Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 2

Department of Education?
The article says he opposes the department of education. Really? No sources near that sentence seem to illustrate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.227.85 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's common knowledge, reported by many sources that he wants to get rid of it, but keep Medicare payments to doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuuRaCruisy (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Named after Ayn Rand?
Is it possible Rand is named after Ayn Rand? --70.94.217.104 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rand is simply a shortened version of Randal. Rand changed it during his father's '88 presidential campaign to remind his father's supporters of Ayn Rand. But he was not specifically named after Ayn. Gage (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Every libertarian worships Ayn Rand like the new prophet, so it's clearly an homage to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.245.67 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with someone is not the same as "worshipping" them. Ayn Rand got a lot of things right.  She got other things wrong.  In any case, Rand was not named after her, nor did he change his name to imply any such thing. 24.6.159.76 (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you know better than Rand himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfQ04fmj9oc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.190.78 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A rather stupid generalization. I am a libertarian and I completely reject Randianism and Objectivism.  Probably a minority of libertarians are Randians. Safiel (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A minority?? As a fellow libertarian I'd have to respectfully disagree. I know many and of those I've met you'd be the first one I've encountered who rejected synonymous views of the individual, social freedom and fiscal conservatism -- the very tenants of Randian Philosophy. I wouldn't go as far as to say "worship" either; however, the parallels between the two ideologies are undeniable. Rooney Rooney (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind being a follower of Ayn Rand, is there any hope of an objective article on Rand Paul? Your opinions don't count towards reality. Check the video. He wasn't named after Ayn Rand. End of discussion, or take it to one of your political forums. This is not what Wikipedia is for.Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1st Graf - Constitutional
What are constitutional views? Njsamizdat (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Views that adhere to the Constitution of the United States. Gage (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Views he believes adhere to the framers original intent or of his interpretation of the Constitution? Seems quite vague and POV. Few U.S. politicians on either side of the aisle argue that they do not believe in correctly interpreting the constitution. Njsamizdat (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Njsamizdat true, "Few U.S. politicians on either side of the aisle argue that they do not believe in correctly interpreting the constitution." However there should be nothing for politicians to interpret about the Constitution (that is for the supreme court). It is for the politicians to read and have it etched in their minds. With them only passing laws that are 100% aligned with it. Something that is obviously missing in todays America. Present Bush said, "its just a G.D. peace of paper".--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it any less POV. Ideologically-speaking, and position-wise, MANY things are constitutional.  It doesn't hint at all towards where he might be on issues.  I'd suggest libertarian or something, since it's quite obvious, but "constitutional" just makes this article extremely POV.  98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strict constitutional means that he is defending the Constitution. Just like his father, Ron Paul! It is POV. Njsamizdat (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the term you are looking for is "originalist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the subject would be NPOV but not a personal opinion of the author.71.28.182.212 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Neal Mc.

FYI
I added the

as a test. If editors like it, keep it up or do the same to other pages. If not, remove it. Thank you. --William Saturn (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reasoning behind this is that many editors just edit the talk pages so at least they should get a glimpse of what the candidate looks like, right? --William Saturn (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported claims
The following clian that Rand's father supported him in college is not supported by these citations. They need to be removed from the article per WP:BLP but I am depositing them here to allow for proper citations if they exist.

Toddst1 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be looked into.... Ron Paul did financially support his kids through college, I read this from some of what he said during the 2008 Presidential campaign but I do not know if any sources are available right now.71.28.182.212 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Neal Mc.


 * Either Paul's father paid for him or the children took out government supported loans. It'll be interesting to see which is what. Surely the Paul's realize some people need government-supported loans because not everyone's parents can pay for their education. Or maybe they don't...

What does your point of view about college education funding have to do with this article? There are actually more than 2 ways to pay for college. It isn't just "rich parents" vs. "government funding" Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people still work their way through college and graduate with no debt and no help from their parents or the government....however, there are sources that indicate that that Ron Paul did not allow his children to take out student loans. Before I dig one up, can you tell me whats is acceptable? Angelatc (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)AngelatcAngelatc (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Political Agenda Noticed
The first paragraph of Rand Paul's page says that he is currently the frontrunner. While Rand Paul is certainly famous b/c of his father, he is in no way the front runner. The election propaganda hasn't even begun to hit the air waves and few people from Ky. even know who Rand Paul is. I feel that this is just an attempt by someone to push Rand Paul onto the people of the state. I would appreciate it if someone could remove the reference as there is no citation that affirms this "fact".

\\Skenns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenns (talk • contribs) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Polls aren't enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.190.78 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about then but we are 2 months later and he is clearly the frontrunner with Greyson desperately attacking his character even though he is the insider. 71.28.182.212 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Neal Mc.

Libertarian
He's listed under the American Libertarian category, but the article says he's a lifelong Republican and the word libertarian is never even used in the article. Some explanation could be used. AFink (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One can be a libertarian (small "l") without being a member of the Libertarian Party. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Source for lifelong Republican? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuuRaCruisy (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's increasingly being called a Libertarian - George Will referred to him as that on This Week today. Ron Paul was a libertarian. Did Rand actually never affiliate with any libertarians in his political career, whether capital L or little l?68.5.190.177 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See the "constitutional conservative" lede reference, where he specifically declined to be labeled a libertarian.
 * (He appears to hold at least two generally non-libertarian positions, on immigration and same-sex marriage.) AV3000 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Political Views
This section really needs to be expanded, probably in it's own page. Should be a very high priority. Brett (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would a candidates views merit their own page. Is he the next Plato? 69.171.174.143 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's usually done for space purposes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had modified the section on abortion to more specifically clarify his position. Each of the factors included gives more clarity to his position and is supported by the references cited.   His opposition to abortion even when the women is a victim of rape or incest and even when a woman's life is threatened underscores the absoluteness of his position.  His support of a constitutional amendment and his opposition to federal funding is an indication of how he would attempt to make his beliefs effective in the political sphere.  Bill Smoot (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bill Smoot that his position in cases of rape and incest should be included. I included it a while back, and it got lost when the political views section was expanded. I reinserted it today, but William S. Saturn reverted with an edit summary saying "non-neutral language removed." Since there seems to be a consensus here that this position should be included, I'm going to re-revert. William S. Saturn, if you feel that the language I used was not neutral, please edit the language and/or discuss it here -- but don't just eliminate the material. I personally didn't feel that any of my language was non-neutral, but if you could explain here why you felt it was, I'd be happy to listen.--Fashionslide (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A consensus is not you, and one other person. Also, I'm sure since the other person didn't even read what you wrote, they have no idea how neutral you were. If what you wrote wasn't nuetral, try changing it. If it was nuetral, post it here for an actual consensus. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Promontoriumispromontorium. The version rewritten by me is the one currently in the article. I think it's neutral. What do you think?--Fashionslide (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are there so many details about the money bombs?
And why are all the references from pro-Rand sites? Aren't there any objective records of how much was raised? 76.105.197.110 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the money bombs were in this quarter and so are not officially validated by the government yet71.28.182.212 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Neal Mc.

Shouldn't "moneybomb" be linked to a wikipedia article? It's not standard english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.242.244 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Puffery (Medical Career section)

 * In recognition of his emphasis on "ethical decision-making" in ophthalmology practices, he was published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.[7]

Seems to me there is a slight difference between a journal publishing your letter to the editor and a journal awarding you a special commendation for your ethical conduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaborating (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and removed that sentence. cmadler (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War stance
Can anyone find a better source than this to make a definitive statement about Rand Paul's Iraq War stance?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about mediamatters or huffingtonpost, I am sure they'll give him a fair shake. --Tom (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Creative spelling.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My spelling, admittidely(sp), sucks, does Wiki have a spell check :) --Tom (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Better sources than the usual partisan muckrackers?
I know the talking heads are going wild, but can we get better sources before tarring this guy a racist? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

His own statements do a pretty good job of demonstrating it, go look them up. Calicocat (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is a puff piece for him, it seems like there is a dedicated team of people making sure this article softens any criticism of the man, while substantiative criticism exists on the articles for virtually every other politician who has had any sort of controversy (except Rand's father of course). --98.134.37.114 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you want to add or remove? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First In the third Paragraph above the contents, the first sentence should read "In August 2009, Paul officially announced his candidacy for the United States Senate." and incorporated in an earlier paragraph. All of the other data should be incorporated below the Contents box.  Secondly, I'd remove the entire 2nd Paragraph under Activism that begins --"KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of . . ." this is a Puff piece on KTU which he is associated with but may be better suited for a page about the KTU.  The whole Para doesn't add to his bio so it should go.  As a matter of fact, Id wipe out most of the first paragraph too.  This entire article should have an international editor edit it because an objective opinion may be able to save it from being the propaganda puff piece it is now.  69.171.174.143 (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vital Statistics
How tall is Rand Paul, what's his weight? I've looked and can't find any information. Does anyone know? Calicocat (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * does anybody really care? Seriously, this seems like it would be out of place since we don't do that for other bios, unless they are fighters, ect or has some special relevancy. Is that the case in your opinion? --Tom (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I do since I asked the question and there's no reason to get snotty about it. It's a simple question. Calicocat (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Calicocat, although threeafterthree could've been kinder about it, the reason he responded as he did is because talk pages aren't the place to ask questions about a subject -- they're to discuss the article itself and how to improve it. See the "stay on topic" bullet point of Talk page guidelines.  So instead of looking at your question as a person's question to be answered, he addressed it as a question of why that shouldn't be present in the article.  The good news is that Wikipedia does have a place where people answer each other's questions: it's the reference desk, where an editor might be able to dig up the information from somewhere.  Try there. WCityMike 06:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Calicocat, first, I apologize for coming across as snotty. I was trying to joke around and really meant no offense. As mentioned above, if you are interested in his height and weight statistics, you could ask/look elsewhere unless somebody here can direct you. If you think this information should be including in the article, that is another matter, which can be discussed here. Again, sorry for coming across the way I did. -- (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, thank you and no hard feelings. I've looked for an answer to the question and so far haven't found the data. There was a purpose for asking having to do with developing the article. Generally, I don't edit articles about living persons, or, I try to avoid them as I will this one. I wish you well in all your editing on this and any other articles you may have interest in. My best, Calicocat (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Supports medicare/government healthcare payments
His support for Medicare (a single payer government healthcare system) should be added to the political views section. His interview with the Wall Street:

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments. In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuuRaCruisy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not cut" is not the same as "support" per se. If he says he would have voted to create Medicare, that would mean he supports it. I don't believe that is his position. --StormCommander (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a controversy section
I looked him up today to see what I could learn from Wikipedia about this Civil Rights controversy. It may be a small thing but it was big enough for him to be accused of backpedaling on it. I think anything negative about his candidacy is instantly edited out by his fans. The article reads like a fan wrote it rather than being objective 69.171.174.143 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia usually tries to avoid controversy/criticism sections unless the guy is over the top, still subjective of course. I believe the is he really a racist or isn't he one is probably being over covered currently since the talking heads are covering this and its quite the buzz with them right now, makes for good ratings. Anyways, not sure if we really need all the blow by blow back and forth but time will tell as it always does. --Tom (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that he opposes the Civil Rights Act and the Americans w/Disabilities Act for being overreach, but supports bans on gay marriage and abortions at that same federal level... if he stays in the limelight long enough, there will be a contraversy section. But it's still small-time for now.208.83.118.230 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections are not acceptable in BLPs. All criticisms should be incorporated in the main text. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets try to avoid looking into the crystal ball to predict a future "contraversy" section, OK? Truthsort (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement
"Rand Paul was born in Pennsylvania, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul, a US Air Force flight surgeon and future member of Congress."

The statement "Future member of Congress" is a presumption. He is currently only a nominee, he must win his November election to officially be a furture member of Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.151.98 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused, nothing new there :). I think the sentence above is talking about his father being a future member of Congress.....Is that what you are questioning or are you talking about Rand? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a grammatical error. The phrase "a US Airforce flight surgeon and future member of Congress" describes Ron Paul at the time of Rand Paul's birth. But the sentence and the paragraph focus entirely on Rand Paul. To the casual reader the phrase may be interpreted to imply that Rand Paul is a flight surgeon and will be a member of congress. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_%28grammar%29--ThatRickGuy (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if the casual reader is a moron it seems. Many bios go into painful detail about parents and even grand parents, which I hate. This is a tiny tiny tiny mention of who the guys dad is. Why is this becoming a mountain out of a mole hill? Now I am really curious. TIA --Tom (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO the wording is grammatically and logically correct.--Fashionslide (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Harleymsn, 22 May 2010
In the "Early Life" section, Paul is described as a "future member of Congress", since he has not been elected to Congress, this should only state that "he is a candidate for Congress"

Harleymsn (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "future member of Congress" means his father. I removed this, it's of no use to look into the future in the first sentence linke that, it confuses (if at all it should be made specific, "his --father who was elected to the United States House of Representatives in ..."). Hekerui (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not looking into the future. Its describing his father pretty acurately it seems. Why does this even matter? --Tom (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, reverted again. Looks ok. Everybody happy? --Tom (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends, is "geesh" a word? :) Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems Gobonobo has resolved the isssue. Good job!--JayJasper (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights section
The Civil Liberties section seems to be written with the intent of propagating some popular left-wing attacks on Rand Paul. The only "Civil Liberties" issues mentioned are those that Rand Paul never advocated for, but only turned up in an interview and that he has since downplayed. Yet his stance on the Bill of Rights, particular the 4th Amendment and his opposition to the Patriot Act are not mentioned.

Why? Perhaps some more scrutiny should be placed upon everyone who edits these sections rather than just his supporters.

Many of the discussion contributors here have said that the supporters are making this into a puff piece, but could it be that they are also trying to make it into a hit piece?

Seeing as that I cannot make the edits myself, I request that someone address this one-sidedness as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thequestionwhy (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not simply WP:AGF and propose some additional text (with references)? AV3000 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is obviously an attack. The editor who added it is confused and put the issues in the wrong section, which proves this.  Those issues have nothing to do with civil liberties.  They are about property rights.  If a property rights / private property section is added, these topics can be included.  Otherwise, there is no place for them in the section about civil liberties. --StormCommander (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point: Should we WP:AGF for political candidates?  These things happen all the time because people are very opinionated.  --StormCommander (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've watched many editors (including myself) write this article; no single editor wrote the section. I understand that some consider issues of discrimination to concern property rights (versus civil rights), but the consensual reality of Wikipedia doesn't currently support that - however, I've changed the section title to "civil rights" since that's how each citation refers to the issues.  And yes, we need to always assume & demonstrate good faith to achieve consensus. AV3000 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The USA Patriot Act has to do with civil liberties, not civil rights. It is important that we accurately label each issue.  These two sections should be separated.  Also, the civil rights section should include his position against government discrimination.  His stance on civil rights in private businesses come from his stance on private property.  This is why I suggested that the section should be about private property.  He is taking a position on property, not civil rights.  Either way, the section should include his reasoning (property rights).  We need to be as objective as possible and represent the candidate as accurately as we can.  Anyway, we need to discuss why we should label the section as civil rights instead of property rights.  My position is that he bases his stances on property rights, so it has to do with property rights.  Thus, the section should be labeled property rights.  If he was opposed to civil rights, the topic should be labeled civil rights.  However, this is not the case. --StormCommander (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the Patriot Act sentence; I split that out into a restored civil liberties section. As for the rest, Wikipedia prefers its articles' material to be based on secondary sources, and all the citations refer to these issues as civil rights. I support including a summary of his property-rights approach, though I scanned his site's issues pages and didn't find anything appropriate to reference. I'll read through all the citations to try to assemble some text, but care to propose something?  AV3000 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful with the citations, because it is my understanding that some media misrepresented or lied about his actual position. This was what he said on ABC and WHAS (local channel).  Anyway, if Paul was opposed to civil rights, he would support private businesses discriminating against customers.  However, he does not support this.  He is opposed to government forcing businesses to not discriminate, which is a bit different.  For example, people in America have the right to be racist.  However, if someone supports this right it doesn't mean he or she is a racist.  This is because the issue is about free speech.  Likewise, Rand Paul's position on these issues is about property, which is why I think the section should be titled as Property Rights. --StormCommander (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire discussion seems to be centering around desegregation laws more than anything. Rand Paul's response/solution to desegregation laws, like his solution to most other things, is property rights. I think the heading should be named after the issue at hand, not necessarily his reasoning for arriving at his solution, or the individual law he is against. That is why I've changed the heading to "Desegregation Laws." Masebrock (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The section has only small relevance to desegregation; it is more generally concerned with issues of discrimination, public accommodation, and property rights, which are encompassed by what each citation refers to as civil rights. AV3000 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Rand Paul is opposed to discrimination (publicly and privately), I see no reason to label the section as such. He hasn't taken a position against civil rights.  Since Paul's stance is a position on property rights instead, the title of the section would more properly reflect his beliefs if it was labeled as such (as I discussed above).  He has not stated support for discriminating businesses.  However, he has made comments in opposition to government regulations of property. --StormCommander (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section discusses the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Only Title II is concerned strictly with private property; the others concern both public and private spheres, so I've reverted your edit. AV3000 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, since it's pretty clear we're at loggerheads, perhaps we should reach out for WP:THIRD. AV3000 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain which of the issues in that section relate to the public sphere and not private property? As you explained, the issues are about the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  His statements relate to concerns over property rights violations.  He hasn't made any statements against civil rights. --StormCommander (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm just repeating myself, and I believe I've understood your position, so I'll summarize (you should as well) and request another opinion.
 * A dictionary definition of civil rights is: "A broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals. These freedoms include the rights of free expression and action (civil liberties); ... the freedom to live, travel, and use public facilities wherever one chooses ...". Congress and the courts have decided since the 1960s that US civil rights preclude discrimination in facilities that are available to the public irrespective of their ownership (public or private) - the relevant term of art is "public accommodation".  This does indeed conflict with the strict interpretation of private property rights as held by Paul (yes, I realize that he has also said that he would not seek to alter this settled law, but that's not relevant here), but the reliable sources cited in the section treat the section issues as civil rights issues per modern definition and settled law, not as private property rights issues.  In conclusion, Paul's property-rights POV should be covered in the section text, but the section header should be NPOV.
 * AV3000 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it was inappropriate of me to not assume good faith. Also, just a note about this section in the discussion: It was originally about the article section called "Civil liberties," which we agreed was inaccurate.  The first few comments involve that and the sections were split.  Anyway, I agree that the header should "describe the issue upon which Mr. Paul has an opinion."  However, I do no think the examples you came up with are any better than the two we were disputing.  "Discrimination by private businesses" suggests that he may support discrimination by private businesses.  His position is that the Constitution does not permit the government to regulate private property.  He does not support discriminating.  For example, it is not illegal to say racist things in America.  Someone who agrees with this supports free speech.  It doesn't mean he or she supports racism.  Likewise, Rand Paul is taking a stance on property rights, not discrimination.  But does anyone have any more ideas on possible headers for this section?  I suggested "Private property" as opposed to "Property rights."  This is similar to your Abortion example in my opinion.  The issue is whether government should ban abortion.  The issue for our article section is whether the government should regulate property.  (Another reference to help explain his position: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0526/Rand-Paul-and-the-Civil-Rights-Act-Was-he-right) It's hard to come up with an appropriate section header because, like you pointed out, "political parties have been employing political terminology as weapons for ever."  Suggesting that Rand Paul is opposed to civil rights or is in favor of discrimination is going to make him look bad and misrepresent his actual views.  That's why I argue for the "Private property" header. --StormCommander (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the 3rd opinion by WCityMike that the current paragraph seems to be an accurate and balanced presentation of the issue, though I think it might be improved with elaboration on the Title II issue -- especially mentioning the Maddow show which has been a notable part of the matter. As for the section title, "Civil Rights" seems fine. BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is for describing Paul's positions, not media reactions. See the reference above.  Secondly, please address a concern I have on your talk page. --StormCommander (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The section is for describing Paul's positions..."
 * Ummm ....yeah. The Rachel Maddow show has been discussed thoroughly for the fact that it elucidated some of Rand Paul's positions.  What is that you're supposed to be disagreeing about here.......? BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Using "Property Rights" as the section header for that text seems a far worse choice. It's pretty obvious that the specific points addressed in that text are those that refer most specifically to Civil Rights. I don't think I've seen a single RS that does not reference the term "Civil rights" as the most prominent component of the matter; moreover, "Property Rights" would be a topic to encompass for more than just a conflict with the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. In fact, from the [minority] libertarian viewpoint, nearly all arguments are rooted in property rights arguments, so there's little reason to single out civil rights on that basis.

In any case, "Civil Rights" concisely represents the text that exists there, while "Property rights" is vague and certainly not represented very well by the present text. WCityMike suggests a title that is even more specific to these controversies. BigK HeX (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to using either "Civil rights" or "Property rights" for the reasons described by WCityMike above. That is why, like the example of Abortion, I have suggested "Private property". We don't call it "Abortion rights" or "Right to life": we call it "Abortion". --StormCommander (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "reasons that WCityMike" seem to describe above are that a header which describes the fundamental issue of "DISCRIMINATION" would be a more appropriate section title. Making the title even more vague certainly does not seem to be keeping in that spirit.
 * In any case, my point above still applies. Libertarians would base nearly all of their arguments on private property, so why single out what are specifically the Civil Rights issues? To libertarians, taxation is a private property issue ... homeschooling is a "private property" issue ... same with medical mariajuana. So, if this is the basis, why single out one?
 * Bottom line is that the term "Civil Rights" is a far more concise representation of the existing text. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with StormCommander. I made the change to property rights, but I now agree that is slanted in some ways and we should settle on private property which is neutral and does not give an opinion on how private property should be treated --mrocked —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC).


 * I edited the article so it would not say "Property rights" either. See my comparison to abortion above. --StormCommander (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The text discusses only the Fair Housing Act, Civil Rights Act, and the ADA. These pertain specifically to discrimination.  Civil Rights seems neutral and relevant enough, but I'd certainly rather err to the side of being more concise, than to being more vague.  Text reflecting WCityMike's suggestion is fine by me.  BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Away for the day, and oy gevalt!) I see Samstayton has changed the header to "Civil rights in the private sector" - for the record, I'm OK with that... AV3000 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Discrimination by private businesses" seems to be more accurate, but do you think it should be changed to "Private discrimination" so it's not so long? --StormCommander (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't; that's what most of this discussion has been about - that it's a civil rights issue. I view the "Civil rights in the private sector" heading as a compromise that includes further information of the specific nature of the conflict, and it isn't particularly long. AV3000 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * AV3000, you believe it's a civil rights issue, I believe it's a private property issue. Therefore we asked for a third opinion.  I disagreed with it, but that is the third opinion and it's much more of a compromise than going back to what you originally wanted. If length is a concern, we can use the second option, which I will change it to. --StormCommander (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul, Maddow and Civil Rights Act
Paul's interview with Maddow seems to be causing a stir - does it merit its own section, or an inclusion in the section on Civil Rights? More sources here:, ,  Pexise (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Might deserve a mention, but I wouldn't think this would need its own section. Paul also canceled his appearance on Meet the Press, which is pretty rare. Only two other guests have canceled in the show's sixty-some year history: Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Louis Farrakhan. Gobonobo  T C 15:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you think media reactions deserve its own section. His victory in the primary also caused a "stir" in the media.  I don't see how negative media reactions are more important than positive media reactions.  Paul's positions should be included through out the main text, which was discussed above. --StormCommander (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale for including it would be that it is a notable event which has generated significant coverage from reliable sources. Here's another article in the Wall Street Journal. Pexise (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article as it currently exists contains an error. The word "opposed" is inaccurate re: Paul's views on Title II of the Act. He noted in the interview that he had concerns with this section of the act and would have sought to modify it had he been there at the time it was being crafted/debated. --Munin212 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What is his position on same-sex marriage?
I accidentally deleted the reference, which I originally thought made no mention of this issue. I must have clicked the wrong link. Anyway, that is fixed now. It says he is opposed to same-sex marriage. The section also originally said he thinks the issue should be decided by each state, but that was deleted. If someone could find a source for this, it can be added back. I am confused about what happened because I thought it had a proper reference. However, we should also find some more references on his main position. Some candidates believe that marriage is between a man and a women (and therefore "oppose same-sex marriage"), but don't believe that the government should make definitions of marriage. I am not exactly sure what his position is. --StormCommander (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See my latest edit to that section, which has one concise sentence & reference. For anything more, I think we'd need philosophical detail from Paul or his site that doesn't seem to be available. AV3000 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It said in this source that he opposes gay-marriage. Its near the bottom of this article. 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsort (talk • contribs)

2nd Amendment
I think the wording used in this article is a bit biased: It says he "supports the second amendment." All US elected officials swear to uphold the constitution and thus support the 2nd amendment, it's the interpretations that differ.

Marijuana Legalization
What is Rand Paul's position on legalizing marijuana, whether just medical marijuana or total decriminalization? The article says he supports it, but the Libertarian Party of Kentucky says he's opposed. Where is there info on this issue? I couldn't find anything but the articles on the Libertarian Party and something in Talking Points Memo. Miss Ivonne (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing an article would be less biased than a potential political opponent. --StormCommander (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know that James Dobson, who opposes marijuana legalization, has endorsed Paul; however, that doesn't necesarily mean that Paul himself opposes it. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul's name starting most paragraphs
21 paragraphs start with Paul's name. Should this be cleaned up a bit? Behun (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's so many sections on his views and a lot only have one sentence. If it was all one big section (like most politicians), it might flow better. --StormCommander (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Board certification
There is no reason for Paul's medical licensing to be repeatedly addressed under his Board certification section. Comments from loon critics claiming that he's not fit/licensed to practice medicine need not be addressed in an inappropriate section (if at all). I am moving his current licensed-status to its appropriate place, in his Medical career section. Additionally, I am re-adding comments from his father-in-law/treasurer, as they specifically address this situation, and they are quite pertinent. Please do not remove without a vote. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Paul's NBO is not certified" -what does that even mean? How can you certify a agency that certifies others?

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO.

Why not merge the section of his wife and father-in-law why have it twice?

Why split the section about the current standing about his license to practice medicine?

Why delete "Neither Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology or the American Board of Ophthalmology has anything to do with medical licensure." --seems fair to state that neither boards have anything to do with licensure.

OW, watch out it looks like your edit that you are inserting may be treading on WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Paul's NBO is not certified" -what does that even mean? How can you certify a agency that certifies others?" - Ducha

'''Please refrain from taking words out-of-context. If you're questioning a passage, it is disruptive to remove words from the sentence in question.''' The ABO is certified by the AMA & ABMS, Paul's NBO is not. This is the primary basis for the national attention. Let us stick to the facts, and this is not disputed by any of the involved parties. For further details, please review the citation which you have twice removed.


 * "and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. - Ducha

'''Please refrain from taking words out-of-context. If you're questioning a passage, it is disruptive to remove words from the sentence in question. The sentence actually reads: "its registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency.'"'' This fact is sourced by a document Rand Paul authored himself (cited in the article).


 * "Why not merge the section of his wife and father-in-law why have it twice?" - Ducha

I can't tell you "why not," please do; however, 'Please refrain from removing sourced material without discussion''.


 * "Why split the section about the current standing about his license to practice medicine?" - Ducha

I do not understand your question.


 * "Why delete "Neither Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology or the American Board of Ophthalmology has anything to do with medical licensure." --seems fair to state that neither boards have anything to do with licensure." - Ducha

If you're asking "why delete" that specific sentence, the reason is, it's grammatically incorrect. If you're asking about the general principle, that information would be better suited for a page on the NBO and/or the ABO. Under "Medical career," it read "Paul's current license to practice medicine in Kentucky dates back to 1993," and contained a source, all of which you removed. Paul's license is all that applies to this article, to note that the NBO, a third-party to this article, does not issue licenses, would make as much sense as saying "Rand Paul was born in Pennsylvania, which is not part of the Soviet Union."


 * "OW, watch out it looks like your edit that you are inserting may be treading on WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH."--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If re-adding sourced material which you've removed is original research, then you're right. If the term hasn't recently been redefined to that end, please cite at least one example. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In your diff "and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency." --I'm not sure how/or if you can use a state government document as a primary source; however that source is only a document, you need a secondary source like, where you can take their words and put them into the article. Not Your words as that Is 'WP:OR'.


 * Your ref, is also unacceptable, as once again your are adding 'WP:OR". True it is the website of the board, but you cannot link to it as a source unless they issue a press release about Paul.


 * Your ref [ ] links only to the Ron Paul page, this is in no way a reference to anything at all.


 * your Ref from Talking Points Memo its a web-based blog style news outlet, and I am really not sure if it is RS or not, I defer to someone more knowledgeable. But may very well not be a RS to add to your other unreliable list.


 * Your ref "Stanley Braverman, an apologist for Rand Paul's NBO, states that Paul's NBO is less expensive to join than the AMA-certified ABO." is from the website ophmanagement and it is a 'guest editorial' from '2004' with nothing to do with anything except your own 'WP:OR' and 'WP:SYNTH'.


 * If you are new here or do not understand what is a 'Reliable Source' I will ask you to please refrain from adding material until You do. There is NO need to Vote when removing improper sources or personal research.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to recheck your facts. Firstly, with the exception of the federal document, and the quote from Paul's father-in-law, all of those sources were preexisting. Albeit, some may have been from older revisions, but frankly, I have not thoroughly reviewed the bulk of your contributions given your proven bias, and multiple bans. Given that Paul is the founder, president, and sole ophthalmologist-member cited in his government filing, Braverman's article in one of the top ophthalmology resources seemed pertinent. I also see some irony in the fact that you repeatedly accuse me of WP:OR & insinuate citation ethics violations, when that's been the offense cited by the admins who banned you from editing. You are the only member to ever throw that accusation at me, and given I've never been banned or even warned, unlike yourself, I think I'll keep editing as I was, avoiding advice from someone with an indefinite topic ban. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will ask others to check into this if you want. True I have had my problems in the past, I have tried to learn from them and improve my editing to what I can and cannot do. Something you have not learned yet obviously. --I might also add that you are to look at my logic and wickipedia rules I cited to argue your case/point, NOT attack me personally as you just did above, please see WP:civil. You created your account on Jul 05, 2010, and have 39 edits; you are new here right? Do you have other accounts?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are both engaging in personal attacks. Cut it out. This discussion is about the article and it's factual accuracy, keep it on point please. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP and any information,especially if potentially controversial, that is not properly verified should not be included. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is he a doctor?
"The American Board of Opthamology said Paul hasn't been certified since Dec. 31, 2005." —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicW (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This citation seems to be clear that he can practice as a doctor without certification accepted by the American Board of Medical Specialties (though some hospitals prefer or require it), so I'll remove the CN. The main issue raised is whether his campaign had incorrectly indicated that he was still so certified, versus his current certification by his own group; this doesn't seem notable enough to be included in the article IMO but could be added if there's consensus.  AV3000 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with AV3000. Paul has been a licensed doctor in Kentucky since 1993. A lot of people seem ignorant on what is required to be one. Certification means next to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CullVernon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Akreitman, 15 June 2010
The American Board of Medical Specialities (ABMS) web site provides the public with free verification of the board certification of any physican. Despite Dr. Paul's claim that he is board certified by the American Board of Opthalmology, the ABMS has no record of any board certification for Dr. Paul.

Akreitman (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The article already states this, does it not? -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Political views
I have removed material about Paul's comments about Obama that have been placed under his views. If this "material" is worthy of inclusion, can it incorporated into the article in a better/more approriate place? TIA --Tom (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why delete the material instead of fixing it by moving it? If you want to be involved in fixing it, by all means please do go ahead and fix it. BigK HeX (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include this material under a Controversey section as well. Any other thoughts? TIA--Tom (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying you wouldn't put it there, doesn't actually explain how you're applying Wikipedia guidelines in justifying the deletion. BigK HeX (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read above about how controvesey sections should be avoided. How is this "material" notable and why should it be included and where? --Tom (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If, big IF, this "material" is going to be worked into the bio, can it at least be included correctly. Rand never called Obama un-American, that is for starters...--Tom (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My goodness this stub controversy section is not needed and unproductive to this BLP. Truthsort (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would delete that "material" as not really that notable. How big a deal was this really? What do others think? TIA --Tom (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Controversies Huh?
Why on Earth wouldn't his Civil Rights incident be named under controversies? Right or wrong, Paul himself views it as a controversy. Keep in mind, he was the only politician in 63 years of Meet the Press history to cancel an appearance on the show. And he was one of two people in history to cancel an interview there, other being Louis Farakhan's "Black Hitler" controversy.

I also don't see why his questionable Ophthalmology certification wouldn't be listed...76.123.241.114 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is already mentioned in the article. This is absurd to mention it two times. Truthsort (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When I saw the article had such a poor controversy section, I simply fixed it up with sources, and with the instances Paul and/or the RNC themselves have identified as a controversy. If you truly want to add to the article as opposed to partisan nonsense (which others have attempted, and are currently facing a ban), then review other major politicians' articles. As is custom, you may remove the general controversy section, and integrate the controversies within their respective sections. The reason your revision was inappropriate was your hopefully unintentional attempt to bury the controversial nature of the situations. They must maintain headers noting the controversial political connotations of the incidents, just as you'd see in Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton.76.123.241.114 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The way the "controversies" section is written is clearly slanted. And considering the wording of the certification part especially, and the fact the guy who added it is in here calling it "fraudulent" when it isn't says a lot. It's nothing more than a political yard sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CullVernon (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that CullVernon has just returned from a ban for disruptive edits to this very article speaks for itself. Also of note is the claim that the NBO has 200 members. The only source for this is Rand Paul making this claim, and is completely unsubstantiated (by any known registry or the AMA).76.123.241.114 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The consensus on BLPs is to not include a "criticisms" or "controversies" section but to instead incorporate the content in to the article. If the IP clicks on the links he provided above, he will see that those articles do not have such a section either.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what was said, to incorporate them into the content with their own sub-sections as is seen in those two examples76.123.241.114 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Any further attempts to create the section will be promptly reverted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that William S. Saturn claims Rand Paul being the only American politician in over six decades to cancel an appearance on MTP as non-notable is absurd. Additionally, his dispute with the AMA is also extremely notable, as Paul himself has noted significant time and press coverage to this situation. Furthermore, the 200 member claim without any source is completely un-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.241.114 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the page history, I accepted your edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that the information on the controversies is sourced. The only objection so far is that the this is not the style of presentation preferred by consensus. If it is bad style to compartmentalize this cited info into its own section, then the solution is to INTEGRATE, NOT DELETE. BigK HeX (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * William S. Saturn, my apologies. If you look at the history, you jumped in during a dispute with banned member CullVernon who has three admin citations from this article. But I think the article looks fair at this point. Thank you for your help.76.123.241.114 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the False analogies. Comparing an article of a candidate to two presidents is beyond ridiculous. The fact is, putting text into these dreadful stubbing subsections is creating an unencyclopedic structure of this article. Truthsort (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The section headers and POV language can be improved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather then descending into hyperbole, how about we cite specific examples. In one of top political articles on wiki, Bill Clinton has the sub-headers: 4.1.1 Travelgate controversy and 4.1.2 White House FBI files controversy. Rand Paul currently has sub-headers: 5.1.2 Civil rights controversy and 5.1.3 Board-certification controversy, where have we gone wrong in your opinion TruthSort? And how can we remedy the situation?76.123.241.114 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton is not the greatest political BLP on wikipedia. I believe that the FA Ronald Reagan has the best organization to follow.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your going wrong in comparing an article of a senate candidate to those who held the most powerful political position in the country. This information can easily be integrated in the article. The article already has terrible structure with the political positions section but adding more of thenm is just making things worse. Truthsort (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison but a similar organization can be used. The political positions section should probably be split into Political positions of Rand Paul.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is long enough, and I'm not sure if notability is well-established enough to require splitting out that section. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with it. It's about readability. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On Ronald Reagan there is:

1 Early life

2 Entertainment career

2.1 Radio and film

2.2 Military service

2.3 SAG president and television

3 Marriages and children

4 Early political career

On here, we could have:

1. Early life

2. Medical career

3. Family

4. 2010 Senatorial campaign

4.1 Announcement

4.2 Primary election campaign

4.3 General election campaign

5. Political positions

(one paragraph) with a see also for the aforementioned Political positions of Rand Paul

6. References

--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saturn, upon further review, I agree with your assessment that Reagan is a better example than Clinton. I'd say the biggest caveat is though, that Reagan's "controversies" are all contained within his "Legacy" section. Obviously that's not a possibility with Paul at the moment. It seems that keeping it in Paul's "Campaign" section is the closest analog to Reagan's "Legacy" at the moment. Any proposals? 76.123.241.114 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I just say that every article about a person I've helped edit, someone is always saying that there should not be a Controversy section because apparently we don't want that here at Wikipedia. Why is this article any different? --StormCommander (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know quite what you mean? The Controversy section has been removed. I for one didn't "want" a controversy section, it had been here for a while, but it was terrible. The consensus after I added sources and such was to dissolve it into the rest of the body, which was done hours earlier. 76.123.241.114 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Board certification
I've removed this edit on grounds of both incorrectness and as a WP:BLP violation. The issue of Paul's board certification is a legitimate topic for (brief) coverage here (e.g Louisville Courier-Journal, Politico, USA Today. But we need to be clear on what board certification is, to avoid making badly erroneous claims.

Paul is an ophthalmologist, and he is "legally certified" to practice (that is, he has an active medical license). Board certification in a specialty is not required to practice medicine. Many physicians get certified because it's sort of a seal of approval, and increasingly, hospitals, university medical centers, and other employers require that physicians working for them are board-certified, but that is a requirement imposed individually by those institutions, not a prerequisite to practice medicine or call oneself an ophthalmologist.

The edit in question violates WP:BLP; while the New York Daily News is perhaps marginally acceptable as a source, nowhere does it support the edit's claims that Paul is not a "legally recognized" specialist (board certification has no legal dimension whatsoever, and is separate from medical licensing).

I will work on a better representation of the sources, because I think this is relevant enough to warrant at least a sentence or two in the "Medical Career" section, but the existing material needed to be removed immediately as it violates BLP, and probably should not have been approved in the first place. MastCell Talk 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I wrote this section, it had escaped my notice that board certification is treated separately under the "Campaign" subheading. I think this should be covered only once, not twice. I personally think the language I inserted is a bit closer to the sources, and I also think this belongs under "Medical career" rather than "Campaign"... but then I'm biased, as the author of the section in question. Anyhow, before making any "bold" edits, I wanted to see what people thought about reducing the redundancy with which we treat this issue. MastCell Talk 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried to merge the TWO sections of the "Board certification" and was reverted by MastCell 3 minutes later . I think that the section should be listed in "2010 Senatorial campaign" as this is a non-issue to his personal life and medical career, the reporting of his certification(s) was obviously politically motivated. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to get into our personal opinions about politics if possible. I'm fine if you really feel strongly that it belongs in the campaign section; it's not worth fighting over. I do have a problem with active misrepresentations of our sources. This is a problem on several levels. It purports to be a "more correct direct quote" per its edit summary, but it's neither a direct quote nor correct. The Louisville Courier-Journal is clear that Paul claimed certification from both boards with the implication that he was actively certified. Paul himself recognized his misstatement - hence his campaign's later attempt to explain it as an error and to blame an unclear question. And we note his subsequent clarification. But we can't rewrite history or misrepresent the sources in doing so. MastCell Talk 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The story is currently pulled by the Louisville Courier-Journal (maybe a re-wright). But I think I may have been confused by the article as to what he said and by what a rep of the board said. Your point is well taken until I can read the article again. However the way you are summarizing the article looks a little like cherry picking. Why can we not have that his certification by the American Board of Ophthalmologists lapsed at the end of 2005, as that is direct quote from the article/RS too, in its current form (or the way it was before I tweaked it) almost seems as if he was never certified at all. True that Paul himself recognized his misstatement, I am not trying to hide that fact in any way, nor am I trying to rewrite history.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to note that he was previously certified by the ABO, and that he let his certification lapse in a dispute about recertification criteria. I think we already do note that, but if not it's fine to make it explicit. MastCell Talk 19:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * *Thumbs up* Even some of the stuff I added today may at some point need to be cut out or merged, I'll leave it up to others. --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made edits in this section, and I see that there was an on-going discussion about this section. I replaced the POV word "apologist" with "spokesman," and corrected a factual error about the fee structure. I also expanded one of the quotes to add clarity. Johnskrb2 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Steve10c, 10 July 2010
The section for his views on the federal reserve doesn't make sense. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, which is how it influences interests rates. It doesn't "set" interest rates as the article implies. I don't think Paul ever claimed that he would let the "free market" set interest rates, or if he did he didn't explain what changes that implies.

Steve10c (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you rewrite it? See X for Y in above template. I was going to fact tag that sentence, but the whole sub-section could use more sources. --Tom (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act material
There has been some back and forth about this section and what I think is redundant/pov editing. How do others think the wording should go? I know there is a section above, but I started it again down here. It seems that section is already pretty wordy and somewhat disjointed. --Tom (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So ... is it "POV" or not? If it is POV, then why would you insist on removing the "redundant" text from only one area?
 * In any case, I found the text to be unnecessarily confusing by spending one half of the paragraph explaining that Paul did NOT voice support for the entire CRA, then suddenly -- with NO explanation -- jumping into a sentence that says he WOULD have supported (voted for) the CRA. There's no transition there, and if you care enough to fix the readability, then that'd be fine with me. If you're not going to take a stab about making it more readable, well ... then it's got an inline cite now. BigK HeX (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by insisting on removing text from only one area? Maybe rewrite that whole section? Right now it reads  ...stirred controversy and brought concern amongst Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election. Paul further stated that mainstream media and blogs have fraudulently mischaracterized his positions on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the period of refusing to voice support for the Civil Rights Act, Paul did eventually release a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated "unequivocally ... that I will not suppo..., my emphasis, --Tom (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed this section a little, but probably could use more. This is suppose to be about his position rather than about all the bru ha ha about Rand trying to clarify and explain his position. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits mostly address my previous objections. BigK HeX (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would still trim that sub-section in 1/2, but mabe over time? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like editors to remember that Rand Paul had included the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act dealing with business access along with his comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I was disappointed to find the section on the controversy incomplete. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its covered below in the section on his positions or whatever it's called. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Allthemodrnthgs, 5 August 2010
Remove "(B.S.)" from education section of info box. Explanation: In the info box on Rand Paul, his education is listed as having a B.S. from Baylor University. It has been confirmed by his campaign that he did not graduate from Baylor University. He did not receive a bachelor's degree and instead proceeded directly from undergraduate to medical school. Source link: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/08/04/contrary-to-some-media-reports-rand-paul-has-no-bachelor%E2%80%99s-degree/ Source: Lexington Herald-Leader political ticker blog.

Allthemodrnthgs (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done His official campaign site supports that as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Louisville Courier-Journal
Gerth, Joseph (June 14, 2010). "Rand Paul's ophthalmology certification not recognized by national clearinghouse". Louisville Courier-Journal. Retrieved July 2, 2010.

The board certification story has been pulled by the Louisville Courier-Journal for over a month now, what is the proper thing to do? Do we remove it as a ref? Do we remove content that the ref supports? Do we use secondary sources to fill in the best we can? However it is done it needs to be addressed.

--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In the views section, almost every subsection has a problem with the "contentious labels" guideline in the WP manual. Phrases like "federal interference," "breach of privacy" and words like "best form of energy" are biased or at least suggest/imply biases. Additionally, the remark about trying "terrorists" at Gitmo is simply inaccurate; the reason they are on trial is to determine whether or not they are actually guilty of terrorism. Kudos to whoever wrote this for making it more neutral than I would have expected; however, to me this was clearly written by a Paul supporter or someone who leans his way, and I don't think that should be the case for an encyclopedia. You can say stuff like "what Paul CONSIDERS to be 'federal interference'" or "people SUSPECTED of 'terrorism'" but the way it is now, Paul's personal opinions are unwisely blended with objective reporting on his views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana
The article says simply that Paul supports medical marijuana. While he has said this in the past, he currently claims to oppose it. See this AP story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjUvfyvStB73Umu5vb1sRO8fu0iQD9HI5G6G0

"Paul, a tea party favorite, shows libertarian leanings on drugs. 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.8.219 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rand Paul campaign has come out against this article and has claimed it is incorrect. I am not sure if this is public yet or how they are proceeding, but I contacted them and recieved a reply by the assistant campaign manager who advised me that Paul's position has not changed and that he furthermore does not believe that the federal government has the authority to tell states whether marijuana may be used for any purpose, including medical purposes. The campaign worker did not clarify how the error came about but noted that their are no quotes attributed to Paul in the AP article and that this should be taken as reason to doubt the charecterization. I would urge restraint presently given the fact that this doesn't make any sense and the Paul campaign is denying it. Paul's views on the commerce clause and federalism are quite clear, and it would be bizzare for him to change them on this one issue when the civil rights act et al are much more advantageous to start waffling on.--Δζ (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Intern "controversy"?
I have removed this "material" until maybe something "more" comes/delevops of it. The sourcing looked a little scetchy as well. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Paul_campaign_Online_impersonator_was_impersonated.html JJB 02:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kubica denies he was the person concern-trolling on Daily Kos (see Politico article linked above); meanwhile, links between Kubica's online history and "Huey Long" continued to turn up http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/9/900308/-Thomas-Kubicas-undeniable-Huey-Long-connections-(updated) But until/unless reliable source writes about it, the controversy does not belong in article space, IMO. betsythedevine (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No facts have been produced, only speculation. Therefore, we can't write much about it for Wikipedia.    I agree with Betsythedevine. --StormCommander (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Material related to Rand Paul's activities as a college student
There is controversy about including, or not, some material recently in the news about Rand Paul's activities as a college student. From WP:BLP: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Three different matters are in question based on three diffs: The first two of these relate to recent new stories about Paul's college years as reported by Politico (Oct 12), NY Magazine (Oct. 13) and CBS News (also Oct. 13.) The WaPo also has an October 13 story about Paul's college activities. It seems to me that if these events are newsworthy in major news organization they could be included here in NPOV fashion. betsythedevine (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "While at Baylor, he became a member of the NoZe Brotherhood, a secret society that has been accused of being anti-Christian. referenced to Politico diff 1
 * "According to one classmate, "Randy smoked pot, he made fun of Baptists, none of us ever heard him pontificating about religion." (Same source cited, as is an Oct. 13 article in NY Magazine.) diff 2
 * "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. Ref to an October 11 NY Magazine quote from Kentucky.com diff 3
 * This story has received a HUGE amount of national publicity in recent days, and with all the information associated with the story it no longer is appropriate for nor does it fit in the "Early Life and Education" section. I have therefore created a new section under "2010 Senate Campaign".  I have left a brief mention of his association with the Noze Brotherhood in the "Early Life" section with a reference to the controversy it created later on.Thomas6274 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent changes Betsy... The fact that the woman is anonymous is one of the most crucial aspects of the story! The fact that dancing was banned at Baylor until 1996 is also very relevant. That is a very unique characteristic of the university that provides proper context on the level of religious "strictness" coming from the university's administration, and provides context on why the NoZe brothers acted the way they did. The reader could find that out by digging in the references, but why not include that important information in the article? It does not do the article any harm. It also was mentioned in at least these two independent stories about the controversy, here and here.Thomas6274 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object to your mentioning she has not made her name public; I did object to the article's calling her "a an anonymous female claiming to be a former acquaintance of Paul's." Citing the ban on dancing is a POV appeal to convince readers that Baylor was too religious; none of the anti-religious activities of Noze or Rand Paul that have made recent news involved any a petition to permit dancing. The dancing ban is cited in the articles you mention only as part of an effort to show that Baylor was too religious--such editorializing does not belong in this Wikipedia article. betsythedevine (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)