The "About Ron Paul" Section
I am removing this section because right now it only contains two quotes that have nothing to do with him. The first quote doesn't mention him at all, and it may be a response to something he'd said, but it seems more suited for the Chris Mathews page than here. The second quote mentions Ron Paul's name, but is more about Giuliani than anything. It also isn't pithy enough to be included, in my opinion. --Teabeard 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Phew, I added it just yesterday. You should check the page history and other wikiquote pages with 'about' section first. In general you should contribute by adding interesting content and see how it develops, instead of censoring stuff. I agree that if someone adds boring stuff then it's better to delete it, but that's not the case here. "Having nothing to do with him" just goes to show how ignorant your action was. You even explicity say that you didn't bother to check the context provided by the links ("it may be a response"). iddo999 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You've added many great quotes to this page, but in my opinion those two quotes need work. In the case of the first quote, I think the context should be included with it. A reader should not be required to follow an external link to get the context. I don't have much of a problem with this quote as with the next one...
The Joe Klein quote also lacks context. But in addition, it lacks all pithiness. Why is it relevant for this page to include a quote about Giuliani having a good time during the debate? This page is supposed to be about Ron Paul, not about Giuliani. I'll admit I didn't follow the external link for it, but if that site includes more to that quote that is actually about Ron Paul instead of Giuliani (that is actually pithy), then I don't object to it being re-added with the necessary context. But as it stands, what good is it? I just don't think every passing mention of another person's name justifies its inclusion on wikiquote.
I was probably hasty in removing that section, but I stand by my criticism. The first quote needs context, but this other one, I think, is beyond hope. --Teabeard 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Saying that Rudy Giuliani has reduced Ron Paul to history is not pithy?? Come on... iddo999 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not pithy because he doesn't elaborate on why. It was his opinion, but he fails to justify it. Additionally, according to Paul's Wikipedia article, Paul's popularity has only gone up since that debate. For the quote to be pithy he needs to explain why Paul is history rather than just saying that he is. Do you see what I'm saying? If we are going to start including every time Paul's name is mentioned on this page then I'm sure we can add thousands of entries, but why? Only pithy quotes are worth remembering. --Teabeard 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your standards ("fails to justify it") are way too high. Time Magazine selected the clowns for its editorial board, not me:) We cannot censor content by notable clowns that don't make any sense, as it might lead to endless disputes regarding what exactly can be included. Therefore we use notability as the general standard. Also, it shouldn't be our objective to censor "the herd of independent minds", because they influence the world, and wikiquote should reflect that. To give just one other example, this page that I'm working on will have to be deleted because almost no content will remain there in case we apply the "fails to justify it" standard. Anyway, I now expanded the context on why Ron Paul was 'reduced to history', though unfortunately I acknowledge that it still doesn't meet your pithiness standards. But maybe you should look at the bright side too, which is, when you contrast Joe Klein with the quote by Saul Anuzis that I (subsequently) added, it makes Joe Klein sound even more insane (and such contrasts are my original motivation for adding quotes that don't make sense, as mentioned here). iddo999 13:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think much sanity comes from mainstream media pundits, but that wasn't my objection to it. My objection was that in the quote (before you expanded it) he was just dismissing Paul as now being irrelevant without offering any explanation. Of course, now that you've expanded it it is much better and I don't object to it as it now has meat to it.
BTW, there are some good quotes within the Wikipedia article itself that were about Paul, including one by a former CIA analyst which I have just added. There are some more, though, but I may get to those later. --Teabeard 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of substance, I don't see much difference before and after expanding that quote. Before it's that Ron Paul was reduced to history. After it's that Ron Paul was reduced to history due to the weird thing that he said. In comparison, Chris Matthews at least tried to offer an explanation, but his claim regarding the timeline of the skirmishes in Iraq is false (mentioned in the fair.org link), and the framework of his argument (if someone dislikes me then it's impossible for me to create other reasons that would cause him to dislike me even more) is moronic anyway.
With regard to adding more quotes, that would be welcome of course. BTW it seems to me that one of the best ways to improve this page is to try to source some of the quotes in the unsourced section. iddo999 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe wikiquote shouldn't permit quotations that may contradict what the person in question actually said. Nor should there be quotes that are clearly arguments against what Ron Paul has said. Wikiquote isn't a site for debate, its a site for facts, and for educating people on what the person stood for. Having remarks that are misinterpretations on something someone has said is only going to confuse people and/or give the wrong idea about what the person meant. These contradictive quotes shouldnt be permitted, because this page isn't for debates, and therefore quotes shouldnt be put up that are in themselves, a debate.
- In my recent revert of deletions of material critical of Paul, I did notice that there were a couple that aren't actually about Paul, and are merely responses to him within a debate and should be removed, but the page as a whole was a mess and I thought I might try to sort the whole thing into proper chronological sequence, rather than the extensive use of editorial "subject headings" which I think most regular editors here loathe. I simply ended up not having the time to attend to it all, and as I do not expect to have the time to do so anytime soon, I will remove the couple that I had noticed now; but it is an established policy here that all pages on people can have a section open to all quotations by other notables about them, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. ~ Kalki 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide whether quotes contradict or misinterpret what Ron Paul said, and then censor the ones that don't pass the threshold (as determined by you). In the example of the quote by John McCain that you deleted, unlike you he was right there on the podium next to Ron Paul, and obviously in John McCain's opinion his response accurately represents Ron Paul's arguments ("we brought on this conflict" in John McCain's words). I totally agree with you that wikiquote's objective should be "educating people on what the person stood for", and so I completely disagree with you when you say that "remarks that are misinterpretations on something someone has said is only going to confuse people". I've been collecting quotes by Ron Paul that should give people who come across this page an accurate understanding of his positions on the issues, and if they also choose to look at the 'about' section, they can decide for themselves whether what appears there is an accurate representation or whether the person who said it is a clown, instead of having you protect them via censorship. And anyway censorship is totally self-defeating, because people see ridiculous distortions in the mainstream media (which you're not powerful enough to censor) all the time, so at least when they come here they should be able to easily compare. iddo999 09:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I only now noticed your edit summary ("remove two comments on issues from a Republican debate that are not actually about Ron Paul"). Those two comments are about Ron Paul, you can watch/read the debate and tv shows that followed (at the links) and see. I already had this discussion with Teabeard above. iddo999 09:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You are perhaps confusing some of M3shuggah's (previously unsigned) comments with my own. I actually have very little interest in working on this page, and initially simply reverted a massive deletion of unfavorable-to-Paul quotes by M3shuggah. The quotes I then conceded should probably be removed were only very tangentially about Ron Paul, and seemed primarily about the speaker's particular political posturing and framing of the issues being discussed, and not on Ron Paul himself:
- I thought Mayor Giuliani's intercession there was appropriate, and frankly, very, very excellent. I really appreciated it. Because we should never, never believe that we brought on this conflict. This is an evil force that is trying to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. And this is a transcendent struggle. That's why I want to be president of the United States.
This is McCain making sure everyone knows he agrees with Giuliani in his retort to Paul, that we are fighting an evil force, and that he wants to be president himself, but can hardly be classified as a quotation about Paul himself.
- You can't say it's because we put troops in Iraq, over the no-fly zone, because they tried to blow up that same building back in '93, before all these skirmishes over the no-fly zone. You can't say that particular argument.
This quote as it exists is presented without clear context, requiring a bit of background knowledge, surmisal or research to have a definite idea of what is even being discussed, and though it is arguably a polemical retort to Paul's views, as quoted it is a pretty hard-to-decipher specimen, and I see no particular good reason for keeping it as it stands.
In passing, on the section heading, I also much prefer the standard heading "Quotes about So-and-so" rather than simple "About So-and-so" as a further clarification to newer visitors that we are not are not seeking facts, user opinions or anecdotes about a person, but quotes by notable people about them. I believe it also should probably be organized by name of the quoted person (and then chronologically as related to that person). As the page now stands the quotes about Paul are arranged chronologically, without regard to author, and the main body of quotes by him are presented out of the standard chronological sequence by editor chosen subjects. I might conceivably get around to cleaning up the page within the next week, but have many other priorities. ~ Kalki 10:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right, I did confuse M3shuggah (which means "crazy" in Hebrew, btw) and your comments, apologies. So my first reply about misinterpreted/contradictive quotes is directed at him.
- I disagree that those two quotes are not about Ron Paul, he's clearly the subject of those quotes, and if people seek further context they can look at the links. I don't have a strong opinion regarding "quotes about" vs. "about" section title, but I didn't actually understand why "about" isn't clear enough? Maybe we should decide on a policy and add it to the guidelines? Regarding sorting by subjects vs. chronological order, I suppose that when there many quotes it benefits the reader that it's divided by subjects and each subject is arranged chronologically. Maybe raise the issue in village pump to decide on a guideline? iddo999 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I still agree some of these quotes are only tangently connected to Ron Paul or anything he had said. This is a page for Ron Paul quotations and not a platform for other candidates and their supporters to proselytize. Their quotes should be placed on their respective quote pages.
If the quotes are directly about Ron Paul, then yeah they can go here. If they're about something Ron Paul said, then maybe. But if they are just stating the position of Paul's opponents and don't even mention Ron Paul's name, then why should they be here? I think there is also a rule that quotes have to be pithy.
This is very unfair, because I don't see Guliani or McCain's quote pages used as a platform for rival candidates in such a way. Criticism of Ron Paul? Fine. But to have a quote that ignores him and is just prosletyzing for McCain or Guliani? That's not acceptable in my opinion. No one would tolerate these tangent quotes on the quote page of a mainstream media backed candidate. --Teabeard 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no particular interest in Giuliani or McCain, so I didn't edit their pages. The fact that their pages contain less 'about' quotes shouldn't mean that quotes have to be deleted on the Ron Paul page. That's twisted logic. Instead, if people care about Giuliani or McCain, they should add stuff to their pages. That's how the wiki process works. And again, imho Ron Paul is clearly and directly the subject of those quotes. If his name is mentioned in the question to which the quote is a reply, that's fine. If it bothers you so much then you can delete the last part of McCain's reply, which isn't part of the direct response. But you were the one who originally complained about missing context, so it'd be a little impolite of you towards McCain... iddo999 08:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"A the lot of people think like you, I dare not say I‘m one of them." - Chris Mathews
The about section is getting rather long. Do we really need quotes like the above to be documented and kept for posterity? I don't see the value in keeping that on any page, or in any form. It's just not something that's quote worthy... but of course that's my subjective opinion. Same with quite a few of the other ones. I mean, who cares? Not everything someone spews out of their mouth is cogent enough that it should be saved. When you flood the page with crap like that it detracts from the intelligent quotes.
- Per your request, in order to uplift the section intelligence-wise, I now added the best quote ever, by Rush Limbaugh. Enjoy... (no need to send me flowers:-). iddo999 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the quote by Mona Charen, about Paul believing the 9/11 was an inside job, because it is taken out of context. In the cited article, it clearly refers to the beliefs of Alex Jones, not Paul. Also, Paul has renounced this viewpoint as absurd on several occasions. --Spectre 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, it's my mistake. 1000 apologies. iddo999 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Embarassment of Riches
In the past two years, this page has been flooded with quotations, as Paul has been flooded with well-deserved support.
Unfortunately, more is not better. This page is twice the size of Mark Twain's, three times the size of Ben Franklin's. Those are two of the most-quoted men in history, and deserving of it because of the quality of their rhetoric, the pithy appropriateness of the quotations, themselves.
Paul's quotations on here are not only greater in number, but also lower in quality. Not because there's anything wrong with his message, but because the actual wording of many of them is just not as good. Essentially, people are just finding paragraphs here and there online where he makes some point they care about, and posting them.
The result is a massive, tangled, boring mess that really does the cause of liberty (not to mention the goal of wikiquote as great source of quotations) no good at all.
If I had my druthers, many of the most boring and tedious quotations would be removed, to make a lean, tight, useful page the way so many other great defenders of liberty have. But, at the very least, this page needs to somehow be organized/formatted to be more readable and useful. Kazvorpal 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I second that. This page is overwhelming. 22.214.171.124 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- My biggest dream is a world, in which concepts such as 'race' or 'origin' are a thing of the past. A world in which bigotry, racial hatred and contemp for others based on nothing more than the color of their skin is wiped out from the face of this planet. Working towards this goal should be the highest priority of todays politicians. It must be achieved - by force, if necessary
- Speech in the House of Representatives, October 12, 1996
- Failed verification: Ron Paul was not a member of Congress that year, and the congressional record does not contain this remark. ~ Ningauble 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speech in the House of Representatives, October 12, 1996