Talk:Ron Paul newsletters

2012 comment
The following addition should be made:

The author of the newsletters, James Kirchick, has stated that none of the "racist" newsletters have a byline except for one. A 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide, "How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence" contains a byline and was written by James B. Powell. The publication's content and style are stunningly similar to the other "racist" newsletters.

Source: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonnixon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

page title
Is this article about the newsletters themselves, or the controversy surrounding them? To me, it seems, the subject matter it more about the controversy created by them than the newsletters themselves, so I would like to suggest the page be moved to "Ron Paul newsletters controversy" or something similar. My two cents --L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of blog material
This material: " Former Ron Paul Chief of Staff John W. Robbins (1981-1985) has publicly called for Rockwell to admit he authored the newsletters, saying that "all informed people" believe Rockwell ghostwrote the "puerile, and racist" newsletters. " was removed with an edit summary that referred to a blog. I'm not clear on which is the blog and which is not. In any event, newsblogs (as opposed to purely personal blogs] are acceptable RS.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog which I linked to was by prominent UC Berkeley economist/Assistant Secretary of Treasury Brad Delong, making it a notable/credible RS. I doubt the site he linked to was a notable RS, but doesn't the fact that DeLong linked to and quoted from it make the content publishable on Wikipedia? If so, why not? (indicate which wikipedia rules the DeLong link runs afoul of). Steeletrap (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources like that that might be acceptable if he was giving an economic opinion, are not acceptable in BLP especially if they are very negative. That's the way I see it even after finding out who he is. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK well I've replaced DeLong's link with a Huffington Post source that makes the same claim. Issue solved. Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV & BLP templates (aka banners)
These templates serve to alert readers & editors that there may be problems. As the article has undergone much editing recently, there is no CONSENSUS as to what the final version should look like. As this article involves a living person, sourcing is critical. Please leave the templates as is, and once we achieve consensus & article stability they can be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please read through the editing history. The substance of the article has been in place for several months (probably years), prior to our recent editorial flurry. Please specify what new additions you think pose concern for NPOV and BLP. Otherwise, you're running afoul of WP: Con, which means that your edit should be deleted unless you provide compelling reason to think consensus is wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "final version" of the article. If you have specific issues then please bring them up here and replace the banners.  We don't use banners to alert readers that there may be problems.  We use banners to alert readers that an editor has specific problems with the article and that those problems are listed at the talk page.  All wikipedia articles may have problems. Sperril (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CCC. The discussion must continue IOT build new consensus. The tagging lets contributors know a discussion is going on, and then they can chime in as they please. But removing the tags, without a new consensus, is not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Justification for templates (Srich)
 * Per WP: CCC, "in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." You have not proposed the change of adding these banners (with their accompanying insinuations of non-neutrality) by discussion, despite the fact that they defy consensus. I strongly encourage you to comply with the recommendations set out in WP rules and make an argument for adding the banners before adding them. What you are doing right now is baselessly adding them without any discussion, and without even providing arguments. That approach encourages edit warring and stifles discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not have consensus to add the banners. If you have a specific issue with neutrality or BLP concerns, feel free to tag the article and list them here.  You have not brought up any specific concerns for discussion.  What are the issues you have with the article?  Sperril (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at the edit history for the article. I first started on revisions on April 23. Template(s) were in place at that time. Steeletrap made his/her first contributions yesterday. There is discussion above re the template issues: BLP, sources, POV, etc. My gosh, we don't need consensus to place the template! We use consensus to resolve disputes. Please restore them so they can serve their purpose: to alert editors of concerns. In the meantime, I'll add some tags and/or comments to this page.
 * Please note I've moved some of the discussion posts in order to keep them as one thread and in order. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem Srich: You (here, on the LewRockwell.com piece, and on other pages) place these banners without talking it out with anyone on the talk page and without even giving a reason as to why you're doing it. That serves the purposes of broadly undermining the credibility of the piece while stifling debate (because no one has any idea what the debate is about). Steeletrap (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one issue above where Steeletrap and Carolmoore disagreed about the reliability of a source. It looks like Steele agreed and found a different source.  There was no further objection made.  That is the only NPOV / BLP discussion I see on this talk page.  On the very top of the page for the POV template it says, Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.  It also says, "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.  This is precisely what we are telling you.  We are unclear what the nature of the dispute is. Sperril (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here here! I've been trying to say this for a week. Thank you for your regard for Wikipedia rules, Sperril. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * General comment only: There's also something called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT even when you put a diff together with a policy link and quotation, etc. to explain it. I.e., those who cannot or refuse to understand  policy, refuse to admit policy applies even when a few people say it does, forgets policy that they agreed to last week on same or related article, tenditiously ask for explanations of the same points over and over, etc. FYI. So wikipedia tries to cover all bases.  CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't apply because there was never any argument to hear. Srich -- and he's done this with a few articles now -- just put up the template and never bothered to explain why. Steeletrap (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the POV template was posted before I started my edits over a week ago. Given that this article deals with a living person, and contains contentious/controversial material, the BLP template is appropriate. As BLP deals with WP policy, editors ought to consider the reason for posting the template on their own. I certainly wouldn't want to be seen as spoonfeeding policy that all editors should be familiar with. Let me add this -- as I have not been involved with a lot of BLPs, the policy as to controversial BLP info is fairly new to me in my 4 year history of editing. And I've always been happy when more experienced editors have konked-me-over-the-head with new info about important aspects of WP editing.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

March 12 changes
Recent (and earlier) edits had several problems (now reverted): created redlink, duplicated the "animals" statement (and improperly conflated the statement), UNDUE characterization re Fisher (he's known as a chess champion), passive voice, WP:CLAIM/WP:ALLEGED, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Paste material from Ron Paul article IOT WP:PRESERVE
The following is material is from the main Ron Paul article. It is pasted here in order to preserve it and use for expansion of this article as needed.

Beginning in 1978, for more than two decades Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name (Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Investment Letter, and the Ron Paul Political Report). By 1993, a business through which Paul was publishing the newsletters was earning in excess of $900,000 per year.

A number of the newsletters, particularly in the period between 1988 and 1994 when Paul was no longer in Congress, contained material that later proved highly controversial, dwelling on conspiracy theories, praising anti-government militia movements, and warning of coming race wars. During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic bigotry.

The newsletters included statements such as:
 * "...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
 * "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!" (February 1990: "The Coming Race War")
 * "An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." (October 1992: "Blast 'Em?")
 * “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.” (June 1990: "Newsletter")
 * “[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.” (December 1991: "Mr. Johnson's Magic")
 * “[T]he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;" and “[W]e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients].” (November 1993: "AIDSophilia")

Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr" – while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context. In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published. He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name. Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.

An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters. During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it." Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.


 * – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Ron Paul newsletters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113163828/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111226004532/http://www.tnr.com:80/sites/default/files/February1990.pdf to http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/February1990.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/masthead.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fraud
Ron Paul is quoted on his entry page as saying, "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else." In that he is echoing a libertarian cliche. It seems not only reasonable but necessary to describe what Ron Paul did as fraud, though there is no mention of that here. Marketing a ghostwritten newsletter as one's own writings is patently fraudulent. Of course Paul and other libertarians have also had books ghostwritten, and some have done the writing. Nicmart (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Odd phrase
It reads: "According to one of the associates, Paul's former secretary (and a self-described supporter of his 2012 Presidential campaign) Renae Hathway...." A "self-described supporter" is a supporter. She was his secretary, for goodness sakes. Why this obtuse phrasing? Nicmart (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)