instead re-open the the afd, proposing deletion. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Merge completed. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My friend, next time you want to call a merge completed based on your (1) deleting and redirecting the article and (2) removing a circular reference, you might also want to (3) add the merged article text to the main article, (4) add the merged article talk to the main talk, (5) correct double redirects, and (6) not go around proposing deletion of related articles immediately after creation (Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009). These have now been addressed. Thank you! JJB 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies on the double-redirects. WRT the rest, see WP:SMERGE. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas, let's not play games. Thank you for admitting you omitted step 7 of your own link. FYI, you also performed step 5 incorrectly, omitted step 6, and omitted referring this page back to the old talk page per WP:MERGE (in lieu of my own solution of just merging the talk); and you seem to be implying that the entire merged article was redundant and not needed, at step 2, which is not the only POV. These have now been addressed. Where's the fire? JJB 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Seeing as we primarily have a two-editor issue going on now, let's try to hammer out some consistent inclusion criteria here without edit warring. I'm tired, you start. JJB 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first section, the statement "He has been named one of the "50 Most Effective Members of Congress" by Congressional Quarterly. " isn't accurate, I check the library for the actual source around a year ago and this statement looks to be a fabrication of the Paul camp. It's kind of a shame though, while the publication doesn't laud him for being effective, it does point out that he is a great example of a Congressman who is true to his beliefs no matter how unpopular they are to the population in general.  I'm guessing a Paul staffer skimmed through the original source and just threw together what showed up in the press release.


 * For the second section, one small section is all that is needed for each bill. Several sections I deleted are redundant with main articles and don't really belong in a list.


 * For the third section, it's a co-sponsorship. Unless the press made a big deal about his co-sponsorship, it is really better suited in the Political positions of Ron Paul, where I believe his position on Social Security is already mentioned.


 * For the final section, it's a vote. Once again, I don't see any mention that his vote was any different than anyone else's, so it it would fit better in the political positions article.


 * Burzmali (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)