Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 27 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rand Paul article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Rand Paul has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Kentucky Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Template:WPLibertarianism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rand Paul article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Maintained

Rand Paul deaf?

Howdy- So it was recently added that (to my own surprise), Paul wears two hearing aids. The citation goes to a looping link, so I can not verify this. I couldn't find another source that said Paul is deaf. Are we sure that can be included?

Also, if he does wear hearing aids (just to be overly nitpicky), does the category: Deaf politicians still apply to him? Most deaf people consider the term to mean having no or nearly no hearing. Hard-of-hearing is the term for Paul. Should we include that category? Sorry to be picky, but I did want to make sure it was all right. PrairieKid (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428891366971864.html Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wearing hearing aids does not mean you are deaf. My grandfather wore hearing aids for the last decade of his life, and went to the grave not being deaf. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked the link too; it says that it is only available to Wall Street Journal subscribers. Another website posted the first few paragraphs of the WSJ article: http://www.dailypaul.com/283096/rand-paul-tries-to-transform-a-moment-into-a-movement, but there is no mention of hearing aids. Also, just a quick Google image search doesn't show that he wears any hearing aids, unless he has some unconventional ones that are small enough to actually fit inside the ear canal (unlikely).

I say, delete the current source, and mark it as needing a citation, and give it a few days, but stipulate that a publicly available source is required. If none is provided, just delete it. - A random guy on the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.189.245 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a publicly available source. However, with only the single brief – almost throwaway – mention, I wonder if including this in his encyclopedia biography might not be undue weight. In either case, I agree with OuroborosCobra that this doesn't justify classifying him as "deaf". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aquabuddha

Why is there no mention of his aquabuddha escapades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most likely because of BLP and the fact that the object of the hazing doesn't want her name revealed. Reference is probably adequate: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/rand_pauls_accuser_clarifies_k.html - 173.26.136.45 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul using bestiality argument against gay marriage

His comments are not redundant since they explain why he feels the need for laws defining marriage. They are also notable in their own right because of the controversy they generated. A quick Google search shows 37 articles on this topic and comments from people like Geraldo about it. His spokesperson called it sarcasm and then Paul himself had to explain himself on Fox News. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia

I've opened a discussion here about whether Ballotpedia should be included as an external link in U.S. Congress articles. —Designate (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul Drone thing

Howdy all- There has recently been a bit of an edit war over a paragraph about drones. The paragraph is in the Filibuster section (notably not the political positions section) and reads:

On April 23, 2013, Paul said he supported the use of domestic drones in cases of imminent public danger such as a violent crime in progress, the Boston Marathon bombings, or a suspected armed robbery. Paul said "If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them", and that "I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on... If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him". He felt there was a distinction between that usage and one in which "they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities".

Personally, I support its inclusion of the article, as a continuation of his much-publicized filibuster. I was hoping we could avoid all the reverts and come to a consensus. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's directly relevant to the filibuster. Tiller54 (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is somewhat related, I think the primary problem is one of undue weight. That above paragraph, which is more than half quotes, is as long as the entire commentary on the actual filibuster itself. That is out of proportion. If there discussion of everything Paul talked about in his filibuster was expanded, then I would be okay with it, but as it stands, focusing on one statement as much as on an entire 12+ hour speech isn't a balanced representation. —Torchiest _edits 12:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The quotes are quite lengthy, I agree. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to a couple of sentences? Tiller54 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added back in the first half with a bit of condensing. Hopefully that works for everyone. —Torchiest _edits 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, These comments he made were a month after the initial filibuster and had to do with a completely different scenario than the one presented in the filibuster. There is nothing connected here other than both comments involve drones. Truthsort (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want it noted that I'm fine with not including them at all. —Torchiest _edits 01:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments on drones seem notable regardless of the filibuster. MilesMoney (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Content for the Medical Career section

Truthsort wants this section to read:

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993. He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Gilbert Graves Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office. After his election to the U.S. Senate, he merged his practice with Downing's medical practice. Paul has faced two malpractice lawsuits between 1993 and 2010; he was cleared in one case while the other was settled for $50,000. Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals. Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants. 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.
In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards on his first attempt and earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years. In 1997, to protest the ABO's 1992 decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to be recertified every 10 years in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO) to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system. The NBO was incorporated in 1999, but he allowed it to be dissolved in 2000 after not filing the required paperwork with the Kentucky Secretary of State's office. Paul later recreated the board in September 2005, three months before his original 10-year certification from the ABO lapsed. His ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005. Paul has since been certified by the NBO, with himself as the organization's president, his wife as vice-president, and his father-in-law as secretary. The ophthalmology board is not officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).

• If Paul is legally practicing medicine, he obviously has a state-issued medical license. Most readers will know this. There is no need to state the obvious on this point.
• A doctor does not "receive" a first job. It's not a gift. Further, Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers is not independently noteworthy, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Downing's only notability, if any, is that he was a partner with Paul in the early years of Paul's practice. There is no reason to mention Downing in this article, or to mention Gilbert Graves Clinic.
• "Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing". His mentor and former business partner is praising him? You seriously think this is encyclopedic content? ("My mom is the best mom in the whole world!")
• "and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals". We already know he is a doctor, so why is it necessary to say he has medical privileges at two local hospitals? He probably wears a white coat in the office too ...
• "In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards on his first attempt". Why do we need to know that it was on his first attempt? Is it unusual for ophthalmology board-certification candidates to pass the exam on their first attempt? Is this something readers would typically know? Has someone alleged that Paul failed on his first attempt?
• Truthsort has deleted the statement that Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology is not recognized by the AMA, with the edit comment "A‪BMS works with AMA‬". Very few readers will have any familiarity with ABMS, but many readers, certainly the vast majority of American readers, will be familiar with the AMA, which is why this information was noted by the sources reporting on Paul's certification issues and why its inclusion would improve this section of the article.
• The fact that the American Board of Ophthalmology recognizes more than 15,000 ophthalmologists as being certified while Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology only counts a few (200 mentioned at the time of the founding) is noteworthy. It provides the perspective for readers to judge whether in founding the new board Paul was leading a movement that was widely embraced by his profession.
• "Board-certified" is in quotes because it is a term of art. See WP:WORDSASWORDS. Dezastru (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of changing the first sentence of the second paragraph. If you want to remove first attempt then fine, but why change earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years to entitling him to describe himself for 10 years as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist. Paul established the NBO from his own principled stance, but what evidence suggest Paul was planning a greater movement to surpass the ABO? Why is it surprise that a group that has existed since 1916 and a founding member of the ABMS has more ophthalmologist than a board that was created in 1997 and does not have ABMS recognition? (Your provided source does not even mention a number of ophthalmologist from the ABO) If the reader is not familiar with the ABMS then the reader can click the wikilink for it. Mentioning the AMA in the way that you did suggest that it also did not recognize the board even though that is not what they do. Regarding a former employer's praise, well are you suggesting every employer has nothing to say but good things about ex-employees? Certainly if Paul was a poor doctor, he would not have become a business partner right? Given that Paul has his own office, I thought mentioning medical privileges is noteworthy. Not every doctor that works independent has them. I do not see how a medical practices lack of noteworthiness means we should omit it. It is not like we are creating a separate article for them. Truthsort (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Too busy to write up anything long, but Dezastru is basically right. MilesMoney (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage

Howdy- @MilesMoney: changed some content on the page that is inconsistent to the source. The sources state:

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

AND

PAUL: You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

So, keep the content? PrairieKid (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as it violates BLP. See below. MilesMoney (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Here are the two versions:

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

and

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

Looking at our sources, it appears that the first version is inaccurate and violates WP:BLP.

I'll explain by example. Let's say I tell you that I personally oppose abortion. It would be entirely consistent for me to say that, despite this, I support a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion.

That's what it sounds like when we say Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage. But it's not accurate; he supports laws against same-sex marriage. He wants these laws to be at the state level, not the federal level, due to his general opposition to the power of federal government. But his opposition manifests itself in endorsing laws, so it's not just personal. He doesn't neutrally want the states to decide, he wants the states to decide to make same-sex marriage illegal.

The first version is therefore inaccurate and we can't keep it. This applies for identical material in Political positions of Rand Paul. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please do not make new sections for topics already being discussed. You're familiar with TPs (over half of your edits are on TPs), and should no this. Second, Paul states later in the source that he supports states doing whatever they want. Some states (like Kentucky) support one thing, some support another. And that is all fine and dandy. PrairieKid (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We both wrote in parallel, not seeing the other's post.

In any case, Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. This means he is legally opposed, not personally opposed. You are violating WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is from the NYT.

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

I think this is pretty clear, the edit by PrairieKid most closely follows the source, the edit proposed by MM is a violation of Original Research. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that he doesn't want federal laws about same-sex marriage, whether pro or con. It's just as clear that he wants state laws against same-sex marriage, which means that his opposition is legal, not personal. Please make an argument whose conclusion is relevant to the content of this article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From Fox, the other source in that section.

PAUL: You know, I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sounds pretty personal to me since he said "I do believe in traditional marriage". I don't know why you feel the need to try and change what people actually say. Please make an argument that is relevant to the sources. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained above what personal opposition it. Your own quote shows that he is legally opposed to it in Kentucky. This means that it is not personal opposition, so you are supporting the violation of BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example, this article correctly states that he is personally but not legally opposed to MJ. This is how the distinction is made in our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That article is a summary of the Fox source and does not support your POV. Why do you feel the need to change the words of a living person? Your reasoning here only strengthens my argument regarding Bernstein. I find it most ironic that you say using the actual words of Paul is a violation of BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a personal opposition leads to endorsing laws. When you can do that, you will have my attention. Until then... MilesMoney (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are past the point of WP:HEAR. We have two sources which clearly state Paul's position, your attempt to change or modify that statement is disruptive and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember when I asked you to explain how personal opposition leads to endorsing laws? Remember when you didn't? Exactly. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to try and explain or modify the opinions or statements of a BLP. Remember when I said just say what he said? Remember when you ignored that and gave your interpretation of what he said? Arzel (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on all counts. We are here to accurately summarize the statements of Rand Paul. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy in my summary. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, time to give up. I'm sorry. Consensus (and the facts) are not on your side. PrairieKid (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to give up, you're free to. However, neither of you has pointed out any inaccuracy in my summary, so I see no reason to stop. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are familiar with WP:TE. That is one reason to stop, perhaps. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit has us reporting that "Paul does not support same-sex marriage". In fact, if you follow the related WP:BLPN thread, you'll see that it quotes the New York Times as saying:

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, which is a lot stronger than not supporting it. Amazingly, we went from sugar-coating all the way to whitewashing. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Give it a break; whitewashing? Support is an antonym of Oppose. To "not support" something is the same as to "oppose" that thing. That said, since the source says oppose, we should use the wording of the source. I'll let someone else make the change so that it does not appear to be edit-warring. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the wording, it's the concept.

You can oppose, support or remain neutral. If you don't support, you could either be opposing or remaining neutral. But we know that he actively opposes, so suggesting neutrality is inaccurate.

It is not edit-warring to make a change in agreement with consensus. Contrast this with the edit we're talking about, which was made by someone who hasn't discussed it before or after. MilesMoney (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just merged this section, which was headed "Massive understatement" and began with MilesMoney's message of 06:31, 27 October 2013. There was no need to start a new section about the same subject matter within 24 hours of a prior section being opened. The only possible purpose was to enable a point-y/drama-laden entry in the table of contents. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Sink, Justin (April 23, 2013). "Rand Paul would have supported drone use in hunt for marathon bomber". The Hill. Retrieved April 23, 2013.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• GA-Class Kentucky articles
• Mid-importance Kentucky articles
• WikiProject Kentucky articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles