`   OK.  Why do I believe Paul's Darfur policy is important enough for inclusion?   Precisely for the issues that were fudged by your comparison to Taiwan:  1) The issue of ``non interventionism`` is central to Paul's campaign.  Paul's actions with respect to Darfur go to his definition of ``intervention`` including humanitarian aid.  This broad definition is interesting to those trying to parse out ``non-interventionism`` as opposed to isolationism and does not appear elsewhere in the article.  2) This deals with real world acts by Paul that could have prevented aid to millions of people in Sudan, were he successful.  3) The issue of Darfur, although under the radar now, would likely arise as a major issue should Paul be nominated, and WILL likely be an issue regardless (partially because of #4).  AND 4) Senator Clinton played a huge role on the bill that Paul opposed, and is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, as you must know.  So this is an instance where they have already debated, as it were.  Enough reasons for inclusion?  Is the fact that I'm not neutral about Darfur a disqualification from editing on the subject?  That would be a sad distortion of objectivity, and would exclude most sentient beings who know about the subject.  What's happening there is terrible, not ``allegedly`` terrible as you would have it.  How can one be indifferent to such an important issue?   `