Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 5

RfC on placement of alleged Plagiarism
Should the Plagiarism Allegation be a separate section? Arzel (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose Similar incidents in Joe_biden and Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008 do not have separate sections.  Existing sections for the article are very general.  There is no separate section for his Filibuster of John Brennan.  There is no separate section for any specific aspect of his time in the Senate.  It is WP:UNDUE to have a specific section dedicated to this one controversy and appears to be a violations of WP:NPOV to make this a specific focus. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not think a separate titled section is warranted at this time, and I call for involved parties to stop edit-warring about it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The Senate Tenure section covers actions Paul has taken in his capacity as a US Senator in support of or opposition to specific legislative measures being considered by the Congress. This includes statements he has made as a senator about whether he would vote for or against specific legislative proposals, votes he has cast in committee or in sessions of the full Senate on proposed bills, bills he has sponsored, and the filibuster he held in protest of the Obama administration's use of drones. The allegations of plagiarism do not involve statements or actions Paul took on any specific legislation before the Congress, so the material discussing this matter should be in a separate section. The plagiarism material is appropriate for the Senate Career section more generally, since each instance reported on so far has involved speeches Paul gave while serving in the Senate; so it would be appropriate to include this content in a separate subsection under the broader topic of Senate Career. Dezastru (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support For one unassailable reason: a notable pattern has emerged. If Paul had made a single gaffe, I would be inclined to be more forgiving and defer to concerns about weight, proportion and context. But unlike the Biden and Obama cases, that have been frequently cited here, those were essentially singular events. This is now establishing as a clear pattern, over a long period of time, with new cases being discovered on an almost daily basis - and each being reported by reliable sources. Given it's scope and it's noteworthiness - and the fact that it doesn't properly fit any place else - not only does it merit its own subsection, but in very short order, it may well merit its own article. X4n6 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per arguments by X4n6. I'd also note that the plagiarism is by no means "alleged" -- it's rather quite obvious.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any Mention This is routine news coverage and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is essentially trivia and you guys are arguing over how best to include the trivia.  How about not at all?  See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA and WP:RECENTISM.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as section Per WP:CRITS. If this has a place in the article, it needs to be in another section - not as a section in it's own right. High-quality articles like Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not have a problem with highlighting similar controversies without giving them their own sections. Toa  Nidhiki05  23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Dezastru and X4n6. This is past the point where we can dismiss this as a one-off news event. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Nomaskedasticity and others. The plagiarism is not merely alleged, and there seems to be enough material for its own section. If it gets too big, we'll keep the summary and fork out the details. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Now that the plagiarism appears to extend to a large section of his new book, lifted from multiple think tank studies, a subsection is warranted. Gobōnobō + c 16:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Truthsort, Maximusveritas, and Moboshgu have also stated in the previous discussion above that they oppose a separate subsection. Arzel (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ' Oppose Support' - The matter is not significant enough to warrant a separate section, at least at this point. I also think the current paragraph is slightly overWEIGHT given that we are an encyclopedia, not a news blog. - MrX 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update - It seems as if this matter is gaining momentum. If consensus results in us keeping the extensive content as it stands now, or something similar, then I will change my !vote to Support. - MrX 15:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed my !vote to support. This issue is snowballing, and seems as if it will become a defining and enduring part of Paul's legacy. - MrX 00:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. But the revelation that he plagiarized from the Heritage Foundation in his book could build this up further. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided at the moment, but moving towards supporting. The story has legs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This material is sufficiently notable and well-sourced and thus warrants brief mention in the article, but a standalone section seems like overkill/undue weight to me. MastCell Talk 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A subsection of such should only be considered if the issue has a serious effect on a person. Is there any evidence that this will have a lasting effect on Paul? As I said earlier his Civil Rights comments were far more significant than this and during the GA nomination I was told that a subsection was not needed for it. Furthermore, this paragraph is turning into undue weight as evident by some users who have trimmed it down, only for Dezastru to continue piling on with undue weight. I think these two talk page comments show that Dezastru and X4n6 are not interested in acting in good faith. Truthsort (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to oppose, but I'm going to have to ask you to be very careful about unsupported allegations of bad faith. These can easily violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as bring up WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please focus on the content of the article, not the content of other editor's minds. MilesMoney (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right MilesMoney. Please focus on the topic of the article only.--NK (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Of all people, for Truthsort, to make specious charges about other's good faith would almost be amusing, if it wasn't so transparent. And hypocritical. Because Truthsort: edit-warred over this section here, here because "so what?", and here because his/her feelings were hurt. Then Truthsort tried to remove two reliable sources: the New York Times and the Washington Post, but left Rachel Maddow, knowing that Arzel had already tried to make this about Maddow. Then Truthsort claimed this is undue weight, but Truthsort had no problem including any available minutiae about Paul's early medical career, including: "He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers". Because to Truthsort, "there is nothing trivial about mentioning his early career". Truthsort also had to add Paul's Time magazine mention somewhere; just as Truthsort had to add that Paul's wife was "living and working in Atlanta when they met". Because just saying they were married with kids, wasn't good enough for Truthsort. My comment warned against POV pushing. So Truthsort linked to that comment and questioned my good faith. So I'll return the favor and link to Truthsort's response. Then I'll ask the same question. But the difference is: I documented the reasons for my concerns. I didn't just make obnoxious and unsupported accusations. X4n6 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Per WP:SNOW. While I do support the inclusion, in light of consensus, I think it is time accept defeat. PrairieKid (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Per WP:SNOW. Attempts to make a bigger deal out of something by creating a separate section is unacceptable.--NK (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Citing WP:SNOW, specifically the part where it indicates that it isn't an actual policy but "should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time", is in itself an accusation of bad faith. I was not aware that including cited, pertinent information on the possibility that a United States Senator is plagiarizing his way through his tenure, and using information and knowledge that is not his own to seek support to become the most powerful man in the world was in any way a 'waste of everyone's time.' I have always encouraged measured approaches to informing on scandals at the hands of politicians of either major party, but this one has broad implications and people need to be aware of it. I would argue it even requires its very own page in conjunction with an added section to Mr. Paul's page. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a section but Support it's nominal inclusion. WP:N would seem to be the main policy in play here, along with NPOV, BLP, and about half a dozen other policies and guidelines that say various things about how much weight to give to what is still by most measures a short-lived and fleeting scandal. That being said it should be mentioned because this is a notable figure and his politics are part of his notability. That makes something that will effect his politics in the long run, mainly not paying smarter people to write his speeches for him like most politicians do, notable enough and time-lasting enough to be worthy of inclusion imo.  Cat-five t  c   05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Short-lived? Fleeting? You don't know that; none of us do at this point. It hasn't ended, that's for sure. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, WP:N does not really apply as far as this RfC is concerned. The RfC is about whether there should be a separate section discussing plagiarism allegations in Paul's bio. WP:N addresses whether an article on a given topic should be created in Wikipedia. WP:N states: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article - The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content.... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Dezastru (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that there are better policies that apply specifically to the notability and current aptness of article content but in a pinch the contents of WP:N would seem to apply because we are talking about how notable an event is. I was admittedly rushing it though and went for the first policy that I could find even though I knew better so I apologize for taking the lazy approach.  Cat-five t  c   20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose a special section and editors would do well to slow down and wait till the issue is resolved or blows over etc and then assess its signficance in the context of this BLP which is summary of his entire life.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, at least in the short term: This seems to be growing quite a bit, so having its own section will keep it from getting spread out to too much of the article. Though I don't really object if it's just in its own paragraph. However, it should definitely be included in the article; it's ridiculous to leave it out at this point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if the section header on the alleged rape and multiple groping allegations in Sexual allegations against Bill Clinton was removed, this minor incident, which might be sloppy staffing, hardly is worthy of a big important section. CM-DC Face-surprise.svg  01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. It is our policy and hopefully our practice to let the details get sorted out before jumping to conclusions and overdoing it with recent events, especially when it comes to politics. —Torchiest talkedits 04:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose (came here via RFC). Great reasons are given above- if it has some impact then maybe. But right now, it is too recent to assess its weight, so we should error on the side of less weight. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Instaurare (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result Consensus seems to oppose a separate section. Should we remove this from the RFC page? --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Clarification please. The plagiarism allegations are not currently in a separate section; they were moved into a non-titled paragraph several days ago and no one seems to be agitating to move them back. So what is the point of this RfC? --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dezastru and X4n6 seem to believe it should have its own section, just trying to resolve this specific aspect. Arzel (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OIC - a recent flurry of edit warring to try to put the titled section back in. I do not see consensus at this page to do that, although I'm not convinced that "Tenure" is the right place for it either. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on the assertion that the matter at hand should be handled comparably to how a section in Joe Biden's bio article handles allegations of plagiarism made against Biden during his 1988 presidential primary campaign. The section on Biden's primary campaign is 9 paragraphs long; 7 of those paragraphs deal with the allegations of plagiarism. Remove those 7 paragraphs and what is left of the section? Precious little. In essence, that section of Biden's bio article is about how his campaign was derailed by allegations of plagiarism against him, the material is just presented under a different name. Paul's Senate tenure, by contrast, involves numerous subjects other than the allegations of plagiarism (as it should). Take the info on the allegations of plagiarism entirely out of the section on Paul's Senate tenure and there would still be plenty of information for a section on Paul's Senate tenure. So these are different situations. Dezastru (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Response What actual policy violations are we discussing here? Because Arzel has once again, misinterpreted and misapplied policies that have no relevance here. WP:UNDUE clearly applies only to representing "significant viewpoints." Paul's plagiarism represents a fact. No one can deny it's existence. However, Paul's "viewpoint" that it was something else is represented in the section. Hence, toss out UNDUE. As to WP:NPOV that only requires: " representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Again, Paul's response is accurately included and reliably sourced. So toss out NPOV. Apart from just more grasping-at-straw policy shopping from one frustrated editor, just what is being debated? Certainly no coherent policy objection has been advanced. X4n6 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be too hard for you to read the title of the RfC? This is a very specific question as to if it should be in a separate sub-section.  I would ask you to strike your above comments as completely irrelevant to this RfC.  Arzel (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A far better question would be: is it too hard for you to read my vote? And no, I will certainly not strike entirely relevant comments. Especially since they refute the very reasons given for why we're going through this: as you presented those reasons. X4n6 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being uncivil will not help you. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor you. It is unfortunate that you find uncivility in a statement of the facts. I would recommend that you not misconstrue that policy as you have so many others. But as the Biblical "policy" goes: the truth is its own defense. X4n6 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on the wording of the RfC The RfC implies that there is a single allegation of plagiarism, which is incorrect. There are allegations from multiple independent sources of multiple instances of plagiarism. Dezastru (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not allegations; they're proven instances. MilesMoney (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Both points are well taken. I would suggest changing the heading to the plural, replacing that word and/or posting on responders' talk pages to request they confirm their votes - either oppose or support - in light of all the new reports and the changes. Short of that, once this RfC is closed, regardless of the outcome, I would simply initiate a new RfC with more accurate wording. Perhaps even with links, so everyone knows exactly what they are voting on. Because it is assumed that responders are aware of all the published reports. They may not be. It might also be useful to publicize that RfC, or even this one, so an unmistakable consensus is achieved. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Biden, the best comparison, had multiple allegations of Plagiarism. The tone of your comment suggests that if you disagree with the RfC you are going to start a new RfC.  That would be WP:TE  I would ask you not make these kinds of remarks during an RfC. Arzel (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Biden is not a good comparison. This has been explained a few times now. Perhaps you missed it. Also, given the fact that more instances of plagiarism have come to light, X4n6 is right about the old RfC becoming obsolete even before it completed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does your condescending attitude know no end? You know, you cried about the Ayn Rand RfC as well, and are trying a new tactic on that page to try and get your way.  And here you are already planning your attack on this RfC if it does not go your way.  This is becoming quite the pattern with you.  Non-stop WP:TE and disruptive behavior.  Arzel (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this article. Otherwise, I am entirely uninterested in your personal attacks upon me. MilesMoney (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles is correct, the Biden comparison has already been addressed. But perhaps in your haste to respond, Arzel, you missed the phrase: "regardless of the outcome" in my comment regarding the RfC. But it does kind of put the lie to your claim that my "comment suggests that if you disagree with the RfC you are going to start a new RfC. That would be WP:TE" Since you wag your finger about civility at every opportunity, I trust you wouldn't want to miss this golden opportunity to practice what you preach. So I expect your apology to me will follow. X4n6 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm told patience is a virtue. Consider this an opportunity to practice being virtuous. MilesMoney (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take those responses as neither of you plan to accept the result of this RfC unless it goes for your preferred choice. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can take it any way you like, but what my statements mean is that I will follow actual policy, not necessarily your version of it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request copyedit
"Describing himself as "100% pro life."[123]" is not a complete sentence and should end in a comma, not a period. Thanks, Publicsworks (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Conservatism in the United States
Per WP:CATEGORY, "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Exceptions are covered here: WP:DUPCAT.

In this case Category:Republican Party United States Senators is a sub-category of Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians which is a sub-category of Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians which in turn is a sub-category of Category:Republicans (United States) which in turn is a sub-category of Category:Republican Party (United States) which in turn is a sub-category of Category:Conservative parties in the United States which in turn is a sub-category of Category:Conservatism in the United States.- MrX 03:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I question the appropriateness of implicitly including (all) Category:Republicans (United States) in the Conservatives category (Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller anybody?), but this isn't the venue for that discussion, and for the recent cases there's also a shorter and clearer path through Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point and MrX's point. If there had been some basic discussion of this issue here then there would not have been all of the deleting and reverting.  And yes the bigger discussion of whether all Republicans belong under Conservatism is beyond the point of this talk page.  Also, you don't need to go back to Javits or Rockefeller to find non-conservative Republicans.  There are plenty today named John McCain and Lindsey Graham.--NK (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Javits just came to mind as a particularly glaring and unarguable example. Of course, the absurdity of category roll-up from party to ideology is obvious in cases such as Strom Thurmond and Ogden Reid, who probably never agreed on anything yet are both included by inheritance in both Category:Liberalism in the United States and Category:Conservatism in the United States. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cutting off government assistance to unwed mothers
Paul has suggested that government benefits to the children of unwed mothers be cut off.

Seems fairly clear from the source. Hcobb (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And even more media coverage: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/01/paul-clarifies-comments-on-unwed-mothers-181900.html Hcobb (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul sues Obama and other officials -
See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/12/rand-paul-nsa-phone-surveillance/5428245/ and http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/politics/rand-paul/

Also, there are some controversies on the filing of the suit, here: See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-rand-paul-and-ken-cuccinelli-accused-of-stealing-nsa-lawsuit/2014/02/12/058675aa-942b-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, it looks like the Rand Paul plagiarism scandal should at least get a subject header, if not its own article. Let's see where this goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would suggest its own heading. I'll go on ahead and add it and if it looks like we have some disagreement (which would surprise me) I'll take it down. PrairieKid (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the previous consensus was that there would not be subsection headings within the Senate tenure sections. If the NSA lawsuit warrants a separate subsection, then so does the plagiarism material. Dezastru (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as the plagiarism thing goes, I'd advise against beating a dead horse. The plagiarism is a separate issue and I think the NSA one is more relevant, important and is certainly being covered by more sources than the plagiarism allegations. PrairieKid (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The NSA lawsuit is no more separate from the rest of the events associated with Paul's tenure than the plagiarism has been. The plagiarism allegation was widely covered. Dezastru (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC) (edit: had inadvertently left out the word "lawsuit" in "NSA lawsuit")


 * Would anyone consider having a level-2 controversies section? PrairieKid (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea why the heading for the NSA lawsuit was removed. The lawsuit is unrelated to Paul's tenure as a senator. I am putting that back. Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, you may have missed it, but we just recently went through a discussion and RfC on whether to have a separate section discussing Paul's plagiarism. The closing determination was that consensus was against having a separate section on plagiarism and that that material should be folded into the list of all the other events that have occurred during his time in the Senate. During that discussion, some of the arguments leveled against having a separate section included:
 * "A separate section is not needed and is undue weight for this article. There are far more aspects about Paul that have had a much greater impact on his life and his policies that do not have their own section."
 * "[T]his certainly does not require a subsection. Lets try to avoid recentism and not add undue weight. Simply having reliable sourcing and being "notable" does not mean a subsection is needed. Having it in the Tenure section is fine."
 * "A subsection of such should only be considered if the issue has a serious effect on a person. Is there any evidence that this will have a lasting effect on Paul? As I said earlier his Civil Rights comments were far more significant than this and during the GA nomination I was told that a subsection was not needed for it."
 * "Attempts to make a bigger deal out of something by creating a separate section is unacceptable."
 * "This is routine news coverage and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is essentially trivia and you guys are arguing over how best to include the trivia. How about not at all? See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA and WP:RECENTISM."
 * So before making a separate section to cover the NSA lawsuit, it needs to be established why the arguments just made about the plagiarism do not similarly apply in the case of the lawsuit, and why this one incident in Paul's career is so much more significant a part of his life than anything else that it should be treated differently than all the other things he has been involved in since he has become a member of the Senate. Dezastru (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments are really confusing. I am not in favor of a separate plagiarism section, only that the NSA lawsuit does not fit within Paul's Congressional career, as this is a lawsuit filed by Paul and his PAC. Thus the separation of the headings. Cwobeel (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to establish your good faith here, but seems to me this is a red herring. Please don't conflate the two issues (plagiarism section and NSA lawsuit section) as these are two very different things. Looking forward to your arguments on why the NSA lawsuit section should be placed as running text within the US Senate Career. Until you clarify that, please don't undo my edit, Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any action Paul takes on a matter of government policy concerning the United States government while he is a member of the US Senate is related to his tenure as a senator. Now, if the subject being discussed involved, say, Paul's filing a lawsuit against a local business that contracted to make repairs on his home, or filed a lawsuit against a publisher over a dispute concerning a book he was writing, and if reliable sources did not drawn a connection between these lawsuits to his political career, then the subjects would be unrelated to his Senate tenure, as far as the Wikipedia bio goes. In such cases, the information would more properly be included elsewhere in the bio (if included at all), such as in the Personal Life section. In the particular case of the NSA lawsuit, his actions have direct bearing on matters that he has spoken about – in his capacity as a senator – on multiple occasions. He has even introduced legislation – in his capacity as a senator – directly dealing with the same issue as is the basis for the lawsuit. So, yes, the lawsuit is directly related to his Senate tenure, and belongs in that section. Dezastru (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any action Paul takes on a matter of government policy concerning the United States government while he is a member of the US Senate is related to his tenure as a senator.  Show me a source that says that! Paul is filing that suit as a citizen, not a senator. Cwobeel (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me a source that reports Paul is filing the lawsuit as a private citizen and makes no mention of how his positioning on the subject of NSA domestic surveillance figures into his political career. I've already explained why this topic is relevant to his Senate tenure. If there are others who do not agree (and so far, you are the sole editor who does not), then the lawsuit would fall into the Political Activism section, which discusses his political activities apart from his time in the Senate. Starting a whole new section just for this lawsuit, which nobody will remember 3 months from now, is totally WP:UNDUE.
 * I respect your taking initiative and going with a Bold/Revert/Discuss approach. But please remember that part of the WP:BRD process is to "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.... Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another 'R' after the 'D'. Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again." Dezastru (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure about if this lawsuit will not be remembered, but you have a good point. Moved to the Political activism section. Cwobeel (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

IRS Tax Evasion
"Paul has helped shield the privacy of his constituents by blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would enable the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes."

Should this be adjusted to read

"Paul has helped shield the privacy of Americans by blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would enable the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes."

This would read with less of a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmurcmurrun (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, how about:
 * "Paul has helped shield the privacy of American tax evaders and other criminals by blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would enable the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes." Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think we'll go with that. Thanks though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.154.250 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul has faith in something that is counter-factual
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rand_Paul&action=historysubmit&diff=604506201&oldid=604503357

"Tax cuts grow jobs" is the basis of Paul's policies. This has been tested for the past 30 years and found to be false. How can we have an article on his policies that overlooks this? Hcobb (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Find some good and reliable sources that discussed this in the context of Rand Paul, and then you can summarize what they say. Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If NBC is not reliable, which television news services are? And shall we remove all NBC links from all articles? Hcobb (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * MSNBC is reliable, but I'd argue that you need to find other sources other than a blog post at Rachel Maddow. Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * His position on Taxation has evolved over the years, you can find some gems here: http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/Rand_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm  Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether tax cuts grow the economy is a matter of opinion, not fact. Clearly, it cannot and will not be presented in the article as if it is a fact, either way.  Neither the argument that tax cuts grow the economy will be presented as fact and the argument that tax cuts hurt the economy will not be presented as fact.  Yes, "counter-factual" is big word but it does not prove anything.--NK (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Political positions
I think we can expand the political positions and include, the main aspects of his proposed budget (2013), namely:
 * 1) Privatization Social Security and Medicare
 * 2) Instituting a flat tax
 * 3) Eliminating investment taxes
 * 4) Abolishing the Department of Education
 * 5) Cutting Medicaid and the safety net

I will start chasing sources. Cwobeel (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted a decent source about his skimming off of Medicaid, and it got rejected. Hcobb (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Superfluous quote?
This edit removes a quote from Paul at the Freedom Summit, which not only very powerful politically, but one that has been covered by a substantive number of sources. Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless, not everything that gets covered in the media is necessarily relevant to his BLP. It may be sensational, but that doesn't mean it should be included.CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is his quote, after all, so why not to include it when it captures extremely well his position about how his party needs to evolve to be successful? If it is "sensational" it is because he wanted it to be that way, otherwise he would not have read that from his teleprompter. He put that sentence there for a reason, to cause a certain effect and as such it is notable for inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He included many sentences in his speech, some of which were also covered in the media, related to his thoughts for the direction of the party. This one is not particularly notable for his BLP.CFredkin (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide more justification for its inclusion other than he mentioned it in a speech and it was covered by some of the media.CFredkin (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What about you providing some justification for not including it in the article? Go, do some research and see how well covered this was. Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BLP, the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.CFredkin (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong, my friend. What the policy says is that the burden of of evidence (wiki linked to the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy) is with the person who adds or restores material. And that burden is taken care of by the numerous sources that verify that the quote was given by Paul at the Freedom Summit. If you refresh your understanding by re-reading WP:BURDEN, you will agree with me. Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence sentence is included in a paragraph which states that it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. The inclusion of this quote in Paul's bio definitely seems sensationalist to me.CFredkin (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can it be "sensationalist" when it is Paul's own quote? Can you clarify that for me please? If you think we need to quote other significant aspects of his speech, by all means go ahead and add. But don;t delete a quote that is significant just because you think it is sensationalist (which is not). Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. I think the relevant question is:  What's the rationale for including it, other than the fact that it's one of many public statements Paul has made which have been picked up by the media?CFredkin (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The rationale is obvious, don't you think? Here is a potential Presidential nominee not mincing words in his attempt to awaken his party to the challenges it faces. As such, I think it is most appropriate to include. What about we find other important aspects on his speech as reported in the media and add these as well? That could be a good compromise. If that is not to your liking, please offer another path to compromise. Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only argument for including it I can see is that it's sensational. I'm not sure what to suggest as a compromise since the key issue is whether this particular quote should be included.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

hey, work with me. We clearly disagree, so we need to find a compromise. That is the nature of collaborative editing. Looking forward to your compromise proposal, if the one I provided does not work for you. If you don't want to collaborate, I will post a note at WP:BLP/N to seek advice from experienced BLP patrollers.Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that 3rd party input would be useful.CFredkin (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think what is or is not "sensationalist" matters to Wikipedia, which only really cares about perspectives that receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As this quote returns hundreds of Google News hits, I think it's fair to say WP:BURDEN has been met, though more sources should be cited if it's to be included. I think what intends is not to say additional proof is needed for verifiability purposes but rather that it's a question of whether the quote is WP:UNDUE (an NPOV issue). In other words, it would be silly to include everything a politician says publicly, and cherrypicking certain quotes could easily lead to an unbalanced article, so we have to be careful about reporting on things in proportion to the coverage they receive.
 * What I see, without having been involved in the development of this article: It looks like the inclusion of the GOP Freedom Summit speech is not controversial in the context of the 2016 Presidential politics section. It furthermore seems uncontroversial to include Paul's insistence "that the Republican Party has to broaden its appeal in order to grow." (As an aside, the current wording of this too closely paraphrases the AP source). Looking at the sources, it seems like the "fat cats..." line is very frequently covered with this sentiment and in reports about the speech generally -- in the cited AP source as well as many others (e.g. WSJ, MSNBC, WaPo). So given the number of sources which have reported on this line in particular, I don't think it's WP:UNDUE to include it here in this context. That being said, if it turns out this causes controversy and responses or clarifications are issued, there's nothing to say we couldn't also include those so long as they, too, receive significant coverage in secondary sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rhododendrites., would you like to add some additional quotes from that summit (providing these quotes received significant coverage)? Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed political positions
Arzel has a complaint about the section describing Paul's position on abortion.

Paul describes himself as "100% pro life". Paul opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.(souce1-NYT)(source2-Courier&Press) He has been a sponsor or co-sponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban all abortions, except possibly in cases in which the mother's life is at risk.(Source3-AtlanticWire) He believes legal personhood begins at fertilization.

Source1-NYT: "Paul says he opposes abortion without exception, not even in cases of rape, incest or the health of the expectant mother."

Source2-Courier&Press: "He supports gun rights and thinks abortions should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the pregnant woman is at stake."

Source3-AtlanticWire: "After Paul's interview gained national attention, it appears his chief of staff is now clearing up what Paul meant by 'thousands of exceptions' to his pro-life stance. According to an with interview Lifesitenews, a non-profit pro-life news site, Sen. Paul's chief of staff, Doug Stafford is insisting that Paul's 'thousands of exceptions' only applies to when the life of the mother was at risk."

What's the disagreement? (Please be explicit when referring to "second sentence" etc. Which sentence is the "second sentence"?) Dezastru (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This wiki article states that Paul believes "Paul believes that the law should compromise somewhere between abortion on demand in all circumstances and a complete ban on abortion". The footnote does not support that statement. I read the footnote and he's quoted as stating "I think the law will come down in between". I think the law will come down in between as well, but that's not what I believe. You can't take a statement on where he believes the law will go and transform that into what his personal beliefs on where the law SHOULD go are. This particularly true since doing so would contradict all his previous statements on his position.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/roger-simon-says-rand-paul-2016-elections-105930.html#ixzz32kXUro8o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.18.194 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical Career
In the line "As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay."

The citation is not to a working link.

Justsomeotherguy (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014
The following section on Rand Paul's political position is confusing:

'He opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.[144][145] He has argued that Congress' political position is "ten years behind the American public".[146]'

Specifically, the citation [146] links to an article where he makes the statement in response to critiques of his budget plan, not in relation to same-sex marriage. I recommend removing the entire sentence ('He has argued...') unless a better place can be found for it.

69.95.110.191 (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 02:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul supports unconstitutional airstrikes
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/rand-paul-civilized-islam-will-have-to-step-up-to-take-on-isis/ Paul, a potential Republican presidential contender, agrees that the U.S. needs to take on ISIS ... Obama authorized the use of airstrikes without the approval of Congress. Paul called this unconstitutional.

http://time.com/3320671/rand-paul-obama-isis/ Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) agreed with President Barack Obama’s strategy to combat the threat of Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria on Wednesday night, but criticized Obama’s methods as unconstitutional.

How many references do you need on that? Hcobb (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please not present your personal opinion into this. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be a discussion of personal opinions. But Paul's seemingly ongoing flip-flopping on this and other policy issues has been widely reported. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some examples:
 * Rand Paul: The flip-flop king
 * Rand Paul's biggest flip-flops
 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A brief skim of the sources mentioned above leads me to believe that this is original research. At the very minimum, we would need reliable sources which explicitly state that Rand Paul supports "unconstitutional" airstrikes.  None of the sources (as far as I can tell) do this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul Calls for a Formal Declaration of War Against ISIS
As noted in say Declaration of war by the United States, Paul's measure would recognize ISIL as a state that war can be waged against. Hcobb (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this edit which I reverted as your source states absolutely nothing regarding recognition of ISIS. It states that he is seeking a formal declaration of war. For you to push a message entirely different from that of the article is incredible POV pushing, and in this case also a synthesis/original research upon your part. Find a source directly stating that Rand Paul has, with this bill, sought the recognition of ISIS as a state. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hcobb, you do this all the time. You take a kernel of truth and add some of your own personal opinion and synthesis.  It would be really nice if you would stop.  Arzel (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll second OuroborosCobra and Arzel's opinion here - trying to use this to say he supports recognizing ISIS is silly at best, and blatant partisanship at worst. Toa  Nidhiki05  13:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Intro
I find the usage "is an American politician and a former ophthalmologist" odd. Former implies that one had something and it's gone, but we generally credit people with advanced degrees as continuing to have the qualification, even if they are not using it.

For instance the intro paragraph for Presdident Obama is more typical "Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, running unsuccessfully for the United States House of Representatives in 2000."

Bill Clinton is not described as a "former lawyer" anywhere in his bio, despite the fact that his law license was suspended. Instead: "Both Clintons earned law degrees from Yale Law School, where they met and began dating."

I think that this part of the Rand Paul bio should be changed to something more similar to these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper section for medical ignorance?
Where do we note the many occasions where "Doctor" Paul has flubbed basic medical science? Hcobb (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If its a current issue and is fitting it should fit where it falls on its topic. But not all personal flubs should be included. I did revert the removal of the Ebola claim as it was well sourced and relevant for current topic for inclusion. Resaltador (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hcobb, your personal attack against Paul is unwarrented. Given the circumstances of the advance of Ebola and the uncertainty regarding the transmission of the disease it is patently unscientific to say that the science is settled.
 * Resaltador, it appears that you are stalking me.
 * To the both of you. His statement has nothing to do with his medical career.  His statement adds nothing to the article in general.  Right now there are a lot of people, even in the medical world, that are beginning to question how Ebola is transmitted.  The fact that both of you would use this event for political purposes is quite annoying as well.  Arzel (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any sources for these claims? Is this widely reported in non-partisan sources? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CNN is a "partisan source"? Here is a CBS news article on this as well... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-may-have-spread-virus-nih-expert-says/ So yes it seems there are more sources and it is widely reported. Resaltador (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is an article on the Ebola crisis, that content will be suitable there rather than here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If this was the only time Paul was wrong on medical facts it would be easy to handwave it away.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/pauls-head-scratching-stats/

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-truthiness-of-rand-paul-20131017

Hcobb (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes he has a knack for these, but still I don't think that a long passage in the article is warranted, and not 100% sure is suitable for his BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)


 * He's back! Be afraid, be stupidly afraid. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-government-isnt-telling-truth-about-ebola Hcobb (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh... I think we can include a short sentence about his views on the Ebola crisis. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political bully pulpit. You appear to be using Wikipedia as a way to express your own views about the topic of the article. Gyroid (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, he's wrong about vaccines too! http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rand-paul-vaccines-can-lead-mental-disorders-n298821 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Likely contender for republican nomination for president"
, I am concerned about the use of Wikipedia here to "position" this politician as an "inevitable" nominee, which we all know is an important part of campaign strategy. I think that if you want to add a statement of this type to the led it needs to be backed by stronger sources than an interview with an anonymous analyst conducted by a second tier business magazine. Statements by prominent politicians or an article on the upcoming election by the NYTimes or the Economist would be satisfactory for this purpose, but an interview with an anonymous political operative in BI really does not make it for a statement of this importance.

If you can find a better source, great. Otherwise I think the entire article needs an RFC to decide if it has too much of an advertisement-like NNPOV.

Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you added some better references. Thank you. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

POV flag
Most of this article, including the lead, reads like it was written by someone from Paul's campaign staff. It is a lengthy recitation of accomplishments, positions described in an entirely positive light, and awards. Wikipedia is not here to be a tool for Paul's political campaigns.

Specifically the article needs to contain much more information about how others perceive Rand, rather than the running dialogue on what Rand thinks and how he sees himself. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul did not graduate Baylor. Please be forthwith and clarify.
Per instruction (2) for requests: No deletion necessary. Please ADD the text below to the article in the introduction subsequent to text conveying Paul's attendance to Baylor. The current text fairly deliberately implies Paul completed his degree at Baylor, as does listing Baylor as an Alma Mater in the margin. Paul did not complete an undergraduate degree. Extant statements may be construed as very deliberately misleading. A good insertion point would be immediately after "and is a graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine." It would also probably be appropriate to remove Baylor as an "Alma Mater" in the margin. While you can get away with "Alma Mater" in the margin, even Wikipedia indicates that Alma Mater usually connotes a university from which a person as graduated. Again. Misleading.

Per instruction (3) for requests, please add the statement: "Ron Paul left Baylor University before completing an undergraduate degree. At the time, the Duke University Medical School did not require an undergraduate degree."

Per instruction (4) for requests: Washington Post Feb, 2015: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/13/rand-pauls-claim-twice-in-one-day-that-he-has-a-biology-degree/

KyleSager (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ Partially done One may attend a school, not graduate, but the school does become an alma mater in the most general sense. Next, the article already says he got the MD degree, so no need to say he graduated from Duke Medical School. Last, there is no "deliberate" implication involved. In any event the text has been modified, clarifying the "left early" phrase. – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing a balanced article that informs our readers
I am a little concerned that this, like our other articles on politicians, has been converted into an extension of the candidate's webpage. I am not speaking as a liberal or a conservative, but as a Wikipedian here. Bland campaign talk emphasizing apple pie, non-controversial positions like favoring "reducing government" and "the right to privacy" do not help our readers understand the issues, nor is it of central importance to the electorate to understand the candidates history as an ophthalmologist, as such training will be of minimal importance in the presidency, unless the candidate intends to moonlight :>).

I'd like to get the candidate's record on substantative issues into these articles. By substantative, I don't mean "favors motherhood" or "works for job growth". As a corporate strategy professor of mine once said, a strategy means making a choice that involves a price and a benefit. If the candidate is pro-life, this should not be buried in the 14th paragraph. If the candidate voted to raise or not to raise the debt ceiling, that should not be buried underneath a description of some shallow resume item like having built his own medical practice or having given speeches for his dad as a 14 year old. If the candidate favors limiting the EPA's powers in order to protect personal property rights, this should be apparent and not buried on page 12.

This does not need to be done in a non-NPOV fashion. Every choice of a political position involves benefits and losses. When we empower the EPA, we protect the environment while impinging on personal property rights. Everyone has values and positions along a spectrum of the relative importance of these things. Lets describe them and drop the campaign speak. Thats not Wikipedia's job. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to balance are noted and appreciated. But I'm having problems with the lede. Three and one-half of the six paragraphs are commentary about particular legislative efforts. The last two sentences of the 1st paragraph are about political positions too. Rather than interrupt your re-writing efforts, I'll encourage edits which can add concision. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a political guy Srich, and have exhausted my knowledge of the issues here. I would very much like to see this article, and other articles about potential presidential candidates not be full of Bullshit.  I'd appreciate any support you can offer for that effort.  For the moment I'm inclined to be deferential to the efforts of those more knowledgeable than myself, provided we don't go back to "motherhood and apple pie" and burying substantive positions in the bottom third of the article.  If we leave the Political positions section near the top rather than burying it at the bottom, it probably makes sense to back off a little bit on those issues in the lede.

I don't mean to pick on conservatives here, and will likely pay a visit to some of the Democratic hopeful pages as well. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 21:06, 13


 * User:Formerly 98: Your inclusion of Paul's political positions in the lead to such an extent is WP:Undue. In addition, you've made major changes to the structure of the article, which do not conform to the typical structure of bio's on the project.  Multiple editors have objected to your edits.  Please seek consensus here before continuing to restore them per WP:BRD.  Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I'm a little confused by your remarks about multiple editors, as the only objections I see here are yours. Could you name the other editors who have objected?
 * S.Rich appears to have voiced an objection above to your edits to the lead.CFredkin (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of a strong majority rejecting my viewpoint, I believe that WP:CONSENSUS requires that we address our differences by compromise rather than by edit warring. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not averse to some sort of compromise on the lead. I'm not aware of any precedent for placing a politician's political positions as the first section after the lead in a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the precedence is, but isn't a potential candidate for president's position on the issues the most important thing one would want to know about him or her? In any case, I can live with a lede that does not go into a lot of depth here if we move the positions on the issues directly under the lede as the second section.  Short of that I'd be inclined to ask for an RFC.  Frankly, I don't know the political articles well enough to know what sort of a chance I would have of prevailing in such an RFC, but I would feel obligated to try.
 * I'd like to point out here that my goal is not to bait conservatives. I recently made some substantial edits to the State Policy Network article trying to decrease the anti-conservative bias in that article.  From my POV its about encyclopedia issues and not about my personal political position.  Any changes that occur here, I will do my level best to implement on the Democratic side. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagarism
So according to the archive, consensus was to not have a separate section for this in 2013...fine, I'd agree with that. Only now there is nothing in the article about that at all, nor is there mention about discussion thereof. That's a pretty serious allegation that has derailed the careers of candidates before, yet for some reason seems not to have affected Paul. There are plenty of sources on this, but no explanation as to why it doesn't appear? Mystic55 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a paragraph about it in the 113th Congress (2013–15) section. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 21:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting stuff too. Mystic55 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Polls
I am a little concerned about including the results of CPAC polls, as to my understanding, this is Paul's core demographic and the results are therefore not really informative regarding either Republican voters or the electorate overall. While not a politico myself, I am very familiar with the strategy of primary candidates attempting to position themselves as the "inevitable candidate", and this heightens my concern about exclusively presenting the results of polls among the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

National opinion polls appear to show a wide open race, with Paul's popularity in steep decline since early 2014. In order to present the overall information in a way that is representative, I suggest that we either leave out the CPAC polls, or present them along with the results of the national polls.

thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All valid points. Most minor polls I would agree shouldn't be included, but the CPAC is often viewed as a good poll of more involved conservative activists (who generally have outsize influence on elections) and thus is more noteworthy (e.g.). I checked out the Mitt Romney article, and it doesn't mention the CPAC straw poll, which he won four times, but they are mentioned in his individual campaign articles. Since Paul doesn't yet have such an article (it redirects to the section we're talking about), I feel like it's okay to include. I definitely support removing hyperbole about such results though. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Defense Spending
I've reverted this edit which compares changes in defense spending over a 2 year span in one instance with those over a five year span in another. This is not a reasonable basis of comparison.CFredkin (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But without increasing the deficit, that means cutting elswhere.--109.54.82.10 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is widely noted in the media as yet another flip-flop. His proposals are only notable as changes from previously established plans. It makes no sense to toss out raw numbers without comparing them to what he would change from. Hcobb (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Medical career - Board of Ophthalmology
This article from the WaPo has detailed material about Paul's Ophthalmology. I am not sure if what we have in the section captures the entirety of it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that more detail is needed. What did you have in mind?- MrX 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fleshed out / smoothed out the timeline, and noted some additional points from the recent WaPo article, perhaps most notably that Paul been protesting this change since shortly after it was made. Also, noted that he was significantly undercutting the original board's price, and had created a test characterized by at least one taker as harder and more relevant than the original exam.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

2016 presidential campaign
Given that we have a full article on this subject, the section needs to be reduced to a concise summary, per WP:SUMMARY. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doneish. Does everyone think it's better now? PrairieKid (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage moral crisis
I want to add

Daily Beast quote The quote is correctly characterized in the daily beast report as representing same-sex marriage ("some sort of other marriage") as "a moral crisis"

The article describing his position as "neutral" dates from 2013, and predates his 2015 comments. There is no section for his personal positions.

-- Aronzak (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

His personal views are fair game in my opinion, as we discuss his upbringing, ophthalmology career, and family. If this is strictly a political biography, we need to move the political positions section from the bottom of the article to just below the lede. Formerly 98 talk 17:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bloomberg "He described the success of the movement for same-sex marriage as a moral crisis" I think that's better language-- Aronzak (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like a very reasonable addition. It's also been covered by The Washington Post and The Boston Herald.- MrX 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed it to - Washpo states "he told a group of pastors that a moral crisis is leading people to believe that same-sex marriage is acceptable"


 * That Boston Herald article included the comment same-sex marriage 'offends myself and a lot of people' -- Aronzak (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also NYT - -- Aronzak (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What you are citing is taken out of context, he said there was a moral crisis in America, not that gay marriage was a moral crisis. he He mentions marriage, but only that it is one of the things that needs figured out. a direct quote form the speech in question says: "Don’t always look to Washington to solve anything." "In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage, there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage. And so, really there's a role outside and inside government but the exhortation to sort of change people's thoughts has to come through the countryside, from outside of Washington." He stated that a moral crisis was leading people to believe there would be some other type of marriage, referring to people believing that it will be legal to marry animals and objects next, the fact people would believe that, he sees as a moral crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have an RS for comments on animals? If there are multiple independent relaible secondary sources that quote that acceptance of same-sex marriage is the result of a "moral crisis" then Wikipedia will go with what the sources say. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any RS indicating the comments about "some other type of marriage" explicitly refers to animals, then one would assume that his explicit comment "same-sex marriage “offends myself and a lot of people.” (NYT) to mean his previous comment was about same-sex marriage too. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Direct quote from the speech shows he did not say "the acceptance of same-sex marriage as a "moral crisis that pastors could oppose with "another Great Awakening with tent revivals". that is conjecture, whether or not it is cited conjecture, and has no place in the article. Prodigy 16 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We have to rely on analysis from secondary sources, not a literal cut and paste of his speech. The notion that he was referring to marrying animals or objects is absurd, since there is not currently any wide spread effort to promote such a thing, nor do I imagine there will ever be.- MrX 18:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the part about pastors and a great awakening at a tent revival - they were vaguely directed at "reform" outside Washington (DC), and were only put together with his comments on same sex marriage by some commentators. The phrase "moral crisis" has been reported widely. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am changing the article by removal of the moral crisis quote, as I have found a video showing that is not a statement he made, and it is a misquote, as can be seen in the video of the interview in the provided reference. Prodigy 16 (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but original research does not supersede reliable sources:
 * - MrX 02:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No "original research" was needed, and "reliable sources" misquoting are still wrong, my reference includes a VIDEO of him making the statement, and nowhere in it does he say he same sex marriage is a moral crisis. I am leaving in the part that is a quote where he says it greatly offends him, as this is an accurate statement, and I am making the edit based not on personal views and conjecture like others here, but on fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_kt9PRNKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg transcript - this has been made in a public forum and fairly reported in the media as referring to acceptance of same sex marriage - the supreme court has ruled on same sex marriage bans in 2013 and 2014, and is set to do so in 2015. The supreme court has not ruled on animal marriage, and nobody has proposed it.


 * Same sex marriage is discussed in the media, and "some sort of other marriage" was clearly intended to refer to the current same-sex marriage debate. ChristianToday reports "Paul urged attendees to combat the acceptance of gay marriage in the country"


 * You are the only editor that tries to claim this is not about same-sex marriage. How about you find an RS that says this is not about same-sex marriage. Google the quote "some sort of other marriage" and see if you find serious news articles that explicitly say he was talking about something other than same-sex marriage when he said "some sort of other marriage." -- Aronzak (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You are in fact using original research and ignoring the jouralistic analysis from reputable secondary sources. You're also edit warring against consensus. You are welcome to take this issue to WP:OR/N or WP:BLP/N to get additional viewpoints, but you must stop simply blanking this content. It's disruptive. - MrX 11:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I should point out bluntly, the Bloomberg ref you present above explicitly says that his comments on the "moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage" are related to "gay marriage." The Bloomberg ref doesn't say what you claim it says, and there's consensus that the sources used in the article fairly represent what he said in the context of supreme court decisions on same-sex marriage, and not anything else. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to read, i was referencing the video in the article, then later posted just the video, since there seem to be so many simple minds about.


 * I will give 48 hours for someone to provide PROOF that he said same-sex marriage is a moral crisis, and not conjecture, then I WILL remove the statement again, as I have given a video, providing his exact statement which does not at any time say "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage". Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. We follow sources. Use one of the dispute resolution channels that have already been suggested, and read the policy on original research and reliable sources. Your interpretation of the video can not take the place of trained journalists' interpretation of the video, published in reliable sources. It's really that simple.- MrX 11:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, since I guess I am dealing with slow people... how is posting his EXACT statement "original research"? Is it maybe because it shows your position is wrong? I think yes. Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * here are some references showing an opposing view.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't post his exact statement, you removed "referring to it as a "moral crisis",".
 * Regarding the references that you clain show opposing views: lifesitenews.com does not seem to be a reliable source, nor does it negate the content that you removed. It's silent on what Senator Paul meant by "moral crisis". Similarly, Tea Party News Network is not a reliable source, and it actually shows Senator Rand's comments in the context of marriage. The Bloomberg article (a reliable source) has the headline: "Rand Paul and the 'Moral Crisis' of Gay Marriage: A Timeline" and goes on to say: "Paul as he urged ministers and activist to battle the "moral crisis" that has led to mass acceptance of gay marriage." and " Since you asked, he thinks gay marriage is morally wrong.".
 * None of these sources support removing "... referring to it as a "moral crisis",..." from this article. Two are inferior sources, and the third, contradicts your entire premise.- MrX 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lifesitenews ref is from "September 12, 2012". TPNN states the full quote "The moral crisis we have in our country—there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage. There’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage…really there’s a role outside and inside government, but I think the exhortation to try and change peoples’ thoughts also has to come from the countryside, from everywhere outside of Washington." with no analysis. Bloomeberg ref states ""moral crisis" that has led to mass acceptance of gay marriage" - exactly how the quote is presented. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow you are dense, read back up where I posted a VIDEO of his EXACT STATEMENT here on talk, as I said before. I am not talking about the article page, I am talking about here, where it was said I did "original research" somehow by posting his exact statement showing he did not say what he is being quoted as saying. The fact is he never said the words "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" in the statement he made. I would not even be opposed to changing the wording to correctly reflect what he said, but I think it is wrong to make claims he said something that he did not. Whether or not many people think it is what he meant, it is not what he said. I thought this was supposed to be about encyclopedic content, not the opinions of what some people thought someone meant. If you want to know what I think about consensus, I will tell you a story about the Heaven's Gate cult and how 39 people all believed if they committed suicide they would get to go to heaven on a UFO hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet, there was consensus there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 April 2015
 * Please comment on content, not contributors. The original research is your proposition that "moral crisis" was not a reference to same-sex marriage, but in fact some other type of marriage (animals, objects). Senator Paul did not say the same-sex marriage is a moral crisis, and neither do we. He was, however, referring to same-sex marriage when he said "moral crisis". This is what our sources say, without equivocation. Your personal interpretation otherwise would be original research.We operate on WP:CONSENSUS here. If you disagree with that policy, you are free to propose a change here or you can seek another online encyclopedia that is more aligned with your preferences. (Prodigy 16 Would you please fix your indents? You are supposed to increase, not decrease the number of colons when responding to a talk page comment. Thank you.)- MrX 16:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not original research, that is his statement, plain as day. he said "other types of marriage" for all you know, he could be talking about animals, or polygamy, or inanimate objects, the fact is, you do not know, and the people guessing do not know either, and to put it in as fact that is what he meant is what is called conjecture. I provided the definition above, if you are unclear on what conjecture means. Prodigy 16 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "he could be talking about animals, or polygamy, or inanimate objects, the fact is, you do not know, and the people guessing do not know either" United States v. Windsor was about same-sex marriage, not polyamory, animals or objects. The Bloomberg article you reference states that the comment was about gay marriage. The Lifesitenews article you referenced was from 2012, and you didn't read the first sentence where it says that. The TPNN article does not suggest the comments on marriage are related to polyamory on animals. Wikipedia relies on articles in independent secondary sources, not the personal opinions of editors. Wikipedia bases its reporting on what published secondary sources like Bloomberg say about his comments, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. You haven't offered any independent secondary sources establishing that his comments were not intended to be interpreted as relating to same-sex marriage. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Truancy
Can we note Paul's non attendance of hearings so he can spend more time on television?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-has-missed-most-foreign-relations-hearings-since-2

Hcobb (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think not. Such hearings are political drama and not WP:NOTEWORTHY in an encyclopedic sense. Then there is the problem of comparisons. E.g., perhaps minimal attendance is the norm for all senators. Finally there is a touch of POV in the question.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If a Senator is not attending hearings, and there are good sources that describes it, I see no issue. See for example Ted Cruz. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My bad, it's not just TV. He's also skipping out for radio interviews. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/politics/rand-paul-benghazi-committee-hearing/ Hcobb (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As S. Rich said, it's just political drama. It could invite biased edits or readers could interpret it as criticism of the candidate. This is an encyclopedia, not CNN. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 23:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)