Talk:Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Endorsements navbox

I removed the navbox. Its pointless with only 6 endorsements. We should wait until it takes up a good bit of the page and detracts from the flow.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones

I wanted to include Alex Jones in the endorsements section but it was removed for being unsourced. This frustrates me because, although Jones has not explicitly expressed his endorsement, it is clear that he does indeed support Paul. He has done numerous interviews with Paul expressing his wish to see him rise to the presidency in 2012. I realize you want sources, but this is silly; you're leaving out something very obvious for the sake of reliable sources. You want a source? Look at the interviews? As a matter of fact, I would like to use one of the videos as a source, because Alex Jones himself endorses Ron Paul in those videos. 75.84.162.104 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, find a reliable source. A video of Jones saying it is fine. Ratemonth (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw polls

I don't like the fact that two strawpolls got deleted that are valid. One is the Texas GOP Straw poll and the other is the Taxpayers Straw poll, please explain to me why these are removed.

Sources: Ron-paul-scores-endorsement-wins-taxpayers-straw-poll and Who are the Top GOP Contenders in Texas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.21.98 (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Doug Wead

I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFFnFiJzTo&feature=player_embedded#at=90) and at around 1:28 or so Doug Wead states that he is a Senior Adviser to Ron Paul while being interviewed by Neil Cavuto. My question is: would that statement be considered an endorsement or is it not relevant to this article? I figured that since he's a relatively well known presidential historian who was also a Special Assistant to former president George H. W. Bush that such a statement could be considered an endorsement or would at least be a notable campaign development. I won't bother placing it in the article itself until I get some feedback on this, but if no one responds soon I'll just take whatever action I see fit.

Thanks. SkyJW15 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem one - that's not a viable source. You can use youtube video's only when they are from an official channel - see WP:YOUTUBE. Problem two, I think you need to tighten up your inclusion criteria. You've got two you added because you're pretty sure they endorse Paul. There needs to be a source that explicitly says that. Someone can support candidate A, B and C, but only endorse B. Given he works for Paul, I wouldn't bother including him. If he's part of his campaign staff, put a mention in there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Thomas Woods and Adam Kokesh, I've found a video where Mr. Kokesh states "you (Dr. Paul) are my President and the only Commander-In-Chief that I would follow in to battle". That sounds like a pretty strong endorsement and comes from his official "AdamVsTheMan" YouTube channel. I'll make sure to cite it. As for Mr. Woods, I'll continue to dig for an official endorsement, but from the videos he's posted on his website he very vigorously defends Dr. Paul and has stated that he is the best man for the job. I don't know if that counts as an official endorsement, but I think he can stay where he is until and if he endorses another candidate. SkyJW15 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are articles attributed to Doug Wead at Newsmax.com in which he is presented as a senior adviser to Paul. Are those articles considered reliable sources?

If not, there is this interview by NPR, in which Wead is presented as a "campaign adviser" to Paul:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/145002377/doug-wead-discusses-ron-paul

I think the bigger question is whether individuals associated with the campaign are appropriate for inclusion among the list of individuals endorsing a candidacy.Dezastru (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ames poll description

Seems to be a bit of back and forth with Ravensfire, so I'm taking the discussion here.

Ignoring the headline that is applied above it, this video explains well what is being discussed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRuy0m7IjA

The guy speaking is Roger Simon. He is not a Ron Paul supporter, and in fact a few days ago wrote a piece (here) about how the Ames poll is really just "a delightful fraud, an amiable hoax", and "Only the media treat it seriously, and only after writing for weeks and weeks about how meaningless it is."

His point in the YouTube video above is that only 152 votes separated Bachmann and Paul.

"He lost to Michelle Bachmann by 9/10th's of one percentage point in a straw poll that isn't supposed to pick winners but is supposed to tell us which way the wind is blowing. That's as good as a win. So we had a tie for first. But where is he on the morning shows this morning? Where are all the stories analyzing what it means that Ron Paul essentially tied for first place at Ames?" - Roger Simon, from the video above.

This man is not a Ron Paul supporter, and he is not the only person to recognize and ask this question. As he points out, straw polls are intended to show which way the 'wind is blowing', although he also freely admits that the polls are essentially organized bribery, his point is that it shows how well the campaigns can organize, and that is a useful and important thing for a campaign. Ravensfire, you said it is just a "spin", but I would say the "spin" in the story is to act as if this was merely second place, when it was such a close vote, and for us to simply follow a media narrative rather than actually look at the totality of what our sources are saying. -- Avanu (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, it's spin. Pure and simple. Put the results out there and go from there. There's already a fair amount of spin around the poll results in this article. "He placed second. But wait! Only by 152 votes! But wait! He got the fourth most votes for one individual candidate ever! Most of that should be removed as well. This is NOT a survey - there is no such thing as "statistical tie" here. There is first, second, third, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also finding a fair number of reference on-line to "near statistical tie", which may seem to help Avanu's case. However, on ALL of them, when you look deeper, you find the real source of the piece is Ron Paul 2012 PCC. As I said, it's spin, pure and simple. Report the numbers, leave the spin to the candidates, please. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in for a moment; I have another one for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8MKYwjYpT0 check at 3:15 to 3:26 "it was almost a tie", also 4:12 to 4:16 "more than doubled" used to describe both Bachmann and Ron Paul. Throughout the discussion they compare Bachmann and Paul and how Bachmann was covered substantially by the media and Paul wasn't, yet Paul nearly tied her. Again, I don't think that Fox is really interested in spinning this to be pro-Paul, just look at Jon Stewart's recent rant (Google "jon stewart ron paul") about the media treatment of Paul, others are mentioning the same thing, e.g. http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/ron-paul-iowa-straw/2011/08/16/id/407458

If those who clearly don't support Paul characterize this as "almost a tie", "That's as good as a win. So we had a tie for first", then how are we saying this is pro-Paul spin? Please explain how this is inappropriate for the article, given the Reliable Sourcing for it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

CNN 'The Cafferty File': "he came within an eyelash of finishing first in the Iowa straw poll" at 2:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oULpsuoEY7c

-- Avanu (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just adding one more thing. At this point, I almost think we have enough sourcing to show that the actual "spin" is the media itself, given that the bias is so prevalent we have people all over the political spectrum (Jon Stewart, Roger Simon, etc) talking about Ron Paul's media 'invisibility' and so on. -- Avanu (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet one more source, "a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa" http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/index.html

--Avanu (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) I made some changes, the most important of which is the merging of the Ames straw polls paragraph into the GOP debates one, because both of them were touching on the Ames debate. I also referenced a little.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, I still think the phrasing is giving UNDUE to a bare handful of mentions, but as I said, it's spin and it's not worth the time and effort. Saying it's a tie is quite obviously a minority view in RS's and the phrasing totally ignores the effort from the Paul campaign to portray it as a tie (hint - that's spin). Ravensfire (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the Jon Stewart mention, the media has given much more attention to the poll results, and have put the 'spin' on it that you mention. By the way, I think many reasonable people know that the poll is kind of dumb, but it does show whether a person is good at managing a popularity contest. I believe its a bit of spin to make it seem that Paul and the rest of the field were fairly equivalent, when he was so close to Bachmann in numbers, and given the way the media USUALLY looks at these things, its a bit spinnish to put Paul in such a light. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another merge proposed

I think that the "GOP debates" and the "Moneybombs and fundraising" paragraphs should be merged because they break the chronological way of telling the story of his campaign, but I will not do it unless there is consensus among my fellow editors. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally think the whole "Campaign developments" section needs to be rewritten to have far fewer sections. The TOC at the top is forever long for this extremely short article.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For its current status I would agree with you, but I also expect a lengthening of the article as the campaign will continue. What I need are your thought on the chronological presentation of the event vs presentation by topic.Divide et Impera (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to believe that the "Exploratory committee" and "Formal announcement sections will grow at all. Sure, the debates section will grow, as well as the straw polls section... and it's even possible for the Blue Republican section to grow a little, though I doubt it will. It is possible now to predict how these sections can fit into a chronological picture:

I think the first two sections should be combined into a pre-campaign section (which can possibly be fleshed out more) which would also include info about the CPAC straw poll in February, the "first" (although the major networks don't call it such) debate/moneybomb on May 5, and any other pre-May 13 events yet to be reported, as well as the formal announcement on May 13

The second section would start with the Blue Republican bit and continue into the debates/straw polls/everything else with the campaign so far in chronological order. Then later there could be sections for primary season, general election, etc. if he makes it that far. I do think the media blackout section should be left as a separate section, though. It doesn't really follow a chronological order but is rather an overall attribute of the campaign.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree fully with all of your points above: you can go ahead and make the changes, one by one, so that they can be easily absorbed and understood by the community. An edit summary for each would suffice.Divide et Impera (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just implemented several of the changes I suggested above. I'll see how that goes down and possibly reorder the "campaign developments" section later.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen poll removed from main Paul article

I removed a poll result added to the main Paul article with the edit comment that it belong here and that the phrasing chosen mis-represented the poll results. It was also added here. I'm going to tweak it, but want to call it out. If you look at the source, the poll asked ONLY about Obama vs Paul, with the results being close, but Obama winning. A much smaller number answered with some other candidate. The same poll was run a month ago with a larger gap between Obama and Paul. The article further notes that Paul polled 4th in the GOP primary. Ravensfire (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit was made in the lede where I really don't think it belongs. There's isn't a polling section though, which is where it probably should go. I'm going to see if either Gallop or Rasmussen has a decent history of primary candidate polls because putting together a graph over time of the candidates would be nice. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also added a more recent poll, which shows him third, but I agree with you that before putting anything in the lede, we should bring the info below. However it's just a paragraph for now. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. It doesnt belong in the lead. If theres a place for it in the body, anyone is welcome to restore it.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I restored it somewhere below. Metallurgist, thanks for bringing it up in the talk page, but in general, please try to not lose content, just because that content is in the wrong place. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic Endorsements?

After looking at the wikipedia pages and watching videos of many of Mr. Paul's endorsements (including those of Stanhope, Maher), I found that many of them were made during the congressman's 2008 presidential campaign. Given that political opinions can change drastically over three or four years' time, would it be considered misleading to have three year-old endorsements listed on the 2012 campaign page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.113.98 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source supporting an endorsement is from 2008, the endorsement should be removed. Ravensfire (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've yanked a few out - thanks for pointing them out. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Receipts/Donations total

The info box lists Paul has having $8.9 million in donations but it doesn't list any sources. As far as I know the only publicly available info about it is his latest FEC filings plus the moneybombs. That puts him at around $7,347,000 and even if he got an additional $2k a day since 6/30 (FEC date) he's still well under $8.9 million. So a) there either needs to be a source listed that backs up the $8.9 figure or if there isn't then it doesn't make any sense but to list his total donations as FEC 6/30/11 plus MB amounts after then ($7.347 M)Coinmanj (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe those figures include 2011 first quarter donations from a couple PACs, but I'm not sure. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it did I still don't see how we get to an 8.9 figure. Liberty PAC only donated ~$400k and the Revolution PAC hasn't donated anything yet to my knowledge. My understanding of Wiki is that if you list something as a fact you need to include a source that isn't your own research. My personal research (1/1/11-8/30/11) shows $7.4-7.9m but the independent verifiable amount is $7.347m. I'd be very happy if it is $8.9m but I'm really wanting to see proof of that.Coinmanj (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did some searching, and here's what I've found. In the first quarter of 2011, he raised ~$3 million, although it sounds like only $1 million is useable for his campaign. That Politico article also says he had $1.7 million on hand at that time. So his fundraising before Q1 2011 was perhaps $700k. We'll say he raised $1–1.7 million total up to March 31. Add $4.5 million for Q2, and then $550k for the Ames bomb, and $1.8 million for the birthday bomb. So that totals $7.85–$8.55 million from what I can gather. If there was another $400k from Liberty PAC, that would get us to $8.95 million at the top end. What do you think? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the $8.9M figure is reasonable but should be properly sourced. You already did the due diligence above, why not do it on the article?Divide et Impera (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok so according to his FEC filings dated 1/14/11 to 6/30/11 Paul raised $4,519,000 [1] that would include anything given to him before 6/30, including Liberty PAC etc. The Politico article was written before the filings came out which makes them guesses. All of the moneybombs since then add up to ~$2.4m (Ames, $600k+, Bday $1,820,000) the campaign site says "over $550k" with a screenshot showing $600k [2] $1.8 mill for the Bday one [3]. Even if you added all (1/11-9/11) the MBs up they only amount to $5,658,000, based on the FEC filings Paul doesn't get more than $3,000 a day so from 6/30 to now that's an additional $180,000, still way less than $8.9 or $8.5 million. So unless the FEC figures are wrong the real amount Paul has gotten is between $7-7.4 million tops. Here's a graph of everything I've found [4]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the part of the FEC report that says "Covering Period 01/14/2011 Through 06/30/2011" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinmanj (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. It seems like something is wrong in that link of the FEC doc you've provided. Because the Paul campaign was reporting $4.5 million for just the second quarter, not for the first half of the year. And that Politico story said he already had $1.7 million in April. So I'm confused about the numbers not matching as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Revised math

I've looked over your chart and redid the math, and I think I've figured out the problem. Look at the Politico article again. It says he got $1 million from his federal PAC, which is LibertyPAC. That number includes the $700,000 from February, plus apparently another $300,000 in March. The $2 million from Campaign for Liberty is not important, as it's not a part of his directly useable funds. The $1.7 million is from his congressional campaign fund, which may be transferable, but looks to be counted separately. So his first quarter money was $1 million, all from LibertyPAC. That FEC form is for the "RON PAUL 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE INC." only, so I think it doesn't include anything from LibertyPAC. It looks like the dates must then be correct, January 14 through June 30, but he really didn't get serious about fundraising until that May 5 money bomb. So, that means we can add the following numbers:

• $1 million (Q1 LibertyPAC from politco article)
• $4.5 million ("Q2" presidential campaign committee total fundraising from FEC document)
• $600,000 (Ready Ames Fire money bomb)
• $1.8 million (birthday money bomb)
• Total: $7.9 million

That's a number about halfway between our previous estimates. It makes sense because I think we were both either double counting or missing certain amounts that partially cancelled out other mistakes. How does that look? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that looks good. One thing I wish we had now that the 2008 campaign had was a site that listed every donation by the day in real time. Woulda made this a whole lot easier haha. Coinmanj (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign endorsements

Theres a foreign endorsement. Should that even be in here? Hes not a US citizen or voter and has probably no bearing on the election. If some foreign leader gave an endorsement, then that would probably be worth putting.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that no foreign endorsements should be listed at all unless, perhaps, it's by a high ranking official at a "federal" level, simply because there's bound to be other national leaders who support other candidates. But say a "John Smith, mayor of Scots Town, Scotland, population 3,000" were to endorse Paul, that does nothing and means absolutely nothing. The same with foreign celebs etc. If by chance someone like Sir Richard Branson endorsed him people would easily find that at dailypaul.com, it may be interesting but it isn't really important to an American election or campaign article.Coinmanj (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Metallurgist, can you please bring forth the source?Divide et Impera (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he's talking about Daniel Hannan but the source given on the wiki article was from 2009 and no longer includes working videos of any alleged endorsement. The only thing I've found is HERE but it is not an endorsement of Paul for president, rather it's an article praising his integrity. I think the "endorsement" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinmanj (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok well unless someone objects I'm going to remove the endorsement tomorrow (time to allow for any further discussion). (unless someone beats me to it)Coinmanj (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We can delete it just on it being an old "endorsement" that cant even be sourced.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vince Vaughn

Is this and endorsement?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the source? Oh good grief. I would say no. Of course, the endorsement list is close to a mockery of any criteria with non-notable endorsements all over the place. We've got people that want to put Paul's ADVISORS on the endorsement list. Sheesh. They did leave off his campaign manager ... for now. Ravensfire (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe a better source for Vaughn will be available when footage of his introduction is available. I'm sure that if he wants to explicitly endorse Paul, he'll probably choose to do so during that introduction. And as for advisers being considered endorsers, I don't see why becoming an adviser wouldn't meet the criteria for endorsing a candidate. If a person is advising a certain candidate and also goes out on news shows to explain why said candidate is the best choice, they're most likely endorsing that candidate. If you want I can go and cite a video where Bruce Fein (who is a notable person) is talking about why Paul is so great if it'll satisfy you. SkyJW15 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, John Tate isn't a notable person outside of his role as an adviser/manager to the campaign, so he'll never be added to the list. SkyJW15 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say advisers listed as endorsers is excessive, but I think Vince Vaughn can and will be a legitimate endorsement. I would think it would be okay to create a separate list of his top level staff though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that if the person is a notable person outside of the campaign listing them as an endorser wouldn't be excessive, though I do agree that a list of notable advisers might be more appropriate than to list said advisers in the Endorsements section. Perhaps such a list should be placed in the Infobox?SkyJW15 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The endorsement box

Why is his different and more problematic to use than the other Presidential candidates? J390 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, to make it look bigger--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Screen shot 2011-09-22 at 13.16.04 .png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Screen shot 2011-09-22 at 13.16.04 .png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Schiff Endorsed Ron Paul

Peter Schiff isn't listed as someone who endorsed Ron Paul, which he has done. Here is a link to use as an endnote as justification for Schiff's endorsement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20112268-503544.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.139.18 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will add his endorsement right now. J390 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article, on second thought, I apologize but he did not come out and endorse Mr. Paul. He said he endorsed him in his 1988 Presidential campaign and said "if he'd been elected we wouldn't be in these problems now". That's not an overt endorsement. J390 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Activists vs. Celebrities/Commentators

Under the endorsement section, we have one radio host under political activists, and others, as well as other commentators, piled under a list that used to just be called celebrities. How do we organize who would be in which group? J390 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If the person is notable for only being a political activist then categorize accordingly. If the person is more notable as a celebrity first and political activist second then I would categorize under celebrity. In general, I would think of these categories as "day jobs"; what occupies most of their time? If in doubt, go with the category that people would most likely expect the person to be in even if it isn't their current occupation; in those case, you can append the word "former" (e.g. former beauty queen, former Mayor, etc.). K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 05:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Kjmonkey. Listing people for what they are primarily known for would be the most reasonable course.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What is an endorsement?

Many of the questions above would be instantly solved if we had a precise and simple definition of Endorsement. Is there one? (The article the word takes me to doesn't help much at all.) If not, surely there's a problem when articles like this treat the word as if it has a precise and simple meaning. So, what is an endorsement? (Yes, I know this is a broader question than just in connection with this article, but I'm not sure where to take it, and one has to start somewhere. Any suggestions?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take your inquiry to :Talk:Political endorsement however it does not seem that wiki page is very active so don't expect to get any expedited resolution. According to the current article on Political endorsement, it defines endorsement in political scope as "the action of publicly declaring one's personal or group's support of a candidate for elected office." Note this definition does not state that support must be unilateral nor does it exclude the possibility of supporting two or more persons or actions. My thoughts are that if a person or organization supports or indicates a desire for someone to succeed in the context of political office, then we can categorize that support as an endorsement for political office. When the term "official" is appended to endorsement as in "official endorsement," it seems to imply that the support is exclusive. In terms of endorsements that should be allowed in the Ron Paul endorsement section of the article, it suffices that the endorsement is made with the expectation that it would become public knowledge. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 05:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to this question again.

Is there a set of general policy guidelines somewhere for what are appropriate and what are inappropriate endorsements for inclusion in Wikipedia articles on candidates for office?Dezastru (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Democratic endorsement

"Lynn Rudmin Chong, former chair of the Belknap County Democratic Committee" [5] Is this significant enough?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, with the two former republican count chairs, I think it goes.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's significant enough. With the other former Republican count chairs, why wouldn't it be? J390 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones's endorsement

I know Jones has endorsed him, but we could likely get a better citation than a video he made a month before Paul entered the race. Endorsements are made while a presidential race is going on towards a person who's currently running. J390 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

$16 million?

When you add up the money bombs and all his total donations comes to around $22 million. Heck if you just take the latest FEC report ($12m) plus the current MB (12/29/11 www.ronpaul2012.com) you get over $17m alone. This lists everything pretty clearly http://www.wecanwin.org/polls-reports.html Coinmanj (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter controversy

Does anyone think the newsletter controversy is worth discussing in the wiki article? It seems to be getting a lot of press. The campaign has addressed and disavowed the letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.242.13 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the Media Coverage section to include the latest coverage of the newsletters. Here's my revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012&oldid=468221157#Media_coverage

Then, Truthsort reverted my edit because he/she thought it was insignificant. I think the New York Times knows better. You can read our brief exchange on Truthsort's talk page. IHTFP (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The resurection of the newsletter story is certainly worthy of mention. On the other hand, any mentions should be based on actual quality sources, not rubbish blogs as in the 2008 article. Most of them say more about their writers than they do about Paul. One of the sources there claims that there was no evidence that a number of the incidents the newsletters mentioned happened, which I found pretty funny after it took me all of thirty seconds to find this. Nevard (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My revision mentioned a front page New York Times article and Paul walking off a CNN interview. Truthsort said, "You need to prove that this is having an impact on his campaign." Seems like moving the goalpost, but ok. According to forecaster Nate Silver, "It seems as if the controversy over the newsletters issued under Mr. Paul’s name, which contained a variety of racist and vitriolic statements, is taking a toll on his numbers around the margin."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/iowa-update-slow-and-steady-may-win-the-race-for-romney/ IHTFP (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The information should be included. This looks like pretty clear consensus to me. At least three people support, and it appears only one oppose. I'm putting it back in.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A vote does not make a consensus. Truthsort (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the NY Times (above), CNN (also above), Fox News[6], and WaPo[7], as well as many others, are "prominent adherents". I'm not vouching for the exact language that is in the passage you keep taking out, but the subject itself is notable, covered widely, and should be in the article. If you feel you need to copy edit, expand, or clarify the information, then by all means go ahead, but blanket removal is not acceptable. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

An old story that gets rehashed for a week and has no impact whatsoever on his campaign should not be included in here, especially when there is an entire section in the main article. We are not a newspaper in that we list everything that gets covered, you look at its significance. In this case, can you say this was significant in his campaign? Truthsort (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing new came out in late December. The story just got rehashed with no new information, and is not significant in the context of this election. Obviously, it is important for Paul's political career in general, but it is not necessary to be included on every page about him. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First, according to Nate Silver (above), the coverage did impact the campaign in Iowa. Second, how did you come up with your criteria for including and excluding coverage? I assume the Media Coverage section simply documents the media coverage of the campaign. Every major news outlet reported on the newsletters, as Dudemanfellabra noted above. The only "undue weight" here is zero weight. IHTFP (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is merely his opinion. It is not a definitive fact that it affected his campaign. As far as coming up with what gets included, I did not come up with it. This is how it always works. You look to see how significant it is to determine whether it should be added. The media coverage on Paul's campaign has been significant because the lack of coverage has been something that his campaign dealt with for a long period of time. Truthsort (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's his professional opinion. The definitive fact is that Paul lost his lead in Iowa, and came in third place. The way I think about significance is if in 2016 someone asks about the media coverage of the 2012 campaign, you might say something like, "First there was a lack of media coverage, then the first significant coverage rehashed the newsletter controversy, ..." The Atlantic said as much: "So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny. And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s."[8] IHTFP (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So what? It does not make it a fact. Polls had Paul anywhere from 1st to 3rd. There are margins of errors for polls. The lack of media coverage is something that occurred through most of Paul's campaign. We even have studies showing this. Meanwhile the media bringing up the newsletters only lasted for about a week. Truthsort (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Military endorsement

I am wondering why Mitt Romney's gargantuan endorsement section has a place for Military Endorsements, but Ron Paul, who claims to have 70+% of military donations, does not have a Military Endorsements section? Surely that section should exist, if he's really got that much support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.200.107 (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul gets 70% of the donations made by active military. My understanding is an active duty soldier can't publically endorse a candidate. I could be wrong. BTW he doesn't claim to, he does get more donations from military than anyone including Obama. Just gotta look up the FEC reports or do a basic Google search Coinmanj (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about specific percentages, but those numbers are only for donations over a certain limit, at which donors are required to name their occupations. Paul may have a majority of donations from donors willing to donate above this limit, but not necessarily a majority overall. Nevard (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Military can indeed endorse a candidate, but only out of uniform. They can say that they are in the military, but they cannot use their office or position as leverage for a campaign. FYI: What Corporal Thorsen did the other day on CNN was technically not wrong because it was an impromptu interview by CNN (who later cut the feed when he mentioned not attacking Iran). The thing that Thorsen shouldn't have done was let Paul put him behind a podium to finish his cut-off statement... however, I've read that Thorsen is a reservist and was not on orders at the time so technically he was a civilian... its all a very odd situation. - Gunnanmon (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Endorsements sourced to copyright violations

Any thoughts on this? See the current Glen Beck source for example. It's a YouTube video clearly NOT from an official channel, hence the copyright vio. Delete the source and endorsement? Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Try to replace the YouTube link with a reference to the original episode (e.g. Glenn Beck, Fox News, date, time). Otherwise, it would have to be fair use to stay up. IHTFP (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ron Paul Family Cookbook

In Iowa Dr. Ron Paul mentioned something about a cookbook when he introduced his wife Carol. I found some references to it such as: Ron Paul's family cookbook: 'An unorthodox campaign tactic'?[9] I searched the Ronpaul.com website for mention of this cookbook and don't see it listed for sale. But there are a few mentions.[10] I find this topic pretty unique..however..don't have the time to write a well constructed line in the main article. Any takers to do so are welcome in my view..and any detractors thinking it isn't a good idea can edit this paragraph.Pbmaise (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Ron Paul#2012 Ron Paul Family Cookbook. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Super PAC resource

PAC Men: Following the Super PAC Soft Money Jan 13, 2012 2:14pm; ABC News excerpt ...

• Endorse Liberty Spent: $1,107,348. Treasurer: Abraham D Niederhauser, a marketing manager at a company that sells tongue cleaners.
• Santa Rita (PAC) Spent: $317,542. Treasurer: Donald Huffines, a co-owner of a Washington Catholic radio station.
• Revolution (PAC) Spent: $100,000
• Ron Paul Volunteers Spent: $0"

99.181.140.39 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Julie Newmar endorsement

You may want to add Julie Newmar to the endorsement list. http://www.facebook.com/jnewmar/posts/2766573696408 --81.221.79.154 (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/ron-pauls-campaign-plots-path-focused-on-delegate-math.html?ref=todayspaper Focusing on Nomination, Paul Plots a Backup Plan section A - page 15 by Richard A. Oppel Jr. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

Why was Chuck Norris removed as an endorsement?Terrorist96 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He endorsed Newt Gingrich.[11] IHTFP (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Elimination of the TSA

On January 23rd Ron Paul released another statement on his decision to seek the elimination of the TSA. ( source: campaign site: Ron Paul Campaign Statement Concerning TSA Abuses )

Galaad2 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage

The media coverage section is about the media coverage of Paul. Many have claimed that he has received disproportionately little coverage. That is the main focus of the section. It is not meant to be about every incident or pundit opinion. That simply makes no sense because the article would expand out of control. The Newsletter controversy Im on the fence about, but it is significant enough since it came up in the campaign to go somewhere in the article.

As an analogy, compare historiography to history. The things I removed can go back in the article if they are deemed notable a better place can be found for them, but that should not be in this section since that is not the theme. And of course, this is primarily my opinion and if everyone else disagrees and cant be reasoned with, then thats a separate issue. BUT the intent/theme of the section is how Paul is covered, not what Paul is covered on.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the lead include some information on the media coverage (or lack thereof) for Paul, because that is the fattest section of the article and because Paul's campaign of 2012 is heavily influenced by that phenomenon (as prior campaigns were as well by the way). If there are no objections, I will go ahead and add that to the lede in the next days. Mosmirenjohesi (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delegate strategy

The article should really include a section on Paul's strategy for obtaining delegates. Essentially, since they know they have a relatively small number of core enthusiastic volunteers, the Paul campaign seems to have focused on caucuses, where they can trade their enthusiasm and understanding for the rules into a disproportionate number of the delegates.

Essentially, a typical caucus is a multi-step process, where the participants first vote in a non-binding straw poll (the one reported in the media), and then votes for county delegates. Then at a county convention, said delegates vote for district delegates, who eventually vote for national delegates (who actually go to the Republican convention.) According to the Paul campaign, they've taken a disproportionate number of the county delegates [12] [13] 68.42.243.198 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a surprise is in the brewing. 108.93.144.242 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of control endorsements

What's the purpose of the Endorsements section and does it have similar requirements as information in most articles? It's something I've been kicking around for a bit, but the recent addition of clergy really kinda put it over the top. (Note - given the utter lack of standards generally applied to endorsements on this article, I do not fault the editor in any way). So should there be a standard? How high? Various self-added blogs have been removed from the list for notability. Now we're getting clergy from what appear to be fairly small, local churches being added. County supervisors. Party officials at the COUNTY level.

I don't think this should be the master list of every person that endorses Paul. That's Paul's job. Someone on his campaign should be maintaining a list like that that we can link to and the notable endorsements should be here. So should there be some bar to define inclusion on the list or just anyone that endorses Paul at all? Seriously - I've tried to keep an eye on the additions, watching god knows how many WP:COPYVIO you-tubes used as sources and been fairly inclusive, but local, small church clergy is just too much for me. Ravensfire (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the endorsements are totally out of control. I've tried to get a discussion going to develop some general guidelines for what are appropriate endorsements to list, so far unsuccessfully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29/Archive_7#Guidelines_for_Listing_Endorsements_for_Government_Office. Now editors are even putting in local city council members (and this is not just occurring on the Ron Paul campaign WP page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there needs to be a discussion to develop a consensus and establish guidelines as what constitues an "endorsement" for the purposes of these campaign articles. I would suggest you post a notice of this thread (with a link to it) on the talk pages of WikProject Politics and WikiProject US presidential elections. If that dosen't generate significant participation, then try Rfc.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul Defeats Obama In Head To Head Polling

I think this needs to be in there somewhere. --Kluutak (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/