Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Calling conservative organizations conservative

In this edit, two references to "conservative" were mistakenly removed.

The National Review openly self-identifies as conservative[29] and Empower America was openly conservative before it merged with the openly conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy to create the openly conservative FreedomWorks[30]. There is no doubt that these organizations are conservative.

I'm not going to restore this because it would lead to the appearance of edit-warring, but I believe that the citations above are more than an adequate basis for doing so. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They were removed because they were not verifiable via the reliable sources provided. The press release you added does not mention Ryan as a speech writer for the organization and thus violates WP:SYN and has been removed. Using your "sourcing" argument you could make nonsensical sentences using a mis-mash of unrelated sources. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that you have any understanding of WP:SYN. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use sources not referring to Ryan to further editorialize an organization out of it's original context stated in a source that does mention Ryan. Just stating the organization's name is presenting it from a NPOV which is what Wikipedia prefers. This is not the page to discuss these organization's political positions, this page is about Ryan. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to actually read the cited source. It says:

Ryan got his first introduction to movement conservatism when Hart handed him an issue of National Review. “Take this magazine—I think you’ll like it,” he said.

In short, the source explicitly identified the National Review as being associated with movement conservatism, the very fact you keep edit-warring to remove. Now apologize and put it back. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, as for Empower America, the NY Times writes:[31]

A few months after Mr. Kasten lost his seat, Mr. Ryan went to work for Empower America, a conservative advocacy group that was founded by Mr. Kemp; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations under President Reagan; and William J. Bennett, a former education secretary in Mr. Reagan’s administration.

Once again, it's clearly identified as conservative, which is the word you edit-warred to remove. You can put that back, too. Forget about the apology; I don't really need to hear it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The current sources on the page did not include the implied language that was removed. A NPOV would just mention the organization regardless. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see that you're conceding that the sources I quoted support calling both organizations "conservative". Good. However, contrary to what you said, at least one of these sources was already on the page, a fact I just made quite clear. As such, I take this to be a face-saving lie on your part.

Unfortunately, having conceded your original point, you now bring up a new one that's even less convincing. There is nothing POV about briefly mentioning that these are conservative, and in fact, our sources consider it important to put them in this context. In short, you're grasping at straws.

Is there some reason you want to remove "conservative" from this article? Do you think people don't already know that he's conservative? Are you just going to come up with another excuse now that I've shot down the ones you've tried so far? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't add every word that every source has ever reported. We would quickly run out of diskspace. In between what must be included and what must be excluded is editorial judgment arrived at by consensus. You have already been told this. Have you forgotten?

That said, I am not convinced that the orgs should be labelled as "conservative." Why not "American"? Why not "non-profit"? I see no reason why the reader can't follow the link to obtain more information. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I conceded nothing to the edits I made based on the sources on the page when I made them. You are now attempting to argue as if the NYT source was always there in the page, it was not. You added a press release from Freedom Works which did not mention Ryan to make this claim. You are now personally attacking me as lying which is both unnecessary and false. From a NPOV standpoint the article will read less biased if all such organization descriptions are removed - conservative or liberal. There is no need for these labels if a Wikipedia page exits to describe the organization. It seems clear based on your arguments that you wish to inject a POV that Ryan is conservative by adding labels to these organizations. Wikipedia is not the place for your POV. Regardless it is quite clear Ryan is a conservative and holds conservative views, I do not see this as a contentious issue. None of these edits on my part were done with any other intent than presenting a NPOV. I agree with Lionel's arguments. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So we've dispatched claims that it's unsourced, synth and POV, and now you're trying for "editorial judgement". Well, the editors who put the words in judged them to be appropriate and so do I. If for some reason JS does not, it's up to him to make his case here, as opposed to edit-warring or tossing out spurious excuses. The same applies to you: all you've offered so far is a slippery slope argument that refutes itself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I made the edits they were unsourced and had synth issues, please don't misreprent the argument in attempts to rewrite history. There are still NPOV concerns. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me help: the two orgs should be labeled conservative because it's not obvious from their names and it's relevant to his career. Now, if you can come up with a good counterargument based on editorial judgement, I would be glad to hear it. If you don't, then I guess it'll be clear that the consensus is to restore these pair of words. Oh, and as for space, I'm pretty sure this conversation takes up a lot more room that the word "conservative" twice, right? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively, I'm with Still-24, on this issue. It's relevant in context, and adequately sourced. If not mentioned in the particular sources used to connect Ryan to them, it may be WP:SYNTH, but it's not really disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty crazy. The whole mission of National Review is that it's a conservative magazine. The whole point of Empower America is to promote conservative policies. The most important thing to be said of either of these institutions is that they are conservative. And the disk space argument is complete nonsense. john k (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be labeling and should be avoided. Try changing it around by saying, "The National Review, know for it's conservative stance." That should satisfy the guidelines.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the guideline. The guidelines discourage the use of contentious or pejorative labels (e.g., "extremist"); they don't discourage the use of labels generally. Using the adjective "conservative" to describe the National Review is certainly not contentious because that magazine is in fact conservative, and nobody would contend otherwise. Moreover, "conservative" isn't a pejorative. Neutrality^talk 18:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Now define "Contentious". What is contentious and what is not, that is the question. Wouldn't the fact that this thread is even opened and there is a current discussion about it, be an example that it is, at least in part, contentious?--JOJ ^Hutton 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Neutrality. "Conservative" is a descriptive term, but not a pejorative one. Mesconsing (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A label is something others put on something, while a self definition is open to be used in the narrative of the prose when mentioning the magazine/site. Here is their own Press kit:National Review Media Kit they describe themselves as "America’s most widely read and influential magazine and website for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion." It is fair to call the National Review "Conservative" without either labeling or using it as a pejorative.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading over the conversation, it's my impression that there is a consensus in favor of the inclusion of "conservative" in these two cases. This is based, not only on the raw number of editors, but on which ones are convincingly referring to relevant policy as opposed to merely WP:STONEWALLing. Nonetheless, given how contentious this article is, I'm not going to edit the word back in right now, although I wouldn't object to anyone else doing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Better to let an uninvolved editor make that determination.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...no Jojhutton. Consensus determines inclusion or exclusion of material. As such, an unenvolved editor is NOT needed to make the change. Any contributing editor may re-add the content, however it is always best to give at least 24 hrs for the community to see the post and weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm,,,I know how to edit Wikipedia. I also know that in situations like this, it's better to allow someone uninvolved, such as an admin, to determine consensus, because looking at the discussion, I disagree that consensus has been reached.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As an (involved) admin, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to recognize the consensus. I recall an argument about what constitutes consensus which led to an ArbComm ruling. There was certainly a dispute as to what consensus was in the MOSDATE archives, resulting from 4 or 6 malformed RfCs. (I still don't agree with the ArbComm-determined "consensus", but, unlike a few other editors, I wasn't blocked for disagreeing with the "consensus".) I don't think it's that bad, here, but there appears to be a potential disagreement as to the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing for an admin to intervene here on and disagree that any type of control is needed yet. No need for anyone to begin telling other editors not to include material, BUT if you feel more time is needed to form consensus before any changes I agree with that. However, I see no reason to begin second guessing that editors here cannot work this out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CCC, so I don't think we need admin intervention here. I'm fine with giving this a bit more time, but I'm not seeing anything mentioned that indicates a policy-based consensus to exclude the c-word. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As yet, no policy based reasoning has been given but many have expressed concerns over the perceptions such a description may have for whatever reason. While this may or may not be something everyone agrees with, it certainly can and has been the basis for choices editors make in deciding for inclusion or exclusion of material in many articles. If the outcome is "no consensus" then no change is made.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments that were of concerns (falsely) relating to my personal motivation to effectively "hide" that the organizations are conservative is why they should be excluded as it appears your motivation is to inject your POV into the page. A NPOV would just be to state any organization (conservative, liberal or other) without descriptors if a Wikipedia page exists for it. Therefore there is no bias. The existence of a Wikilink to the organization's page disputes any accusations of "hiding" anything about them. As has been pointed out an organization can be presented from a biased POV depending on what descriptors are used, I feel it is best to leave these all out and just state the organization. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as no consensus. Unlikely that any consensus will develop at the present time. Safiel (talk)

---

Should the descripter "Conservative" be used to describe The National Review in prose if not mentioned in the reference.

Extended content

(suggest this poll be given a minimum of 48 hrs, the time set for auto archiving with no posts) Support - This is not controversial. The publication is self described as such, known as such and the mention in this instance does not appear to represent a pejorative.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Support - The paper self-identifies as conservative and this fact is highly relevant. It's a single, non-pejorative word, so there's no room to claim it's somehow undue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Support - The magazine describes itself as "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture." The term is obviously accurate and self-professed. There's no good reason not to use it. Mesconsing (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Support - The magazine self-describes this way in its media kit. Not everybody is up on politics like some Wikipedia editors. It is much more helpful to explain this to readers. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - Organizations and publications should be presented without descriptors to represent a NPOV. Anyone wishing to learn more about the magazine can click on the Wikilink. Paul Ryan's page is not the place to describe a magazine's political position. This is injecting the POV of those who support it. Wikipedia's purpose is to present articles from a NPOV regardless of the opinion of the majority and should not be a consensus vote but a violation of NPOV and if it is not mentioned in the reference also a violation of WP:NOR. I oppose these descriptors regardless of the political affiliation (conservative, liberal or other) even if they are mentioned this way in the reference as they POV bias the page. Once this starts there is no end to this as descriptors can be used to bias in any political direction every organization and publication on the page. Support of this vote is a rejection of NPOV and support for original research on Wikipedia. I recommend administrators review this decision due to the core principles of Wikipedia guidelines that it violates. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) The truth is incapable of being POV. It's a simple fact that this paper is conservative. We should state these facts because our readers benefit from it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) So I can add, "...that included articles by Nobel Prize Winning Economists" or "...that included articles by an Anarcho-Capitalist" or "...that attacked Ayn Rand" ...clearly the "truth" is not a POV. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Add? You remove. You removed this part because you claimed there was no support. Now you admit there's support but you're against it for yet another set of reasons. I see a pattern here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I never admitted there was support for this in the source text as it is not described as anything but the "national review". I am making two separate arguments. My point here was that you can add any number of "truths" to something to POV bias it. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not really concerned with what you've admitted. In any case, you've made a basic logical error. Even if we were to grant that adding truths could add POV bias, it doesn't mean that you've made any case here to show that there's bias involved here. If anything, the organization freely admits to being conservative, so the bias would be in hiding this fact. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Please do not apply positions to me that I never stated. I have made no such logical error as nothing could be more neutral than just stating the publication without descriptors. The publication freely admits to many things that does not mean it is appropriate anywhere the magazine is mentioned on Wikipedia, details are what the wikilink is for. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose: no policy requires that we label an organization conservative"--or "liberal" for that matter. We rarely see liberal entities referred to as "the liberal insert name." No reason to do it in this case.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The reason to do it is that working for a conservative paper is different than just working for a paper, and not all of our readers are familiar with the NR. I'm sure Ryan's not ashamed that the NR is conservative, so there's no reason to hide this fact. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, although the editors working on this article may be familiar with the National Review, I'm sure that at least 75% of the general public has never heard of it. So that's useful information for them to have in evaluating the statements made in that publication. Mesconsing (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose: Should we also label Krugman a liberal, since he calls himself one and writes the "Conscience of a Liberal" blog? Would we be "hiding" this valuable information from the reader, even as Krugman declares Ryan's budget a "sham"? Krugman's not "ashamed" of his liberalism, after all. (I'm being sarcastic).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Support Yes, it is fine to call a publication "conservative" when it is widely recognized -including by itself - as such. That does not mean, however, that we should be making generalizations about the "liberal media". Tvoz/talk 07:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Who made generalizations about the "liberal media"? Krugman is widely recognized--including by himself--as a liberal. Should we mention that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) That would perhaps apply to his political writing, but not to his economics. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC) He doesn't distinguish between his political writing and his economics writing. Why should we? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I would suggest that economic writing about current events unavoidably has political ramifications. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) The original suggestion was to wait 48 hours. I believe we've reached that duration. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Yes it was a suggestion as a minimum. And JS makes the strongest argument of the lot. So strong in fact that if consensus is to include I suspect we will immediately have an RfC on our hands.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  21:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I will note that you personally believe that JS' argument is strong. I do not; it appears to have already been refuted. If you want to threaten an RFC, I'm going to have to suggest that waiting another month to insert the word "conservative" is silly, so we'll insert the word and then you can launch your RFC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You not agreeing with me is not a refutation of my argument. If you insert the word it will be removed in violation of NPOV and WP:NOR. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, I'm sure it'll be removed, but it has nothing to do with these policies. It'll just be edit-warring. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Looks like this poll has been inactive for a couple of days... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC) If only some sources are listed with "bias-warning" words like 'liberal' and 'conservative', this could create a NPOV problem. And listing them all in that way will create even larger discussion as editors wrestle with what words to use to describe each source (not to mention potentially unwieldy text). I'd urge a bit of horse-trading. Krugman, for example, is clearly liberal. That might be a fair "trade". Not labeling can be a problem, but over labeling (or one-sided labeling) can be a bigger one. Rather than voting your way into a result, I'd urge a reasonable compromise. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) There's some principle underlying the choice. Pointing out that the NR is conservative isn't an attempt to knock it or praise it, but rather to show how Ryan worked for a paper that matched his political beliefs. It adds insight to his biography. While Krugman is definitely a liberal, he's a Nobel-winning economist first, so his opinions on economic plans relate to his expertise, not his political views. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Given that I'll support this descriptor. But I'd urge care in using such descriptors in general. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is just a game of "Let's start labeling everyone "Conservative" or "Liberal"". Honestly, it would create a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND fighting over labels everywhere else. Now readers from the outside needs to be able to read the Wikipedia and form their own conclusions without us telling them "Just to save you the hassle, they're (Conservatives/Liberals)". Meanwhile the definition of liberal and conservative will always vary and it is very ambiguous. For example, I view myself as liberal but liberal on what? How are you to know based on my labeling what am I liberal on? So we don't need to be getting into the labeling game. ViriiK (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Support. I cannot see how this simple adjective can be controversial when it tells the reader a widely known truth. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC) If it is wildely known that why does it need to be included? That is a lot like saying that water is wet, for those that don't know what water is. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Support Forgive my obtuseness, but why is this even debated, considering, Wikipedia already has these: The Heritage Foundation:"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank..." Center for American Progress:"The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization" FreedomWorks: "FreedomWorks is a conservative non-profit organization..." National Review "describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservativeConservatism in the United States news, commentary, and opinion." Health insurance mandate: "An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation" Artur Davis: "He also began writing a column for the conservative National Review." Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality: "Vice President for Communications at the conservative Family Research Council Genevieve Wood supported Santorum's remarks" Pat Toomey: "... the conservative American Conservative Union (ACU) has assigned Toomey..." --Misha Atreides (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - What an incredibly dumb suggestion and doesn't add anything to the article to begin with. As to the above, all of those, with the exception are think-tanks or organizations, not magazines. Should we start labeling individuals such as Paul Krugman as well, or perhaps start qualifying individuals by religion? Once you start this logically you get incredibly stupid and unneeded descriptions such '65-year old Mormon Massachusian anti-abortion/gay marriage/drug pro-gun/free trade Republican former governor Mitt Romney'. Why not include that if we are going to include political ideologies? Age, religion, location, association, views, and political status are all verifiable, important aspects of a person. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) @Toa Nidhiki Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there already hundreds, if not thousands, of people identified by their political affiliations in Wikipedia? Even in Ryan's page itself, we currently have this: "He often visited the office of libertarian professor Richard Hart". Moreover (I didn't noticed it earlier), but didn't this discussion initially involved FreedomWorks? I see now that the entry has been changed (?). "Ryan became a speechwriter for Empower America (now FreedomWorks), a conservative advocacy group" --Misha Atreides (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Sure, and I think that idea is incredibly stupid most of the time, as noted above. These sort of statements add nothing of real value and leave out other important aspects such as religion, age, and residency. It simply doesn't make any sense in most situations, except when discussing an opinion piece (in which case the POV is important) or reactions to an event from a various points of the political spectrum, in which case it is unnecessary to do so. In most cases, however, labeling a group according to political position doesn't add anything other than to try and qualify/disqualify the source to readers. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) How "incredibly stupid" it is depends on the context. For a politician, their political affiliation is significant. For an actor, not so much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Support - It's accurate to the way they describe themselves and how they tend to be described by others. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose The idea that everyone and everything must be labelled so that readers "get the point" is absurd. Labels should be used if and only if they add to the statement or claim being made in a clear manner, and that such a label can be supported by a reliable source. In the case presented, there is no reason to believe that the National Review is being used for a controversial claim for which the label would help the reader. If the reader is not being helped, then there is no reason to add labels. Collect (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose For all the good reasons given by Collect, Toa, Sir Lionel, TheTimes, ViriiK, Journal, and all the usual suspects. Let's avoid labelling—we don't label all the liberals. If, on the other hand, we have to use labels, then label everyone. --Kenatipo speak! 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Support Whether or not Krugman is liberal doesn't tell us anything about Ryan, the subject of this article. Whether or not organizations with which Ryan has affiliated himself with are, does. So the Krugman argument is immaterial. And that leaves us with the argument of bias. But it's in no way biased to associate Ryan with a philosophy that he openly and proudly embraces. I'm nearly an out-and-out Marxist, and yet "conservative" is a respectable philosophy; insofar as I believe that's what Ryan is, I'm likely to respect him more, not less. Homunq (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose It's not necessary. Anyone can click through and read about the National Review and make their own determinations about it. I don't recall seeing this type of adjective applied to political opinion magazines or writers when quoted or sourced in the past. —Torchiest talkedits 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC) May I politely suggest that you look at the links and quotes above, from Misha Atreides? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, those are good evidence that this standard is not being applied consistently. I note that The Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, FreedomWorks, and National Review are all articles for the organizations themselves. The next four examples (Health insurance mandate, Artur Davis, Rick Santorum, Pat Toomey) are all from articles in which the organization is described as conservative. Compare Tom Daschle, for example, described as "senior fellow at the Center for American Progress" twice in the article. —Torchiest talkedits 13:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Such labels if accurate and provided consistently can provide useful context. We'll know we're there when we always refer to the NYT as the "liberal-leaning newspaper New York Times" But that is never going to happen in an article situation like this, and so it is a slippery slope into a POV black hole. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC) If the NYT described itself as liberal and the article was about a liberal politician who worked there, then it would make sense to identify the NYT as liberal. Otherwise, your analogy doesn't work at all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Ignore this. It just clears the references from above.

Nobel prize-winning economist

There was an RfC about this that got archived into oblivion. As far as I can tell, the consensus was to include mention of "Nobel prize-winning", so that's what I'm going to restore. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I predict that someone will revert you rather quickly. :-) That being said, my understanding of policy is that if no consensus is achieved, then the previous consensus holds, and that is understood to be what was in the article before the dispute started. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding of policy as well, but you're likely quite correct in your prediction. I wonder if the right thing to do is to ask an admin to formally WP:CLOSE the RfC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is rather dishonest to try and claim consensus was reached on something that clearly was opposed that you were clearly aware of, --JournalScholar (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a consensus with a vote. With consensus, we don't just count heads, we filter out views that are ungrounded in policy. So, for example, a view based on the crazy idea that "Being a nobel winner is not a qualification of anything." would be laughed out instead of counted. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another good example of a view we have to disregard is based on the notion that "Here he's writing an op-ed about politics". That's incorrect; he's writing about economics, not politics. Economics is his field of expertise. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see you can just arbitrarily dismiss everyone that disagrees with you. That is rather convenient. Thankfully you have no such power. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are instances where a particular "support" or "oppose" may be diregarded, but I believe it is when they make a claim of "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" which usually carry no weight whatsoever (WP:TALKDONTREVERT).--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:CLOSE for some details on this. If an opinion is based on a falsehood, it should also be disregarded. For example, "We shouldn't mention Alabama in this article because it's not part of America". StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Teachable moment if nothing else, for those reading this: "[D]iscarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. "I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so..." StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll (resolved?)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be a strong enough consensus for oppose, that we can go ahead and close this poll. Safiel (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Should author, Paul Krugman be described with the additional information of his Nobel laureate status/title/honorific in Economic Sciences with his quote or criticism in the article?

Extended content

Weak Support Strong oppose - I can see this go either way but I am inclined to support oppose this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Support - Without mentioning his expertise, he mistakenly comes across as some clueless op-ed backseat driver. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Concur When Paul Krugman offers economic critiques a concise mention his accomplishments in economics such as describing him as a Nobel Laureate is germane considering a Nobel prize is one way an academic may qualify as notable. Mr Wave (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Nope Not done in other articles. Generally the bluelink is a clue to readers that Wikipedia has an article on the person. And the added information does not add weight to the person's political opinion columns. On politics, Krugman mwy well be a backseat driver - his work on economics for the Nobel Prize is not related to his opinions expressed in his political column. Collect (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC) His knowledge of economics, as testified to by the Nobel prize, is precisely why he has a column that allows him to criticize Ryan's economic plan. Economics is what he knows. He's not some columnist with an associate's in economics from a third-rate community college; he's a well-respected expert in his field, first and foremost. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) And his column is specifically an editorial column on politics -- for which he has no Nobel prize. I would like you to also note that the NYT Public Editor Daniel Okrent criticised him for his columns in the past as not being straight with his use of "facts." He is not an "expert" on politics, just an op-ed writer on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC) In the article he is being used for his economics opinion, and not for general politics. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I don't believe that for a second, and anyone that has been reading Krugman for the past few years would find that difficult to believe as well. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Citation needed. Your skepticism is not an argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) No Per many of the excellent reasons given by Collect. The objection raised by Still is a Strawman argument. Krugman is well known, people know who he is, to claim that the honoriffic is needed so as not to confuse his with a community college degree holder is quite the hyperbole. Additionally, with his blog "The mind of a consience liberal" (or something like that) he has gone from economic commentor to liberal opinionator. As Collect noted he has during the last few years been criticzed for his blurring of facts, he has even reached the point of going against basic economics in order to attack republican positions. It is really sad that he has let his politics so completely cloud his economic principles. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Yes. Dr. Krugman's article is the place to equivocate. Per Still-24-45-42-125. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Yes - Opinions vary on this subject, but when an opinion is given by a Nobel prize winner in Economics, that opinion carry more weight than the opinion of a blogger, or TV anchor. Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strong support - a. The term "Nobel Prize-winning" is used all the time in WP to describe commentators giving their opinions. Here are just a few examples: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. b. Every other expert in the article has his qualifications described. To intentionally leave Krugman out would be POV. c. Anyone who has read his column would know that it's largely about economics and the intersection of economics and politics. d. Krugman is being cited for his own opinion on an economic matter, not a political matter. e. Given the comments above, obviously his credibility is in question. The term is needed to demonstrate his expertise. -- Mesconsing (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) a. Food Security does not use the term for Krugman. How about all the times that Krugman is not cited as such? Most of those articles are pretty obscure with only the SA of 2008 being notable, and in that case appropriate. b. His qualification is not obmitted. Being a nobel winner is not a qualification of anything. c. They used to be, now they are almost purely politics. d. This is a political discussion, not an economic theory discussion. e. His credibility is not being questioned on the page, thus the puffery on the page is not needed. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) His recent opinion piece doesn't even discuss specific economic aspects of Ryan, it is nothing but political attacks. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) His 8/15 piece throws out tired DMC talking point that "canceling the expansion of coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which would mean lost insurance for tens of millions of Americans – thousands of whom would, in fact, die as a result." IE, people Ryan's plan kills people. Does this sound like economic theory or pure political attack? Arzel (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) It sounds like economic policy analysis to me. Policy analysis always includes an assessment of the effects, intended and unintended, of the policy being considered. Mesconsing (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Off-topic commentary The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Ha! You agree with the DNC Democratic talking points as an economic theory? There is no validity to this nonsense, all it does is expose your political point of view. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I never said I agreed or disagreed with anything. Unlike other editors, I am not in this for the politics. Please stop making personal attacks, please do not make false attributions, and please take your unwarranted assumptions elsewhere. Mesconsing (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose - These descriptors are only used to inflate the weight of this person's opinion and POV biases their claims away from a NPOV. And if this is not mentioned in the reference this also violates WP:NOR. Honorific titles have no place but the BLP of the person under discussion. Stating Krugman is an economist and columnist is appropriate and acceptable as a NPOV. Krugman did not receive a Nobel Prize for his criticism of Ryan's economic plans. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) No - If Krugman were talking about international trade, it might make sense. Here he's writing an op-ed about politics, not an academic paper in his area of expertise, so Nobel laureate doesn't belong. I'll go one further--it's not neutral and disinterested to allow Krugman to insult Ryan in his bio by calling his budget a "sham." This section needs to be rewritten if we even decide to keep it. Mforg (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC) No - Adding "Nobel laureate" gives Krugman's political opinions undue weight. And, for all the other reasons given by Collect, Arzel, JournalScientist and Mforg. (and because, for all their expertise, some laureates are correctly perceived to turn out to be clueless op-ed backseat drivers). --Kenatipo speak! 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Support Also, oppose mentioning he is a columnist since it doesn't contribute to his notability in a significant way. This is an international encyclopedia, him being a columnist means little outside the USA, him being a Nobel prize winning economist matters more. And the text he is being cited for is about economics, read it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose obviously Since this is an opinion piece and his Nobel award has no bearing whatsoever on the reference. If anything, it should say NYT columnist since it demonstrates he is giving his opinion or commentary on an issue. In the same fashion as Obama attacking Romney or Ryan. Should we change references of Obama to Nobel laureate President Obama? No, it doesn't belong. ViriiK (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose: there is no policy requiring that we mention the Nobel Prize. The only policy which could apply discourages the use of honorifics. Let's apply the policy that we have--it works fine.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Nobel prize isn't important in relation to the opinion piece and serves to 'prop up' Krugman's opinion rather than serve an encyclopedic purpose - the title could also clearly be interpreted as an honorific. We don't note that the Beatles are a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band on every page they are mentioned, nor do we note that Angelina Jolie has won an Academy Award in front of every comment she makes. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Kenatipo, and blue link. I can't even fathom why we are having this discussion in the first place.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  19:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I can't fathom why we're having this discussion either. It's seems so obvious that presenting someone's qualifications to comment on economic matters is a rational and reasonable thing to do. Mesconsing (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It might, if he were commenting on economic matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC) No Prefacing a comment by giving the commenter's background or titles/honorifics/awards is in effect making an argument on a WP page by putting two facts together. The arguments in a Krugman editorial should stand on their own, and if people want to check them out, the fact of a blue wikilink should be sufficient and appropriate and easy to note the prominence of a commenter. It is essentially saying; source x, who won debate a, now is commenting on debate z.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It's more like; source x, who is an expert in y, now is commenting on debate z (which is plainly about y). It explains why we're even quoting x. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose (I'm not using the # sign because the numbering is so messed up). To give some detail about Krugman adds legitimate information for the reader and improves the reader's ability to assess the quotation. Some readers would benefit from a mention of Krugman's Nobel prize and even a mention of his important published works and other details. Any such information, however, isn't directly relevant to the Ryan bio. On the other hand, just saying "Paul Krugman said this," even with a wikilink, is inadequate. We strike a balance by giving the reader summary information in this article and providing the wikilink for anyone who wants more. Calling Krugman "economist and columnist" is the best compromise summary -- "economist" states his area of expertise, "columnist" makes clear that he's not your run-of-the-mill economist. JamesMLane t c 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose unless "far-left" is also added, as that seems to be the real content of the column and his qualifications which are most relevant in context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Do you really think he's "far-left"? To quote Krugman on this, "Milton Friedman would be Far Left to the nutcases on the Far Right today." Anyhow, that's something we don't have reliable sources to support, which is why it's not stated in his BLP. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Krugman trying to redefine Friedman is rather laughable as Friedman considered himself closer to libertarians than anything else. Krugman's blog is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal" so labeling him a "liberal economist" would be accurate. I believe a NPOV is just "economist". --JournalScholar (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC) If being liberal were somehow relevant to this, I'd be fine with mentioning it, as it's veritably true. However, while there are many liberals, few are economics, and very, very few are Nobel-winning economics. Calling him liberal is about as useful as calling him white and male. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I do believe he's "far-left" (by US standards). And his statement about Milton Friedman is not part of his expertise and is demonstrably false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, you do believe it, and I believe that you believe it, but I don't believe it's true because it's not what our sources say. Sources matter, personal opinions, less so. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Persons should be IDed by their current or most notable job, with the magical blue link leading to other fun facts, as needed. (Drop the job and suddenly Admiral Billy Bob rankles.) Hcobb (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Neutral unless there is a specific precedent. The argument for mentioning the Nobel Prize is that it is relevant to the expertise of the person making the criticism (which seems clear to me despite the comments above; economics is a science and a Nobel Prize in the sciences indicates expertise in a way that awards outside the sciences usually do not). My argument against would be that the analysis isn't published academically. So I would want to know - has Krugman published this or a similar analysis in an academic journal? If so, we should cite that instead - or an peer-reviewed analysis by a different author. Or alternatively, if there is no mention in the literature can an argument be made that the Ryan plan falls under WP:FRINGE? (does that policy apply to economics?) But in any case: what is the opinion of economists as a whole of Ryan's plan? I don't know what the answer is, but the answer to this question is what should be in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Krugman is a great economist, but as noted, this honorific is besides the point when it comes to his criticism of Ryan's plan. His disagreement was not an objective analysis published in an economic journal. (In which case, mentioning his Nobel prize might hold some water) Rather, it was a political rant published on his blog where he calls conservatives "nutcases" and murderers. There is serious question where such a divisive, emotional attack should be mentioned in the article at all, but it's certainly not written in the same capacity as his Nobel-winning economic work. Thus, over-inflating his political opinions because of unrelated accomplishments in another field is wrong. (Believe it or not, Krugman did not win the Nobel Prize for his criticism of Ryan's plan or his views on conservatives. Rather it was for something completely and entirely different) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose This seems like an appeal to authority (specifically the authority of the committee who awarded him a prize). If you link to Paul Krugman's wikipedia article, readers can see for themselves all accolades attributed to him. He can stand on his own reputation without having his resume attached everywhere that he is quoted. Slowtalk (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, the committee that gave him this prize is an authority. It's not just a few random people in a room. As for his resume, we're talking about two words. In short, your comment seems to be out of touch with the facts of the matter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Whether the committee is an authority is debatable and completely outside the scope of this conversation. Appeals based on that authority contribute nothing to wikipedia. To illustrate my point, I posit this question: Would you ever preface a reference to Albert Einstein with the words "nobel laureate"? He won the award (in a real science called physics) but no one seems to mention it. If Krugman had a reputation as solid as Einstein's, there would be no need to try to bolster his reputation with an allusion to an award that may or may not be relevant to the subject of his comments therein cited. Slowtalk (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The committee is an authority, and WP:UNDUE requires us to accept this. Einstein is not parallel as he was famous for being a physicist. Krugman is well-known, but not famous, so there's value in pointing out his qualifications. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) That's a very creative interpretation of due weight. As I read it, the policy requires us to fairly represent his opinion, not to preface his opinion with his resume (as I said before). If we link to his article, then his qualifications are easily found for those who do not know him. If we are going to create a rule for who should have "nobel laureate" appended to their names, what is the line between well-known, and famous? This line of thinking seems to be quickly approaching ridiculous.Slowtalk (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I don't actually follow your argument. Are you saying that, so long as an article exists for a person, we shouldn't explain their relevance when mentioning them in another article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC) In short, yes. In my experience, wikipedia is very prolific in cross-linking the subjects of other articles rather than elaborating further about those subjects in the current article. We take it for granted that the reader has knowledge of the cross-linked subject, but the reader is free to follow the link if more information is desired. This keeps articles clean and (more importantly in my opinion) concise. Slowtalk (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for explaining. I'll simply note that what you describe is not Wikipedia policy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Whether it is outlined in a specific policy or not, it is the prevailing style, and it is a valid opinion when trying to reach consensus. Slowtalk (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Krugman's Nobel is in Trade theory and the comment in question is in Public policy, a field in which Krugman's qualifications are more or less the same as any well-published academic economist. Anyone familiar with the contributions for which he was awarded the Nobel price can see quite clear that they do not provide much insight into budget issues. →Yaniv256 wind roads 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose It is deceptive, leading the reader to believe that he is speaking as an expert and in that area. Choice of words indicates that he's actually speaking as a political opponent trying to score "hits", not analyze. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Just going to note that this conclusion is far from obvious: there's nothing about his choice of words that suggests any such thing. Since your !VOTE is based on a lack of understanding of the issues, I do not believe it will carry any weight in a WP:CLOSE. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) WOW! You seem to be positing that the close is a close call -- with only 6 supporting the puff and 17 opposing it, I would, in fact, posit that the WP:CONSENSUS is about as clear as found on any page ever. And I would note that the type of comment you just made is considered poor form in any RfC, and is generally ignored by any admin closing the discussion. Saying any editor simply does not "understand the issues" is a sure way to get marked as someone who desires the WP:TRUTH instead of WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I have to agree that it is really bad form to be telling people that their comment was effectively going to be ignored. While you have made clear what the standard closing practice is...I suggest you stop commenting in such a manner as you are certainly not going to be closing this RFC...being involved and all. You are also making it a matter that would now, almost by necessity, reqiure the closing of an admin--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Quite to the contrary, I am improving the quality of conversation by encouraging editors to explain their reasons in terms relevant to Wikipedia instead of simply expressing their personal preferences, which are flatly irrelevant. You are free to disagree, but I contend that you'd be mistaken. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC) This isn't a discussion its a consensus poll. "One loud voice" constantly interjecting itself is undue weight to your opinion and is very much a matter of putting down the stick and dealing with this horses corpse.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, and in a consensus poll, WP:CLOSE applies, which is why I'm gently reminding editors to explain their views so that we can build a consensus instead of expressing their preferences as if they were voting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Support - Paul Krugman has won both the John Bates Clark medal as well as the Nobel in economics. He has written on many diverse topics including economic slumps and liquidity traps. He is an expert on budget issues. LK (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Regular Strong Oppose per Collect, Mforg, et alia. Reasoning from analogy (even though it may not apply here), plenty of past Nobel laureates in many fields (chemistry comes to mind), have been absolute quacks outside of their areas of expertise, and, in one notable case, the only winner of two separate and unshared Nobel prizes became a quack even in his further ideas within his area of expertise (although he wrote a good introductory chemistry text). Winning the Nobel does not give a sacrosanct value to private speculation or opinion, but it does give a sacrosanct aura to them; this is obviously contrary to letting the facts speak for themselves, by, in essence, using the Nobel laureate status to elevate opinion to somewhere between the level of opinion and fact. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC) If we were quoting Krugman's opinion on botany, I might agree. However, he's actually speaking within the range of his expertise; economics. As such, your argument isn't so much wrong as irrelevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Seems like unnecessary puffery - what does his Nobel Prize have to do with his criticism of Ryan's budget? (Also, the Economics Nobel Prize isn't a real Nobel prize. There, I said it) "Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman" seems like the best way to identify him. john k (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, you said it, but you didn't explain it. Why do you say it's not "real"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC) See the article Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It's not technically a "Nobel Prize". I don't think this has anything to do with whether it should be listed, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I agree. The article says it's "an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics, generally regarded as one of the most prestigious awards for that field. Although not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, it is consistently identified with them." So John is technically correct, but not in a way that justifies his conclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Qualified Oppose: that he's an "economist" is clearly relevant, but his prizes (like his political leanings) have nothing to do with Ryan, the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunq (talk • contribs) 11:45, August 25, 2012 Opppose references to any awards such as Nobel Prize, but support calling him an economist. Using additional honorifics is WP:UNDUE. Save that stuff for Krugman's own article. —Torchiest talkedits 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The consensus on this seems clear, and it matches the status of the page: "Economist and columnist Paul Krugman...", with no mention of prizes. So I think this poll can close now. Homunq (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good Article Nomination

I'm pleased to announce that WikiProject Conservatism has assembled a crack team of editors to work toward promoting this article to GA. Currently Obama is FA, and Biden and Romney are GA. We would appreciate your cooperation in keeping instability to a minimum--at least until after the GAN closes, <smile>. Thanks! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello "Crack team" be sure and collaborate with major contributers and others. Do not be disapointed if the first attempt does not work. Keep trying if needed. You can also alert the other WikiProjects listed above to encourage a larger group of interested editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not concern yourself simply with improving the article, rather than trying to get a 'status'? -- Avanu (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Review has been closed, closing thread. Safiel (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Extended content

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Amadscientist, I recommend you withdraw as the reviewer. WP:GAN states that "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and the count tool identifies you as a top contributor to this article. —Eustress talk 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress talk 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress talk 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles only states "..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required.". It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "[Y]ou cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review. I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit [41]. That is NOT a significant amount.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Um, am I right in thinking that in the week before that seven day period you made 50 edits to the article? [42] Fayedizard (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC) No, actually probably less days and not 50 (Edit:that was exactly correct, yes) but that seems close going by the above information. However 7 days would be a reasonable amount of back look for the article itself, it's history for stablity, edit warring etc.. Some editors use even less days then that. As few as 3 days with no major edit warring and I haven't engaged in edit warring or disruptive behavior to warrent any concern. But lets look at it. From the history, 10 edits on the 12th. 13 edits on the 13th. 8 edits on the 14th. On August 16 I made 4 more edits that day. 10 edits on the 17th (that was a very high traffic day). 4 edits on the 18th. 2 on the 19th. 1 on the 25th.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) That looks like 53 total edits and 50 edits from the 12 to the 19th. So yes. Starting out with the greatest amount per day when I began and dwindling down to almost nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Amadscientist, thank you for doing this. We're lucky to have a reviewer at all: has anyone here made a GA nomination that languished for lack of reviewers? Wikipedia used to have an interminable backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer notes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since this particular review has been closed, closing the thread. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Extended content

The policy is actually pretty clear and I do not believe I am being unreasonable or endangering the integrity of the GAN review process. By guidelines: The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. [A]ny registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. The original concern raised included non-criteria such as talk page discussions and unfounded assumption of bad faith and a personal interpretation of "significant contributions" to it "prior" to the review. No specific, detailed definition exists to define what Significant is and "prior" is there for a reason, so that a reasonable amount of time could pass and still allow a contributor to review. I believe 7 days prior to the review with a single edit is NOT a significant contribution a clear week PRIOR. Before that my entire editing history on the article only amounts to 53 total edits. I have not edit warred or disrupted the page. I believe I am a neutral editor and a reasonable candidate to review this article as having previously reviewed biographies of a similar nature and have not held any bias towards any figure for any reason in any of these reviews. There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw. The nominator may withdraw the nomination, but has weighed in and believes "a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits". I concur. This could be a reasonable point of reference. 1 week-1 edit as minimum prior editing and no more than approximately 50 edits total in the article history to not be significant.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I personally have no opinion on whether you are biased. I can, however, say that your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over the meanings of "significant" and "prior" are red flags, and thus I have no confidence in you as a reviewer. Though your willingness is commendable and I suspect you'd do an excellent job, I still strongly believe you should step aside. I understand that it's harder to find someone to do the work if we eliminate those most interested, but that's the process that we have to live with (or formally change). Homunq (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ps. If someone else formally takes the title of reviewer, I would have no problem with them leaning on amadscientist to do much of the actual work, if that was what they wanted/decided to do. I am disapointed that I have lost your confidence over an issue you see as a red flag. I am correct in the "prior" having meaning of narrowing the "significance" but, that is to make the distinction between the reviewer's work during the review, as to make it clear the reviewer may contribute to the article to make changes themselves. It is not a designation of a period of time before the review, but the overall contribution of the reviewer. However, I do not feel 54 total edits is significant in this case. I cearly have backed away and edit count is not what this is about but, "Contribution". My overall contributions to the article before the review began are not significant. I am not an "involved" participant in what goes on the page and I am not engaged in a contentious discussion. I have not begun the review, even though I feel I have strongly demonstrated that I have not violated even the spirit of GAN process or the guideline. I am not refusing to step down. The discussion just hadn't persuaded me that I should withdraw voluntarily yet and I believe this should be given some time. The nominator has not objected and no one has actually even come forward, volunteering to take over the review. I realize this has become a concern. I am here to do a good faith review of the Paul Ryan article for Wikipedia. That's all. I will not start the review until this has been decided one way or another.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I've got to say that "prior" implies "anytime prior" not "recently prior" though I agree it could mean either in context. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Well, yes. If you're going to reply, at least read the post before yours when you click save.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Were you planning on getting this decided some way other than asking for folk's opinions? I supplied mine. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate. If you had another way forward for this decision to be made please explain. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Amadscientist, you may be an excellent editor with incisive views on how to improve the article. But if nothing else, you are demonstrating that you lack the listening skills to be a good reviewer. Multiple people are telling you that they don't feel it's appropriate, and you keep responding essentially "that's just your opinion". Even if you were 100% right about policy, your personal blind spot about how you're looking to others would hamper your ability to lead this review. Step down. Now. Your stubbornness is not helping this article get reviewed any faster. Homunq (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No. I don't think this was handled in the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe it was a crucible and demands were made on my talkpage for me to submit to consesus for a GAN talkpage complaint that had not yet had time to be fully decided. If there was to be a consensus in the true spirit of Wikipedia it would NOT have been rushed and would have had the patience to wait until enough time had passed to say that the discussion should close and then we would see what the consensus was regardless. With such unclear guidelines I find it odd that people are allowed to use their personal opinion to form the basis of the argument, but my just defending my actions was just another excuse to template an editor. Remember, I didn't file the complaints, it was one editor. This might well have been handled in a completely different manner but all that happened is one editor got impatient and just moved the page to delist it himself against policy and guidelines after admitting there is nothing in place to remove an editor from reviewing. Didn't even wait to make a closing on the complaint at the GAN talkpage and, funny that I am accused of not understanding policy but even after being told some three seperate times that AN/I was not the place for the issue...some editors kept trying to vote me out in some public display of shame. I know that many of those editors voting at the GAN talkpage were aware of what I expected. Just a closing of the talkpage discussion with a formed consensus....but that was too much to expect. I encourage everyone to support the new reviewer and contribute to improving the article. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) To clarify a few points, as the editor who dealt with this: I specifically said there is no "set in stone" procedure as to how removing a reviewer is generally done. I never said that there was no procedure at all. Look in the WT:GAN archives, specifically Oakley77 and TeacherA; Wizardman has had to step in a few times and G6 some pages. Secondly, ANI is not an AFD. It has no minimum time limit. Once a consensus is obvious, the decision is enacted by an admin. You don't even have to wait for the purple closing tags; those generally were not used that much before January of this year. You refused to listen to consensus here, and unfortunately, drastic measures had to be taken. --Rschen7754 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Nope. You just couldn't wait and let a consensus happen. You had to make sure your truth on the issue was the final say regardless of the discussion. What I didn't listen to was the undertone of hostility and demands that I submit to an unofficial battle of wills. A complaint was made to the GA talkpage. A consensus was forming, but a AN/I was also made. There was no administrative action taken or felt needed and it was also stated that the ANI was not a jury. The AN/I was a secondary report and was not a basis for me not withdrawing alone. It was simply kicked back to the original talkpage and I was simply waiting for them to make the closing on consensus. What...you don't think there should be a closing on a controversial situation? You think nothing of taking such a drastic measure before consensus was formed and then accuse the other editor of it being "their fault" by not listening to consensus? I just need to live with consensus, I don't have to submit to intimidating and hostile talkpage demands. And nothing I did or expressed indicated I would not withdraw once the decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Drop the stick, everyone. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Review closed. See GA1 ===Criteria=== Good Article Status - Review Criteria Further information: WP:WIAGA A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Review Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 2 Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 3 Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 4 Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 5 Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 6 Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Result Result Notes Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here. Discussion I will begin later this evening. The editors could use the time to begin running through criteria and begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately. Run through references and take out non-reliable sources. Check the claims being made to the source. Format all references as inline citation and not bare urls. Other common things overlooked, copyright concerns for text. Besure there isn't anything that paraphrases too closely to the source and check the license, author and source of all images. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) You see! This is precisely why an uninvolved editor is needed for the review. You say here that expanding the lead is a major issue, when we (you included) already discussed this at length and arrived at a consensus on the current version. —Eustress talk 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" is not stating that i think it is a major issue and does not demonstrate an issue. The suggestion is to collaborate on things that are obvious. Uhm, obviously the lede can use more collaboration to expand it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Additional Notes ,

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is there no article on Janna Ryan but there was one on Jill Biden?

There was also one on Todd Palin made right away. Why is Janna being shielded off? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think the creation of the article on Jill Biden, created on August 23, 2008, was jumping the gun. IF, Romney/Ryan wins, as soon as they went "over the top" according to electoral votes as verified by a reliable source, then I think it would be appropriate to create an article on Janna Ryan as the presumptive incoming "second lady." Until then, it would be inappropriate to created a separate article for her, UNLESS, she does something significantly notable in her own right, which there is no evidence of to this point. Safiel (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Our enforcement of notability has tightened a little since 2007–08. I don't imagine Jill Biden would have an article today until after the election. Palin's different since he was the spouse of a chief executive, rather than a legislator, and that tends to put one in a gray area of notability (see Kitty Dukakis, Ann Romney). Throw in his racing career and he's borderline notable. I don't think Janna Ryan is anywhere close, unless she does something significant unrelated to her marriage. —Designate (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Feedback to Good Article Review

I would note that I concur with the Reviewer pretty much in all the points of his preliminary review and I would concur in his preliminary conclusion that the article currently does not meet the criteria for Good Article status. Nothing that I see in the review that I am inclined to disagree with. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's a good review. My one concern is where it notes that a section is "heavy on critical remarks" rather than sympathetic ones. Neutral is not the same as balanced; we should be guided by the facts (as expressed in reliable sources), not by a "one for you and one for me" philosophy. However, since I agree with all the specific concerns given, that's a minor quibble; I expect that this review will improve the article significantly. Homunq (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance means to give everything its proper weight and my point in the review is that currently there is undue weight being given to critical opinions over supportive ones. In this respect balance and neutrality are essentially the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No sir, that is not what balance is at Wikipedia. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." It is not EVERYTHING being given proper weight in the article but only if they are of equal validity. "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." WP:BALANCE--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe "equal validity" is covered under "proper weight" as something of less validity is not given proper weight by elevating it to equal status. This is not a case of equal validity being an issue, however. Many groups and individuals of some significance support Ryan's positions and this is not adequately reflected in the article's present state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the details of the personal life section range out of reasonable biography into a listing of virutally every detail that could be mined from sources. 7th grade basketball? father's secretary called him at work? Why are these relevant? Avocats (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The material about the call from his father's secretary was clearly relevant as it is what prompted Ryan to go home where he found his father dead and the death of his father is obviously significant to Ryan's bio.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Marathon time material

I removed some material about Ryan claiming to run a marathon in 3 hours. Maybe, big maybe, include this in 6 months if it goes to court over it or becomes a professional runner, ect. --Mollskman (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the big deal about it either. Doesn't really add anything to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 13:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a big deal for any serious runner: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4785636&page=0 So if real achievements are relevant enough for a politician's bio (see Gary Johnson's Ironman), then also heavily aggrandized ones. --GirasoleDE (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but it really doesn't even matter to them. If every time someone stated a wrong time, mistaken or otherwise, they would have a hundred million instances to be upset over and would have all jumped off buildings by now. The people who it really "matters" to are the the folks trying to get Obama/Biden elected who see a benefit from trying to give this trivia more airplay. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If every time someone stated a wrong time, mistaken or otherwise, they would have a hundred million instances to be upset over and would have all jumped off buildings by now. That's nonsense. Lying about your personal best is the worst thing you can do in the running community - and nowadays it is quite stupid because the results are available on the internet. The people who it really "matters" to are the the folks trying to get Obama/Biden elected who see a benefit from trying to give this trivia more airplay. - Who cares about the motivations of the people spreading these news? If it gets enough "airplay", it's relevant. And now it is not only Runner's World, Slate, Huffington Post and The New Yorker (with a follow up), it's also Paul Krugman: [43] --GirasoleDE (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because talkheads bring this up doesn't mean we parrot it here unless there is consensus to do so. You keep mentioning other stuff that is trivial. Please bring that stuff up for removal since I actually agree with you about that other stuff. --Mollskman (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add to the campaighn article. Those sub articles are so sleezy that this would be a perfect fit. --Mollskman (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One good candidate for removal, is the "fact checking" material about his recent speech. All of that "fact checking" didn't even allege one factually wrong statement, it's just debating slanted "compare and conrast" inferences, in other words, providing a soapbox for debating points of his opponents. So, our "coverage" of the speech has nothing about the speech but instead consists mostly spin talking points by his opponents. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is free to add material to a Wikipedia article. Instead of spending your time venting about what isn't in the article, why don't you spend your time more constructively by adding what should be in it?   --  Mesconsing (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) Good point which addresses 1/2 of what I said. The other half is about the crap this is in. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is free to edit a Wikipedia article. That can be just as constructive as adding material... -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I was just making the point in talk. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than possibly making Ryan look dishonest, I don't see anything objectionable about the marathon material. And making him look dishonest is perfectly fine so long as reliable sources say he is dishonest, such as the fact-checkers who found lies in his speech. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can deem Ryan misrepresenting his best marathon time by over an hour (and misrepresenting that he has completed multiple marathons rather than just one), yet include mentions of P90X and supposedly climbing a bunch of Fourteeners. How can we justify including athletic info that paints him in a positive light, but then saying the marathon time lie is irrelevant to a politician bio. By that logic, isn't the Fourteener stuff even less relevant that the marathon debacle. Furthermore, we know about the marathon time because a media source (Runner's World) actually did independent reporting and detailing the investigating they did. The source for the Fourteener claim doesn't go into detail. From that source, I have no idea whether Paul just the reporter or whether any independent investigation was done at all regarding which mountains Ryan has climbed. --JamesAM (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond that, as GirasoleDE notes upthread, it's been covered in the mainstream media -- Runner's World, Huffington Post, Slate, the New Yorker, and to that list I'll add the websites of ABC News([44]), The Atlantic ([45]), and Mediaite ([46]). Even if supporters of Ryan complain that this particular lie of his is being given too much attention, they're in the same position as Obama supporters who complained that the Jeremiah Wright baloney was given too much attention. We do include things that achieve media notoriety, even if the high-minded Wikipedia editors conclude in their infinite wisdom that the media attention is misplaced. JamesMLane t c 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And now we can add the Los Angeles Times to the mainstream media: Paul Ryan exaggerates his marathon-running prowess. --GirasoleDE (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the key point. Virtually every national news source has its own article about the marathon claim right now, and the AP and Bloomberg have written articles which are being widely distributed. If it is notable enough to receive coverage from essentially all major news outlets, then it should not be deleted from the article solely on the grounds that it is insufficiently notable. -- Martha6981 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do no editors even read WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS? Arzel (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the point for those rules. With notable figures, we don't want wikipedia to be a diary because the articles would become clogged and unreadable. This does not mean that media coverage is not a guide to notability. This is particularly true in articles about politics where people have widely divergent (and frequently politically convenient) subjective interpretations about what is or is not notable. The personal life section is not at risk of becoming excessively long, and much of the material in it is less notable as measured by media coverage. Therefore I am reinserting the two sentences that I included before. -- Martha6981 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what it is at all. This is clearly a WP:RECENT issue which is very unlikely to have any longlasting impact. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Simply linked to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not an effective rebuttal. It says that most newsworthy events don't need to be included in Wikipedia. It doesn't say which ones don't make it. So it's incumbent on people arguing for exclusion to get into the specifics for their view. This is even more clearly the case since the pre-existing consensus on the page was apparently that Ryan's recreational athletic exploits should be included. Ryan's supposed participation in P90X, mountain climbing, and bow hunting have been included for a while. Now, when there's an athletics story that casts Ryan is a negative light, suddenly this is verboten (while the positive stuff was okay). Keep those in but leaving the marathon is a clear-cut pro-Ryan bias. This is not a close case. It's a crystal clear double standard. But not addressing this issue (which I brought above), it seems like the exclusionist are conceding the point. The marathon story is just as worthy for inclusion. If anything, it's a better inclusion than those other matters, since it was covered by numerous news source, came during remarks to political radio host in the midst of a political campaign, etc. It's also raised a debate about honesty, whereas the other stuff is just about recreation. --JamesAM (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

JamesAM, I actually agree with your last point. This has zero to do with Ryan's physical feats, and everything to do with his character, or lack of it as some would paint this. I would only include it in the campaighn sub-article if at all. --Mollskman (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think my last point was that "this has zero to do with Ryan's physical feats", then you overlooked something. I said the marathon issue is "also" about honesty. Meaning it's additional about honesty. The fact that Ryan ran one marathon at age 20 in a time of 4 hours, 1 minute, and some seconds is about physical feats. The other stuff is "just" about recreation (assuming it's not also shown to be false, as opposed to the marathon being about recreation and honesty. --JamesAM (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment What a worthless, non-notable, and mundane snippet of information to add.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Get over it! The news has travelled across the pond: Daily Mail: Paul Ryan caught out shaving an HOUR off his marathon time - stern.de: US-Wahlkampf: Ryan stolpert über falsche Marathon-Zeit. --GirasoleDE (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like we live in an age where messages must travel by boat! Anyone with an internet connection could have heard of it, that logic is utterly pointless. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is huge coverage, add it to the campaighn sub-article where this election cycle gotcha stuff belongs. --Mollskman (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Words have meaning. Something isn't gotcha journalism just because one labels it that. Ryan made his remarks during a review with Hugh Hewitt, a friendly figure for conservative Republicans. Then, reporters simply fact-checked the claim. That doesn't correspond with gotcha journalism as our very own article has described it. --JamesAM (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"He's used to the media letting him get away with outlandish claims. But this time he went too far" Paul Ryan’s marathon lie salon.com. 87.164.113.21 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I restored it. There seems to be no argument for removal other than the fact that it makes him look bad. Well, that's not our problem. If he didn't want to get caught in an embarrassing lie, he shouldn't have lied. Neutrality does not mean whitewashing, so we have to report what the secondary sources consider important. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that Ryan intentionally lied. His marathon time of four hours was still pretty respectable. As someone who hadn't run one in 20 years, I imagine he just misremembered. Why would he make an extraordinary claim that he knew could be disproven?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, who do you think you're fooling? "No argument for removal except whitewashing"? Specific Wikipedia policies have been cited; you cannot just reduce opposing arguments to strawmen.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming a policy is not an argument. Otherwise, we could just throw out the name of a policy and end a debate. An argument (or at least a convincing one) actually analyzes if and how the policy applies based on the fact. Why should WP:NOTNEWSPAPER bar inclusion of this and not bar inclusion of some other fact (e.g., President Obama's smoking addiction). Consensus has sanctioned the inclusion of Paul Ryan the cool mountain climber dude, and Paul Ryan the bad-ass bow hunter. But now Ryan misstating his marathon time by over an hour is suddenly off-limits. It's a point that keeps sitting there unrebutted (let alone effectively rebutted) by people who want to exclude mention of the marathon. --JamesAM (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you have on the record stated your hostility towards the subject of this article here and elsewhere, you have a clear COI, so your comments should be viewed in that light. --Mollskman (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My arguments should be viewed in terms of whether they are convincing or not. You haven't addressed the double-standard regarding other athletics exploits vs. the marathon. I take it from that you have conceded the point regarding the double standard. You don't to avoid the duty to support your edits by magically saying the arguments raised by another editor don't count. And again, mentioning the name of a policy, doesn't amount to an actual violation of the policy. Look at WP:COI and the section on "What is a conflict of interest?" Insisting that we don't have a double standard regarding which recreational activities of Paul Ryan we include isn't a COI. Nor does the humorous use of the term "bad-ass bow hunter" to illustrate that the article is including mentions of Ryan's impressive activities, but not the mediocre and possibly deceptive one. Now beyond the fact that you haven't identified any conflict of interest under the COI policy, note also COI applies to article edits. The only article edit I made regarding the marathon used very sober, restrained language. I bent over backward not to go out on any limbs. It would be helpful if an advocate for exclusion would address the double standard regarding recreational activities. --JamesAM (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A modest proposal

The Times had a blurb in today's paper acknowledging that he misstated his time. I would suggest something along the lines of "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours." with appropriate cites. This briefly includes an incident which has received significant coverage, but also doesn't imply that he intentionally lied about anything or make it seem like too big of a deal. Thoughts? a13ean (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If he responded on this topic, we should definitely include his response. We should not weigh in on whether he was mistaken or lying; that's not our job. If reliable secondary sources have something to say about it, we may want to quote them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pointless triva which has no long lasting historical value per WP:NOTNEWS Arzel (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like my suggestion has failed to satisfy either side; I suggest an RFC. a13ean (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe create Paul Ryan marathon time controversy and Paul Ryan mountain climbing controversy? We can't get into every little silly thing like this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

Fake request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request to add awards and honours section: 2010 - American of the year award from FARTA - Free Americas Regional Trade Association Tadpole15 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to modify the above to get the request off the list. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

GA1 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While acknowledging the legitimate concerns about the previous reviewer, I do believe the point about the lede is a valid one. Some expansion of the lede to make it a fuller summary of the material in the article body would be good. I plan to do a complete review later, but for now one concern I have is the "political philosophy" section as it seems to not present the situation accurately. As written it seems to imply that Ryan flip-flopped on his views of Ayn Rand, when the National Review source would indicate more that he just does not fully ascribe to Rand's philosophy. Another issue I noticed right away is that there are a lot of single sentence paragraphs that could probably be merged into other paragraphs or expanded with additional information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment Cwobeel (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Too early to submit to Good Article as the article does not fit the criteria about stability (criteria #5). It can be reviewed again after the elections. Cwobeel (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There can only be one official reviewer for a GA. Anyone is welcome to comment, but it is up to the official reviewer to make the decision. --Rschen7754 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that rule was more about "are there edit wars" rather than "is the information changing week to week". It's easy to maintain a GA when the editors reliably contribute well-referenced content. Disavian (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While I did have concerns about this being nominated so close to the election, I think this consideration applies more to articles at risk of fast-paced overall developments. His involvement in the campaign will likely be handled more in the article on the campaign, with only summary material provided here in a single section so I do not think it is a serious concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Still as an ongoing article its going to go through a lot of changes in the coming mnths. Theres not hurry to waiting till December/February to nminate it. The page is not running away.Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Only managed to get through the lede and life sections so far, but I am already seeing a problem with close paraphrasing. While I think most of the problems in those parts have been basically fixed by my edits, I imagine there are more issues later on so editors should be keeping an eye out for those issues. I have added a cite tag to one bit of information that I could not find in the surrounding sources and removed the claim about Ryan's family not working in the company, since the source seemingly said the great-grandfather who founded the company was not involved in the company. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my preliminary review with some general suggestions:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Writing seems to generally be good, but there are a lot of issues with close paraphrasing. As I noted already, many section have single sentence paragraphs that could be consolidated or expanded to satisfy the stylistic issue and the lede should be a more complete summary of the material in the article body.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have tagged on the article or mentioned below all the areas where I think citations would be necessary or where the material does not quite match the sourcing. The OR issues would similarly be addressed by responding to the parts I have brought up here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Does not include any material regarding homeland security. I believe there is some information on this out there that would be helpful to included in the foreign policy section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I dare say the level of non-neutral treatment borders on quickfail territory, but hopefully there will be some serious progress made on this given the attention and collaboration devoted to the article. The fiscal policy section is the worst offense, but the budget section is also rather heavy on critical remarks as opposed to supportive or defensive remarks.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Not seeing any problematic issues in the revision history.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image of him at CPAC and the image in the tenure section merely have descriptive captions, rather than captions that establish relevance and draw readers into the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Below is a comprehensive listing of issues I noticed that should make this go a little faster. If someone resolves one of the concerns it would be helpful to cross out the material that has been addressed or otherwise indicate that a specific bit of material has been fixed:

Philosophy section

• "Ryan tried to get all of the congressional interns in his office to read Rand's writing. He also gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged to his staff as Christmas presents."

• Almost word-for-word what is said in the New Yorker source.

• "According to AP, he supports their belief in individual rights, distrust of big government, and respect for America's founding fathers"

• More close paraphrasing and I am pretty sure the source provides enough material to cast his views in a more original manner.

 Done. Thank you for the excellent comments (which required actually reading the source!). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tenure section

• "Early in Ryan's congressional career, he held office hours in some remote parts of his district in an old truck converted into a mobile office."

• Closely resembles the wording in the source.

*"Ryan has also co-sponsored 975 bills."

• It would be helpful to get an idea of how many bills he co-sponsored ended up passing, since the bills where he was the initial sponsor are noted as having a low success rate.

176 have passed, I've added it to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions intro

*"According to the Washington Post, 22 percent of the bills co-sponsored by Ryan were sponsored by Democrats, and 'by this measure, he is slightly more bipartisan than the average Republican, with a figure of 19 percent.'"

• Part of this is a close paraphrasing and the rest should probably be paraphrased.

I've changed it a bit, and moved it to the relevant part about the 975 bills. To me this makes more sense since we are talking about the bills he has co-sponsored. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal policy section

*"Ryan, 'though best known as an architect of conservative fiscal policy,' has also been described as a 'big-spending conservative.'"

• Combining two separate and unconnected quotes in this way is suggestive and POV editorializing. We can probably paraphrase those two terms, though I think a rewrite of the whole paragraph is in order.

I've just removed the both of them; they are unnecessary and are being synthesised together. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

*". . . criticized Ryan's votes for these deficit-causing policies . . ."

• The term "deficit-causing policies" should not be used in the editorial voice as it is here. Some use of the term "deficit-spending" would be appropriate. As noted above, the whole paragraph should be rewritten to be more balanced and less argumentative.

Attributed it to the commentators. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• "President Barack Obama initially saw Ryan as 'someone he could possibly work with to reverse the building federal debt.'"

• This quote should either be paraphrased or attributed since it is from the article and not Obama.

done IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• "However, in 2011 Obama criticized Ryan as being 'not on the level' for describing himself as a fiscal conservative while voting for these policies, as well as two 'unpaid for' wars."

• When it says "these policies" I take it as referring to the votes mentioned in the paragraph above it. This should be clearer and based off what is said in the PolitiFact source. Also the wording "However, in 2011" should be modified since it appears to be implying some sort of flip-flop on Obama's part regarding Ryan.

• "Columnist Ezra Klein wrote in 2012 that 'If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government.'"

• We shouldn't just plop a quote like that down. I think this can be paraphrased rather effectively by drawing on more of the material from the column.

• " . . . repeal the requirement that the Federal Reserve System reduce unemployment."

• I think this can be re-worded a bit with more original wording.

• "Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.[81] Ryan also voted against the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Ryan characterized as 'class warfare.'"

• Given the rather friendly-sounding names of these pieces of legislation, I think there should be a little bit of detail about what he was opposing and why beyond the "class warfare" comment that seems to be argumentative.

• "Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security. Ryan's proposal ultimately failed when it did not gain the support of the then-Republican presidential administration."

• This claim that it failed because "it did not gain the support of the then-Republican presidential administration" is more argumentative wording and, in this case, is not clearly supported by the source. For one, it is clear Bush did support these proposals on Social Security so the claim about it not getting the support of his administration is simply not accurate. Secondly, the use of "then-Republican presidential administration" could be taken together with the claim about support as implying his ideas were too extreme for Bush. Another issue with this material is where it says "Ryan pushed" and calls the change "Ryan's proposal" as the source indicates there were other conservative voices supporting this change, including at least one who is named in the article. It would probably be good to expand on his involvement in the 2005 Social Security debate, as well as making the material more accurate.

• "Ryan's budget proposals 'would mean significant cutbacks for education across the board

• Another instance where we should paraphrasing as including the quote in this context a bit POV.

• "In particular, the Ryan plan would lower the income level qualification from $33,000 to $23,000 for the Pell Grant program, and set a maximum grant of $5,550, about one-third the average total year cost of college . . . According to an analysis by the Education Trust, this would result in more than 1 million students losing Pell Grants over the next 10 years."

• More very close paraphrasing. The wording here is just slightly altered from the HuffPo and NPR sources.

• "Ryan states that his education policy is to 'allocate our limited financial resources effectively and efficiently to improve education.' Jordan Weissmann of The Atlantic said that Ryan's vision on education policy is to 'cut and privatize.'"

• The placement and wording of these two statements is argumentative in an almost flippant and snarky manner. I would say there is general weighing issue with this entire paragraph on education, that overwhelmingly favors a critical view.

• "The National Education Association teachers' union has criticized Ryan's positions on education."

• It actually is not accurate. This appears to be referring to a statement by the president of the NEA and the source provided actually does not contain any specific criticism. However, the full statement does include some criticism of Ryan's ideas on education so that source can be provided. There should be some specifics about the criticism and it should be clearly noted that this is after Ryan was selected as the VP candidate and that the union affiliated with the NEA is supporting Obama.

Budget section

• "It would have also phased out Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model; instead, starting in 2021 . . . "

• Another instance of close paraphrasing of the source.

• "Ryan's proposed budget was criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers."

• Not what the source says. In fact, it appears to be saying Ryan was the one complaining about "the lack of concrete numbers" because GOP leaders decided to reveal the budget before he finished it. That would certainly be something on which to elaborate.

• "Economist Ted Gayer wrote that 'Ryan's vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate.'"

• The thing to note here is what is left unsaid. It is included in the paragraph on Krugman's criticism of the 2010 budget, but does not mention that Geyers was providing a direct response from the Tax Policy Center that Krugman cites in his criticism and that they rebutted several of his claims, including the "fraud" claim that is included in this article.

• "An analysis by the CBO showed that the Ryan plan would not balance the budget for at least 28 years, partly because"

• Nearly the exact same wording as in the cited source with some minor re-arranging.

• " . . . but Ryan rejected their criticism."

• Many problems with this, most notably the source. The opinion blog of Rachel Maddow is being used to support material suggesting a flippant dismissal by Ryan of concerns regarding how the budget reflects on his faith based off a truncated video clip. A better source for his response would be this one: [47].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Ryan's budget 'envisions continued increases in Pentagon spending' and 'significant cuts to the much smaller appropriations for the State Department and foreign aid,' with diplomacy and development spending being reduced sharply"

• It would be better to have paraphrasing here and the material on diplomacy appears to be almost exactly the same as the material in the citation.

Social issues section

• "During Ryan's 1998 campaign for Congress, he 'expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions," telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time that he "would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions,' and while not stating that he supports jailing women who have an abortion, stated: 'if it's illegal, it's illegal.'"

• Paraphrasing would be better here rather than quoting the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "This could lead to laws that would 'criminalize all abortion, as well as in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control.'"

• Source is a very strong opinionated criticism of Ryan and should be noted as such, not quoted in a manner that treats the statement as fact.

• "Ryan has also supported legislation that would impose criminal penalties for certain doctors who perform 'partial-birth abortions.'"

• Another instance of close paraphrasing.

• "Ryan was one of 227 co-sponsors of the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act bill in the House of Representatives that would have limited funding for federally funded abortions to victims of 'forcible rape'. 'Forcible rape' was not defined in the bill, which critics said would result in excluding date rape, statutory rape . . . The language was removed from the bill before the House passed the bill, the Senate did not vote on the bill."

• Close paraphrasing again.

• "He voted against a bill for stronger background check requirements for purchases at gun shows and supports federal concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, which would allow a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a firearm in every other state, a top National Rifle Association (NRA) priority."

• More close paraphrasing.

• "Ryan, who owns a rifle and a shotgun, is an NRA member . . . "

• Almost the exact same words used in the source.

• "Ryan supported legislation that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to apply for temporary guest-worker status, including one bill that would provide a pathway to permanent residence status (a Green Card) for such immigrants."

• Close paraphrasing again as the citation for this statement includes nearly identical wording.

Campaign section

• "Dan Balz of The Washington Post wrote that Ryan was promoted as a candidate for Vice President 'by major elements of the conservative opinion makers, including The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Weekly Standard and the editor of National Review.'"

• This could use with quite a bit of paraphrasing.

• "According to a statistical-historical analysis conducted by Nate Silver, 'Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900' and 'is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee [for vice president who previously served in the Congress] was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center'"

• Definitely another instances where this would be better to paraphrase.

• "Political scientist Eric Schickler commented that while Ryan 'may well be the most conservative vice presidential nominee in decades,' the NOMINATE methodology 'is not suited to making claims about the relative liberalism or conservatism of politicians' over a long time span."

• Similar to above, this material would be more suitable if it were paraphrased.

Personal life section

• "Ryan pursues an intense cross-training fitness program called P90X. He is careful about what he eats and has made close to 40 climbs of Colorado's Fourteeners (14,000-foot peaks)."

• Another sentence with very close paraphrasing.

• "Ryan is a hunter and fisherman who makes his own bratwurst and Polish sausage. A bowhunter, he is a member of the archery association the Janesville Bowmen . . ."

• Yet again there is close paraphrasing of the sources in the citations.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I am going to try and see if improvements can be made to the article that will address the issues here. Putting final review on hold.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see how I can fix stuff here. I should be open for the next few days so I'll have some time to work on it. :) Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing

This review is being closed as fail due to an ongoing edit war. I suspect it may be best to wait until after the presidential election to nominate this article again. Whether Romney/Ryan win or lose the three months window between the election and inauguration should provide a decent time-frame for stable work on the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

political philosophy

I have a concern that the very title might be OR. Is it a fair heading to say the section is about the figures actual political philosophy? Do the references show these views from Ryan as political philosophy or have we added this by extrapolating or synthesizing the information from the varied sources to make a conclusion? Is the section written to express what sources are saying or has there simply been too much editing without checking the reference and the information is just getting away from us. First, I really think, if this information stays, it should be a more accurate and encyclopedic heading. Perhaps this is undueweight to all of this in its own section and could be incorporated into "Personal life" under the subheading (and only if needed) "Any Rand". I think we should drop at least one reference, the Atlas Society reference is an "archived" site blog. It does not qualify as a news blog with no author information and the Atlas socity does not have proper editorial oversite or fact checking and I even wonder if it amounts to just being a very elaborate fan site. It cannot be used to reference a fact and with no authorship it can't be used as opinion. The rest might be trimmed down before being added to the Personal life section if its moved.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal life wouldn't be the proper place for it. I don't see any issue with the heading "political philosophy" either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can help out a bit here. The Atlas Society is the splinter group that Kelley formed due to disagreements with the Ayn Rand Institute about cooperation with (non-Objectivist) libertarians. We should treat it as a legitimate source of informations about Objectivism, although perhaps not as canonical as the ARI. It's definitely not just an elaborate fan site, although that description made me chuckle.

I think TDA is right about needing to be more careful in our descriptions of his relationship with Objectivism. On the one hand, he's obviously a big fan and we should report this. On the other, Objectivism (at least according to Rand herself and the ARI) is not a cafeteria philosophy. In other words, you don't get to agree with just part of it and still call yourself an Objectivist.

For this reason, we have to be careful not to frame a clarification on his part ("I'm sympathetic to it but reject one aspect entirely") as any sort of flip-flop. In particular, we have absolutely no reason to believe he accepted Objectivist atheism but changed his mind. Whatever his faults, Ryan is not known for flip-flopping the way Romney is.

Hope that helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done

I would just like to thank two or three users who are working out the right wording for criticism of Mr. Ryan's RNC acceptance speech. Pretty sure that it is not easy. I am also sure that notice of the character of his speech belongs here, in the opinion of enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:BLP requirements. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks specifically to user:Collect; I know we're on opposite "sides" of the politics, but we're both on the side of a strong wikipedia. Homunq (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, well done Collect. Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Sally Kohn?

User:Collect thinks she should be mentioned by name. Since I've never heard of her, I'd like to know why. Homunq (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the point of a reference to name the author; the text should generally state the publication. That and and overwrought use of “in opinion columns” is pretty weasely. Kerfuffler (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sally Kohn is a notable person with a BLP, and noted for writing editorial columns. That's who she is. And the position about citing opinions as opinions is well-established at BLP discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

--In the context of its brief mention in this paragraph, the notable fact is the well-documented tsunami of indictment of Ryans speech, not the particulars. Sally Kohn's name belongs in the reference, not the text.SPECIFICO 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

False claims in speech

North8000, I'm going to politely ask you to revert yourself on this one, because you didn't read the sources. Consider that FactCheck stated, "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements". That was their first sentence; it wasn't buried. Please go ahead and fix it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't here to critique Ryan's speech. Belchfire-TALK 22:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. We're here to report the critiquing of reliable sources, and we have plenty that call him a liar. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You can find a partisan media source to support any claim you like, that doesn't mean it's fit for this encyclopedia. Belchfire-TALK 23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You won't have a speech given by a politician that isn't both widely praised and widely critiqued. Both points of view are relevant and should be included, especially if they are substantive points. After all, the entire theme of the RNC was about a speech given by Obama where he supposedly said that people who build a business are not alone in the success they achieve. If the GOP can make an entire convention about a construing a speech out of context, how is it unenclyclopedic or undue to include substantive critiques of one of the speeches given at the RNC? -- Avanu (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, I don't see any claims of factual errors in the article that you linked. I see claims of spin, being misleading etc. but no claims of factual errors. And this is ignoring that the claims are spin themselves, and ignoring that your "reliable sources" are participants, not sources. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says this:

"His speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered,[166][167][168] but was also criticized for containing what some believed to be half-truths.[169][170][171][172][173][174]".

I've just read through all these sources, and each one of them discusses the non-factual nature of the speech. The phrase "containing what some believed to half-truths" is unjustified from the sources. I suggest that the sources are being misrepresented. I suggest that the sources would be better represented by:

"His speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, although also characterised as containing many lies, misrepresentations and omissions."

The Fox News source uses the terms "lies", "misrepresentations" and "deceiving". Not one source contradicts this view - hardly "some believed to be half-truths". Trishm (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reasonable basis for claiming his statements were "half-truths" when all of our sources use much stronger, unambiguous terminology. This will not stay. I won't edit war over it, but I'll use every available mechanism to make this article comply with NPOV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lie is a pretty strong word to use, especially when regardless of the opinion of some, Ryan did not lie. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are notable opinions that he did not lie, we can attribute that to whomever said that. Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact, Ryan did not lie. I realize this is a hard truth for many, but Ryan made no statement regarding the GM plant which was a lie except for the minor statement that the plant did not last a year, as it was actually open longer than 1 year after Obama made his first statement. It is quite sad actually. This one event will probably be the end of the view that Many of the so called fact checking is an independent view of events. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, what you or I think is actually irrelevant to the article. The nine sources cited in the article are unambiguously unanimous - Ryan's speech contained lies and misrepresentations. I have not found a single news source, US or international, that says otherwise. Even the specific example that you give of the GM plant is still factually wrong in one respect, and recalls an earlier statement that was quite incorrect. A question for you: how would you use the CNN article that you link to,, or any other reputable source, to improve this entry? Trishm (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

NONE of them claim that he said anything that was incorrect. They are all just talking about what they say he implied, not what he said. And this is an article about Ryan, not about his opponents, and so statements should be in the form of being about Ryan, backed by sources, not statements about what his opponents said. Plus this creative "lie" angle is a BLP violation. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the sources disagree with you. They win. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems some here are disposed to label Ryan a compulsive liar and fraud. This is silly season editing at its worst. Wikipedia should never be used as a campaign vehicle on any side - whether about Obama's 57 states or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's what our sources say, that's what they say. Argue with them, not us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this point, I'm not disputing the sources, I'm using them. Show us one allegation of a FACTUAL ERROR in any of them. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you seem to think Wikipedia is a glorious billboard for silly season claims -- have you added the "57 states" to the Obama BLP, by the way? <g>. Your edit history is rife with problems on political articles in which you seem to present a very consistent POV. Alas for you,

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, and how does this apply? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grasping for "facts" in the world of politics is often futile. And here within Wikipedia, the "factuality" of something isn't what we're after. What do our so-called reliable sources say? If they say Ryan misrepresented something, we can easily say "According to the Reliable Source News, Ryan's statement on X was overstated, untrue, etc", whatever the source said. So what is the debate about in this section? Do you want to include a speech and only include positive praise of it? I assume we're talking about Ryan's speech at the RNC, which is clearly a unique speech due to the venue. If sources say it is a great blow against the evil socialist Obama, shall we exclude that? And if other sources say it was full of hyperbole or exaggeration or even lies, shall we exclude that? I say no. We include a clear representation of what our sources tell us. It is obviously campaign "silly season", and it is a stupid time to edit political articles, but hey, what do you do? -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective, and partisan politics aside, the bloke running for VP on the Republican ticket has made a major speech that has been reported to be full of obvious lies by reporters of all political stripes around the world. Some of the lies are clearly lies, others might be finessed away under fine parsing of the words, but it's fairly clear that the image projected by Ryan in this speech is of someone who is not reliable. The marathon kerfuffle is symbolic of this. In other words, the facts themselves are not the key point of this paragraph. The key point that I'm getting from fairly extensive reading of the sources is that whether something is true or not doesn't seem to matter to Ryan, and this is someone who, if the Republican ticket wins, would be a heartbeat away from being president of the United States. The problem with using the structure "According to the Reliable Source News, Ryan's statement on X was overstated, untrue, etc" is that it doesn't convey the general agreement among sources. Trishm (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked three times and nobody can find even an assertion of something that he said that was factually wrong. We should be covering the specifics, and the un-spun specifics of areas of issue, not trying to game in adjectives and swipes by his opponents by calling them "sources". North8000 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First up, North8000, we are not your personal researchers. You can ask all you like, we are not mandated to do your work for you. You could ask 20 times for proof the earth is more than 4000 years old, it still doesn't change the facts if no-one complies with your demands. That said, the sources even have titles including "brazen lies", "lies", "dishonest" and so forth. But, just this once, here is one example of a specific claim:

The Affordable Care Act increases taxes on millions of small businesses – Paul Ryan declared that the Affordable Care Act would impose “new taxes on nearly a million small businesses.” The Act changes taxes for small businesses in three ways. It provides a tax credit (pdf) to subsidize insurance coverage for which between 1.4 and 4 million small businesses are eligible. It imposes a tax on medical device manufacturers, of which there were only 5,300 (pdf) in the United States in 2007. Finally, it imposes an employer mandate on businesses that do not provide coverage, which will not affect (pdf) businesses with under 50 employees. Most small businesses, then, get a tax cut, and the number of small businesses facing tax increases is about five thousand, far under a million. Ryan’s claim is just false.

You just made my point which is that there is a new tax on small businesses. Not only is not a lie, it is correct. Your construction (even if it is accurate) asserts that the net effect is not an increase; even if it were true, that is a different topic. It certainly doesn't establish a "lie" North8000 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how claiming a million when its actually more like less than 10 thousand small businesses in regards to taxation is not at the very least misleading at face value or unrepresentative of the realities involved if not an intentional "lie". I understand your point that the number or outcome is not the reason making it 'less than truthful' but his use of vocabulary does. If you/he want to clearly reflect the nuance that you're making - it should somehow be clarified that a million small businesses are subject to new taxes due to the enactment of the ACA (true any way one tries to parse it; this is part of normal tax-assessment) but without any mention if that new exposure actually translates into higher payments for the same million small businesses (tax-payment not the same as tax-assessment thanks to tax-credits and/or tax-refunds being in play here) and to what percentage (the actual 5 to 10K), leaves the reader/listener with a false or misleading impression as a result of his less-than-absolutely-specific statement. Is that a 'the sky is yellow not blue' lie?? maybe not... but it is certainly a key omission that skews perception and I've read/seen several sources saying as much. One can be subject to the Marriage Tax, being of legal age, sound mind, and so on, but in the end - if you're not married, being subject to that tax doesn't mean a single thing -- even though this is typically not an increased exposure to tax-payment but a decreased exposure via a tax-deduction for newlyweds; for single people it can be construed as a penalty for being single. For the clear transfer of knowledge or intent from one person to the next; specifics (among other tools) serve us best, and his statement wasn't specific enough for the majority of the reporting on his speech/statement. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that what you are saying / agreeing is that what he said is literally true, but is misleading by leaving out other mitigating factors. That is probably correct, but saying something that is literally true can't be called a "lie" here. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is an instance where its not a contributor to the article synthesizing this POV on his or her own (for a change) but being done by several well-established & typically reliable sources themselves in response to what they've perceived as some sort of 'crossing the line' given the gravitas of the speaker making the statements and the setting in which they were made in. This is not something that can be addressed in this forum without our own synthesis taking place to dismiss or rebut the majority of the reporting currently referenced. The best one can do, imo, is find alternative [reliable] sources to counter the majority reporting and the verbiage used in their reporting. Otherwise, we are pretty much stuck with the labeling in use until the next event comes along to quiet down (or ramp up?) the matter. Continued argument over this nuance is already working to Ryan's opponents favor by keeping it in the forefront of discussion. (i.e. the twitter/blogosphere are making Lyin' Ryan an embedded staple rather than just a passing fancy for example). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikipedia should be just covering the specifics. Wikipedia should be covering the subject in the article, using appropriate sources, appropriate weight and appropriate context.Trishm (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: The mandate is a tax. Definitions of small businesses vary, but can include businesses with over 50 employees.76.222.58.150 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

North8000 asked for an example of a source saying that Ryan said something non-factual, because he disputes the characterisation of the sources in the article. I provided such an example, which discusses the subsidy that small businesses get to offset the costs of the mandate, and that the mandate does not apply to small businesses with under 50 people. Why are you pointing out that the definition of small business includes those with over 50 employees? That is not in dispute.Trishm (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't me, there must be confusion. But see above to note that not only is his statement about a "new tax" not a lie, it has been confirmed here by an opponent of his as being accurate. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You said that, far from raising taxes, the ACA actually cuts taxes for "most" small businesses. Therefore, your argument is that the subsidy outweighs the mandate, and that this is an undisputed fact?76.222.58.150 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, my argument is that the sources cited in the article do indeed claim that Ryan erred in his facts. The subject of this discussion is the existence of the claim. Trishm (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct / germane. This is an article about Paul Ryan, not about the existence of talking points by his opponents. So, with respect to this, and following YOUR definition of the topic, what you are calling sources are actually participants in the material, not sources. Possibly it is germane enough to be covered (e.g. "reactions of opponents"), but as participants not sources. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The claims about Ryan "lying" seem poorly supported. I'm seeing opinions pieces and blogs, which are inappropriate. In order to include a highly charged accusation like this, I'd like to see much more solid sources. These sources must also fairly address the counter charge raised by Ryan's supporters that his claims were factual, instead of mis-characterizing Ryan's remarks and then calling those mis-characterizations lies. Right now, I think the entire paragraph should be removed until we can find a consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Only reliable sources should be used. If those reliable sources claim lies, then we can quote them on that, but if those same sources fail to idenfity specific lies, we can also note that. Additionally we should balance the claim of lies with the reponse that its just spin being characterized by lies. Several reliable sources have now come out and said something along the lines of 'technically true statements, but misleading', which is not a lie, and which is also the standard practice for all politicians. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly season in full swing -- the edit being made implies that most folks found it to be "lies" which means that the articles contradicting such claims as were made must also be included directly as such for NPOV. The term "widely" is an opinion which would require specific reliable sourcing - and ought not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In short - the simple claim that it was criticized is valid - the rest, ain't. Collect (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I am handling the GA review I will weigh in on this point. I believe the term "lies" should not really be used in this context as it appears the claim is more about misleading or deceptive statements rather than outright lies. Some take a view that these comments constitute lies by knowingly implying something that is false, but this sort of characterization should be noted in that context. However, it is probably better to leave that kind of explanation for the main article on the campaign and thus not mention the term "lies" in the material on this page. Noting that the criticism is about him allegedly misleading on certain points by omitting important facts is, I believe, more appropriate in the context of this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Perhaps "alleged distortions" captures the essence of the major complaints. "Lies" is a loaded term and doesn't seem accurate as Ryan's text is parsed a second and third time. Ronnotel (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--The issue is not what words any of us would personally use to characterize Ryan's statements. However, much of the press reaction has questioned Ryan's truthfulness. The Fox News piece states "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech." That is pretty strong and unambiguous. Similar language was used by many commentators, and the phrase "Lyin' Ryan" has entered the vernacular. The sources cited are not self-published blogs, but rather news analysis from respected authors and established reputable publishers. It is simply a fact that the speech generated controversy and that controversy should be duly reported here. The reference is really rather brief, and well-supported in my view.SPECIFICO 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

The sources have been stripped down to three, two of which are British. This is hardly representative of the coverage of a US event. I suggest that one of the British references be replaced by the Fox news source, now no longer cited.Trishm (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points about claiming someone is a "liar" based on a campaign speech: 1. In politics, politicians constantly blame their political opponents of being liars. Politicians (and their supporters) do not distinguish well between disagreeing with someone's position and with their representation of the facts. Want an example? Is the American economy better under Obama than under the Republicans? Some people will say yes, some no. Each person with a position on this issue will accuse any person with opposite views of being a liar, undoubtedly. If being named by a political opponent (or, for that matter, in an opinion page or a blog) a "liar" means that the politician in question should therefore be named as such in an encyclopedic website such as Wikipedia - then just about EVERY POLITICIAN IN THE LAND SHOULD HAVE THE ADJECTIVE LIAR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY. Therefore, simply refrain from calling a politician a "liar" or even suggesting something to this effect using the word "liar" or "lies" (such as in "some people said he lied"). Period. If you really must - present the claim made by the politician and then present a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED PROOF that this claim is false. Do not call someone a "liar" just because someone else does. 2. In relation to the above: DO NOT USE OPINION PIECES to extract alleged facts about the SUBJECT of these opinion pieces in encyclopedic content! How easy is it for us to find someone who agrees with our particular point of view, and then quote that person to back up our own position (sometimes without naming the person, but only in form of a reference and sometimes even without that, and simply writing "some people say..."). Duh! Quoting people - even exactly - does not necessarily encyclopedic content make. Thanks Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also removed the entire sentence:

"The speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, although it was criticized for alleged "lies" and misstatements."

It does not add much and seemed to be the cause of a small edit-war. Maybe better to leave out altogether. Please discuss here before returning it to the article itself.Rtmcrrctr (talk)

If there's an edit war, it's because you keep trying to delete it. I'm sorry, but it's too important and too well-sourced to be cut. There is plenty of discussion above that explains the reasons for inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is plenty of discussion above that presents the opposite point of view to yours, namely why the claims should not be included. I have requested to achieve consensus here - which clearly hasn't happened before returning this sentence. I said Please, but you simply ignored my and many others' position and went ahead and simply returned the sentence. My edits in the "edit-war" you seem to blame me of were only two out of - by what I could see - many, many edits. Both in the Article page as well as the Talk page there are many others of my position: It is definitely not just me holding the position that the word "lie" is inappropriate. You seem to ignore us. I repeat: PLEASE do not change before consensus is achieved. Let this (second) warning be recorded if any of us is accused of engaging in an edit war by the powers that be. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, just stop edit-warring. You're at 3RR already and you're not even slowing down.

Look, this material belongs in the article for all of the reasons given. Policy supports it, even if it's unpopular among conservative editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's start from the basics: this article is about Paul Ryan: His background and his political opinions. Does it matter what someone else thinks about Paul Ryan? Certainly not in an encyclopedic article about Paul Ryan! The ONLY political commentary allowed in an article by Paul Ryan should be made by one person and one person alone: Paul Ryan himself. That does not mean that Wikipedia endorses all or any of Paul Ryan's opinions, but only that it is the role of Wikipedia to loyally represent facts about the man, including his thoughts. His thoughts matter, yours, mine and anyone else do not - at least here, in an article about PAUL RYAN. What you think about him and his politics does not matter, nor what I nor what any other political commentator in the land thinks. In this article the only opinion that matters is Paul Ryan and his alone. So please do NOT quote us commentators - from the Guardian, Fox or anyone else - to give their opinions on the opinions of Paul Ryan. Kapish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I quote from WP:BLP: “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, …”. It is in fact part of the purpose of Wikipedia to document public reaction to politicians and celebrities, because it's part of the historical context. I strongly suggest that you read WP:BLP, WP:APR, WP:BRDWRONG, and WP:DRNC before committing any more changes. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kerfuffler's assessment and the suggestion to review long-standing WP guidelines & policy. The idea that the article should be isolated to Paul Ryan's POV could be deemed as nothing more than an attempt at self-promotion via 3rd party - another WP policy no-no. Any changes made in this vein should be reverted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Except all the links that were added appear to be negative. That's not NPOV, even with the "people at the convention liked it" sentence before it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a "positive" cite, feel free to add it. But you don't get to remove the "negative" ones just because the reaction was so uniformly negative. Besides, we need all of those cites to support the fact that he lied; BLP requires us to have strong sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So why not just find a positive comment and add it? As it is you are basically trying to get around WP:NPOV by making an unsourced claim that some liked the speech, and then stacking it with a bunch of editorials by people who didn't like it. I'm sorry, that's not WP:NPOV and you should know better. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What you said is an argument for removing the positive part, not for removing the whole thing. If we can only find criticism for his lies, then so be it. NPOV does not mean putting lipstick on a pig. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you removed the positive part, then it's even more non-NPOV. The contributor has the responsibility to make the edit NPOV, it is not their job to throw up something POV and require other editor's to fix it. My question to the person who originally contributed the bit I just removed is: did you try to find reliable sources that liked the speech? Here are some I found in a few minutes using a simple web search: [48], [49], [50]. I really don't care about his speech, but if you can't even try to be NPOV, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you.--Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there really any disagreement that the speech was well delivered and well recieved by his audience that warrants the need for additional references? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to cite both if you are going to meet NPOV. See WP:UNDUE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course but by that logic the statement about it being well delivered.... should be removed because that appears to be the minority side in the balanced equation concerning undue weight - not the side that has criticisms pointing out inaccuaracies, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted that claim too, it should be cited as well. Same as the speech being well-received. I doubt either of these would be difficult to source. But an edit which gives completely uncited positive prose and heavily-cited negative prose doesn't meet WP:UNDUE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Point taken I guess. I just didn't think those parts were ever in doubt and adding refs to support them would just be an exercise undertaken for the sake of a solution looking for a problem. What I don't understand is what happened since the weekend - there were enough sources listed for both sides of this coin to choke a pig. Just look higher up in this thread back around the 1st of Sept. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened was edit-warring by those who do not want this article to report that Ryan was called a liar. Most recently, Vernon removed the material, cites and all, based on a misunderstanding of relevant policy. It's rather frustrating. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I added the earlier line back in. It probably doesn't need all the refs now though -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still all negative refs and no positive ones. I don't see how this meets NPOV, though I guess I will bring it to the noticeboard. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you, George Orwell III (talk) and I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk). There is clearly no consensus to call Ryan a liar (or call his nomination speech "lies") yet you continue to fight doggedly this edit war! The passion in which you fight for the right to term Ryan a liar shows your bias. The reaction to his nomination speech was - as much as it was controversial - an entirely negligible issue to Paul Ryan's career. Yet you relentlessly revert to the "lies" entry. Clearly you have an agenda to push! Shame on you! Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody here has called Ryan a liar. Political commentators in popular and respected newspapers have. It is not our job to decide on the merits of their claims; it's our job to document them. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I want to make it clear that scare quotes are never appropriate in this context. Either the sources say it or they don't. Adding scare quotes is just a way of adding bias by casting doubt on the sources; if the source isn't reliable, don't use it. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, and George Orwell III, the extreme excessive sourcing only illustrates the clear bias trying to be presented in that section making it very hard to assume good faith in the edit. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I presume the sources were added because people were nitpicking some of the earlier sources. I note that in the time it takes you to write these comments, you presumably could have easily found positive sources and added them. You need to read WP:APR and WP:DRNC. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Come all ye to the NPOV board. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is actually quite funny, in that the section prior to that one in on the NPOV noticeboard is about a very similar incident, and the consensus there is pretty clear. Did you read it? Kerfuffler (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would anybody read it? It's irrelevant. Belchfire-TALK 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

216.81.94.70 is an IP address for the Department of Homeland Security in Washington DC. Such an editor has no business makoing political edits at all. Collect (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What I got out of our little trip to NPOVD-land is that we have to cover the reaction. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is this: There were originally three sources next to the positive stament, and then several more after the negative statement. Who removed the positive sources?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the text as I left it:

"Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being exceptionally dishonest.*"

I think something like that has several things to recommend it:

• It avoids the word "lie", which is a magnet for WP:TRUTH-warriors on both sides (and for WP:WEASEL-based conciliators).
• The main clause focuses on the wider reception of the speech, since its reception within the convention itself is lesser news.
• It is well-sourced.

Also, on another note, I'd like to register my opinion that I don't think this high level of protection is warranted. Of course there will be some edit warring on an article like this. I'd rather see hair-trigger article-specific user blocks to deal with that - even something as draconian as an automatic 12-hour article-specific block to any editor who makes a non-minor edit, good or bad - than what is effectively an article-specific block for all non-admins. Homunq (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd water down "exceptionally" to "very". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there's room for a healthy back-and-forth on details like that. Which is exactly why the page shouldn't be admin-only-protected now. Homunq (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't simply leave out that it was factually true. Every statement made by Ryan was a correct statement. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Factcheck.org, which is a prominent independent, reliable source says. "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements."[51] That should be included and we should use the same type of measured language. TFD (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We can either follow a source like that and say that he made false claims, or weasel a small amount and say that many sources said that he was dishonest. If we do the latter, since we're reporting on what was said rather than making a judgment about what is so, we are obligated to give an accurate picture of what was said; and that means some indication that the sources in question found it unusually dishonest even for a political speech. I suspect that the latter ("many said ...") will be a better basis for a lasting consensus/compromise. Homunq (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The article should reflect that his RNC speech was seen as dishonest by multiple RSes. Sample wording and sourcing is just below, to be added at the end of the third (last) paragraph of the VP campaign section. Homunq (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being unusually dishonest.

--Homunq's proposal seems reasonable to me.SPECIFICO 17:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

What would be considered "Usually" dishonest versus "Unusually" dishonest. Is it expected that it be simply dishonest like Clinton's speech last night and that Ryan made fewer "dishonest" statements making it unusual? Or is it that Ryan made no factually false statements, but did make statements which did not tell enough of the story to satisfy his critics? Arzel (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. None of the sources explicitly call the speech either "unusually" or "exceptionally" dishonest--that's just editorializing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The first source, a Fox News editorial, called it "an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech". It think that qualifies as calling it exceptionally dishonest. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Belated reply: You cannot use an editorial to describe something as "exceptionally dishonest", because editorials/opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact", according to WP:RS. Nor can you violate WP:SYNTH in combining various sources to justify your own description of Ryan's veracity. This proposal was absolutely ludicrous. None of the DNC's specific lies identified by fact-checkers have resulted in attempts to edit related articles with comparably hostile language. And to think there was once an entire paragraph devoted to "debunking" Ryan's speech!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that the original text under dispute said “misleading”, which is in fact exactly a term that most of the sources use to describe the speech? Kerfuffler (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A point of order - I think describing the Fox piece as an "editorial" is a bit of stretch in the sense that the term is usually reserved for opinion pieces that represent the view of the news service. In fact, the piece is more accurately described as an opinion piece by an occasional (unpaid?) contributor (who, by the way, appears to have somewhat partisan leanings). I think part of the problem here is that so many sources have been misleadingly represented in this manner that it's difficult to separate the light from the heat. Perhaps we need to have some time to sort out the competing claims. Ronnotel (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's little point quibbling about this source when it is just one of many that notes Ryan's dishonesty during that speech. The article cannot hide this. WP:NPOV requires that we cover this topic. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a violation of WP policy to call someone a pest? Cease and desist! Clearly there is strong opposition by many here to add this sentence, yet you ignore that and insist on adding it. The response in the Leftie commentariat to Ryan's speech as 'lies' is predictable as it is inconsequential. Your insistence to add it should be regarded as nothing more than you pushing a political agenda of branding Ryan and, no doubt, by extention the Republicans (and conservatives in general) as "liars". It is probably another violation of WP policies to tell you what you can do with your agenda, so instead, again: cease and desist. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the conversation, what I see is that we discussed our disagreements and came up with something almost all of us were comfortable with. In other words, there's a consensus for inclusion. I would add that, given how Clinton and other Democrats have attacked Ryan's lies, this has become even more significant than before.

In short, I'd like you to revert yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that changes everything then, doesn't it? I mean, now it's not just the Guardian who criticizes Republicans, but also this famous-beacon-of-neutrality-in-American-politics aka Bill Clinton that criticizes Republicans. After all, it's not like he has a long history of criticizing Republicans (and being criticized by them) and his wife is the Secretary of State in an administration now criticized by the Republicans or anything, right? On a slightly less sarcastic tone: as I said over and over earlier: of course Lefties criticize a Republican. There is nothing unpredictable, newsworthy or informative about it. Let it go, mate. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to concur with User:StillStanding-247 on this. We discussed this ad nauseum, and several people commented in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, your attitude is very clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND, and as such, you should walk away before you make it worse. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"We discussed this ad nauseum, and several people commented in favor of inclusion." Ummm, "...several people..."?! What about the people who commented against the inclusion? You haven't mentioned them. Oh, silly me, you haven't mentioned those people because their opinions were not compatible to your own. Apparently, only people whom agree with you count, right? Rtmcrrctr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with User:StillStanding-247 as well. There is no source that I am aware of that assesses Ryan as talking a straight game, and plenty that consider the speech misleading at best. The "well-received" and "dishonest" is not false balancing - it is a fair characterisation of the response to the speech. I actually think that it is an important point that the speech was well-received despite the obvious "mental reservations" (saying something to give a false impression, while remaining literally true).Trishm (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've marked the edit request as answered as the protection has since expired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sally Kohn

Where an opinion piece by Sally Kohn is on the Fox News website - should it be described as simply being by "someone at Fox News" or should the opinion be ascribed to the specific person who actually wrote the opinion? I posit that the person is notable enough to have a BLP on Wikipedia. The editor who removed her name said we should "just say it was an opinion piece by fox" which might imply that it was an editorial on behalf of Fox News and not an opinion piece by a named writer of note. Collect (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The editor who removed her name said we should "just say it was an opinion piece by fox" which might imply that it was an editorial on behalf of Fox News and not an opinion piece by a named writer of note. Collect (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (preceding improperly removed from this talk page)

It is definitely not normal practice on Wikipedia to add names of authors in presumed (although this is doubtful in the case of Fox) reliable sources. It smacks of WP:WEASEL. Anyway, there was already a discussion here for this exact topic; why did you create another one? Kerfuffler (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have WP:WEASEL confused. Weasel words are "Some say" and the like. Specifically attributing an opinion to the person giving the opinion is not only not weasel, it is the exact opposite of weasel. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I understand the concept perfectly well. Arbitrarily narrowing the scope to emphasize one person, which basically no other reference to these news sites does, creates an impression that it's a fringe view. That's a weasely thing to do. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the pieces referenced in that sentence are written by notable people. Why call out that one? The only thing unique about it is that one would expect Fox to slant right, and this piece slants left. This is because Sally is one of Fox's token liberals, but the piece is already called out as an opinion piece, and we aren't giving the level of detail to name her as a token liberal (nor should we). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, The Guardian only had one of three panel members making the accusations. And it is normal practice when a noted person expresses opinions to cite those opinions to that person. Just as if Paul Krugman wrote "John Gnarph is a confluterist" we would not say "The New York Times said 'John Gnarph is a confluterist.' " Really. Collect (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the (very contentious) consensus on the various boards, it seems that a fairly minimal ref to this is all that is supported. The level of detail required to identify and qualify each persons opinions would exceed that no? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV these types of opinions must be attributed in order to maintain WP:NPOV. I don't see why this is a problem. Arzel (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

its not that I object to attributing Sally, but why only sally? There are like 7 pieces now referenced criticizing the speech, none of which have that level of attribution. Attributing all 7 seems like it would make a very cumbersome line. Further, we are not quoting anybody, just saying "There are generally critical opinion pieces from X,Y, and Z" so Im not actually sure the attribution policy applies, since there is nothign to acctually attribute to her (vs any of the opinion pieces) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is that it is too easy to turn this into a laundry list of complainants. Why include The Atlantic and the Guardian, but not the Financial Times, Business Insider, NPR, Associated Press, USA Today, etc.? I think a brief mention of the reception to this speech belongs here, but would prefer it to be synopsized. Hal peridol (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

These are the sources provided by those who inserted the criticism bit. Clearly others could be added - but it appeared that consensus was that these were quite sufficient. And others which do not criticise could aslo be added to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't so much consensus, as people simply editing as they saw fit. As far as identifying Sally Kohn separately, I think the only reason for doing that is that criticism of Republicans is so unlikely from Fox, that some people feel uncomfortable attributing the piece to to Fox news, and want to distance it.Trishm (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Where a commentator is specifically notable on their own, and the opinion is from the notable person, it is absolutely proper to ascribe the opinion to the person holding it. Common sense, really. Nothing to do with anything else. If the opinion is an unsigned editorial, then the opinion is ascribed to the publication. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tenure section

Regarding the sentences, Ryan has also co-sponsored 975 bills of which 176 have passed. 22 percent of these bills were originally sponsored by Democrats. The average for republicans is 19 percent. What does that last sentence mean? It took me a bit to understand it, and even longer to write it out. The average number of bills that Republicans cosponsor, that were originally sponsored by Democrats is 19%. I don't think this fact makes sense as written, and is not important enough to warrant the extra wordage it takes to make it make sense. Can someone reword it or remove it? -Freekee (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That used to be an exact quote describing Ryan as slightly more bipartisan than the average Republican. It's currently a butchered attempt at a paraphrase.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation request

In the "Fiscal, Education and Health Care Policy" section, The Education Trust is cited as a source. The sentence is: According to an analysis by the Education Trust, this would result in more than 1 million students losing Pell Grants over the next 10 years.

Can we provide the link below as a source for that statement: http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/press-release/statement-from-the-education-trust-on-house-passage-of-the-sequester-rep

Education dan (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Education Trust" is an interesting source, but problematic as they take specific political positions - like filing an amicus brief on the Affordable Care Act (Ed Trust joined a diverse coalition of 79 groups to file an amicus brief in the Affordable Care Act case at the Supreme Court, to argue that a ruling by the court that Medicaid expansion amounted to federal coercion would jeopardize other important funding streams, like Title I funding.) etc. [52]. Advocacy groups make, in general, poor sources for statements of fact where the fact is likely to be opinion. Including Fifty organizations, including The Education Trust, cosigned a letter to Members of Congress urging them to oppose the Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)., As Congress looks to reauthorize ESEA, Ed Trust joined a coalition of organizations to acknowledge the Senate's Moderate Democrats’ Working Group in their call for a "strong, bipartisan bill" with an accent on equity etc. Collect (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC include strong negative characterizations such as "lies" of Ryan's Speech made by others?

Shall we include strong negative characterizations of Ryan's speech like "lies" as has been advocated?

• No His speech has only the usual spin and omissions of 80% of all speeches, and the usual claims of "lies" "liar" from opponents (some of who people are calling "sources" ) which are not asserting (detailing) any specific factual errors. It is not the norm nor policy-compliant to put such in. Further, the objective standard for "lie" "liar" is much higher (doubly so fr wp:blp's) which deliberately stating something that is specifically false, not just an opponent trying to juice up / claim that spin or omission is a "lie". The "sources" that some are claiming on this are not coursec, they are participants. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• This RFC is essentially identical to the above.

(But I will take the opportunity to repeat that I think adjectives like "dishonest" or "misleading" will probably lead to a more stable article than nouns like "lies", "alleged lies", or "distortions".) Homunq (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that RFC this is structurally fundamentally different than the previous RFC. The wording of the prior RFC is for or against total exclusion of critique material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Duplicate RFC: Concur with User:Homunq; this is essentially identical to the other RFC. Kerfuffler (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This is NOT a duplicate. As a clear cut example, someone in favor or moderate coverage would say "include" on the first and "exclude" on the second. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and repeating the same point does not change that. Kerfuffler (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If the same person with the same opinion would give different answers to the two then they are obviously not identical. And giving an example which illustrates the point is clearly not "repeating the same point". There is no real dialog going on here. Signing off on this thread with you. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are making assertions about what other people think. That cannot possibly be appropriate. Furthermore, I still don't agree. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. North8000 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include Per my comment in the RfC above. As per Devils advocate, the only question is how to cover the reactions. As its allmost become a defining issue for him, we could possibly even mention the lie in the lede, linking to a dedicated article. If by some miracle Ryan still becomes vice president, and folk stop calling him marathon man, we can then de-emphasise. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This RfC substantively duplicates the one above. Please allow the previous RfC to complete and a reasonable amount of time to pass before beginning another that covers the same topics. CLOSING. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Close this RfC as it duplicates the one above. FurrySings (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again (and in more detail) the RFC above this one is written as "complete exclusion" vs. "inclusion of some type". The second RFC is about the more extreme negative scenarios of inclusion. That is a different question. Amongst other things, it gauges what the "include" people think.....a "middle of the road" type mention vs. inclusion of the strongest negative words that have been used by some. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They're not identical in statement, but any opinion anybody has on one of them will basically be the same opinion on the other. If you're trying to get people to see beyond black and white solutions, your point is made; and if you need to make it further, you can comment on the other RFC. Homunq (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point it is to prevent the folks from either extreme from claiming the people in the middle as their supporters. And the first RFC has wording which would tend to to that; the second RFC is to balance that. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Rather than notifying every involved editor I am leaving the notice here that the recent edit-warring on this article has been brought up at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the outcome: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log Homunq (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Probation on a protected article?

Is this a cruel joke?

Remove the protection, and the probation will make sense. Homunq (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

--Generals fighting the previous battle?SPECIFICO 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

The article is now unprotected, so here are the terms of probation Homunq (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Every one of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs)'s last 8 article-space edits has been to remove any indication of dishonesty in the RNC speech. I have done enough to add the material and seek an acceptable compromise version, so I won't do any more. However, I fully support any other editor who seeks a way for this material to be in the article, including any WP:BOLD edits within the 1rr limits. Of course, in order for this to be stable, we need consensus, and that means flexibility from both sides. In my view, Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs) is not helping; and to a much lesser degree, I think Belchfire and Imsstillstanding should also try to be more flexible. Homunq (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you could explain, in specific, how I could be more flexible, I would certainly be willing to listen. As for Rtmcrrctr, I concur. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I commented on WP:ANI recently, Rtmcrrctr's entire history on and usage of WP is highly dubious, even racking up 6R in just above 24 hours at one point. —Kerfuffler 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (again)

The article should reflect that his RNC speech was seen as dishonest by multiple RSes. Sample wording and sourcing is just below, to be added at the end of the third (last) paragraph of the VP campaign section.Homunq (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being unusually dishonest.

Note: this is now the second time that the article has been protected in a form without this sentence, even though the clear balance of !votes above (and, I'd say, even clearer when discounting the arguments which directly run against policy) favors inclusion. This stinks and should be fixed ASAP. Reasonable debate exists as to the best form and balance for including this info; but none exists about whether the speech can be mentioned without covering the broader reaction to it at all. Homunq (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is still ongoing, and it is not a vote. I think it comes down to one basic issue. Should the main bio include detailed aspects of all parts of the 2012 presidential election, or a high-level WP:SUMMARY of the election with the details regarding the election within the sub. We have to be careful to not weigh down the main article with a ton of specific information. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Making an edit request to add material that is being discussed in an RfC seems like forum-shopping. Also, not everyone who supports including the material supports this manner of inclusion. Denying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There was healthy back-and-forth with this material before the article was protected, along with a few editors who insisted on removing this well-sourced material altogether. No violations of WP:RS or WP:BLP are even alleged here, so this hinges on WP:WEIGHT. It's not just that the removers seem to me to be a clear case of WP:BADPOV; it's that they, like the protection, are getting in the way of the good-faith give-and-take needed to actually resolve this. In that sense, protection is exactly the wrong remedy, because (it seems to me from experience) that an active back-and-forth on content, rather than a blah blah blah on talk, is the ONLY way to ever reach consensus.

So, instead of denying this edit request, I'd suggest that it would be best to have a standing edit request, and where we have the edit wrangle here on talk, and the request is to reflect all good-faith changes to the version on talk back to the page. Protection would then serve to keep bad-faith all-out reversions from reaching the page. I know that this is annoying busywork for admins, but that's the (considerable) downside of having the page protected.

I recognize that my suggested version above is not the last thing that was on the page before it was removed. But it's intended as a starting point. So, here's a WP:BOLD sketch of what I mean: Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Standing edit request

Process: The material in the following subsection should be copied to the page at the end of the last paragraph of the VP section. All editors are welcome to edit (but not to outright delete) the following "content" subsection. Comment and sign your changes in the "signatures/comments" subsection following. When you change the content below, also make sure this edit request (here in the "standing" subsection) has "answered=no", not "answered=yes". (You may also comment here, in this "standing" subsection, and/or change this bold "process" text; indicate what changes you made in a signed non-bold comment)

Created initial version: "The material in the following subsection should be copied to the page at the end of the last paragraph of the VP section. All editors are welcome to edit (but not to outright delete) the following "content" subsection. Comment and sign your changes in the "signatures/comments" subsection following. When you change the content below, also make sure this edit request (here in the "standing" subsection) has "answered=no", not "answered=yes". (You may also comment here, in this "standing" subsection, and change this bold "process" text; indicate what changes you made in a signed non-bold comment)" Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd humbly request that all editors respect 0RR/48h (or is it 1RR?) for the following section. That is, only 1 change (and any contiguous/associated minor edits) every 2 days. This is of course not a strict rule, just a request. Even with 0RR, this is plenty of busywork for the admins; we don't want more than that. Homunq (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Content for copying to page (Please directly edit this section as if it were the content page itself, and keep comments and signatures to the following section)

Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources as being dishonest.

Signatures/comments for edits to the above

• Arbitrary initial version please modify/improve, within 0RR/48H. (that goes for me, too). Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nay "unusually dishonest" is an opinion which must be cited to the person holding it, rather than using a vague implication that lots of sources said it -- in fact, the number of independent sources is quite small. Use the names of the editorial writers, as is usual when strong opinions are given. Collect (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'd welcome your edit to the material above as if it were the page itself (and I wouldn't touch/revert it for at least another 46 hours). Basically, I agree, though I personally think sources should be specified by media outlet, not by name. Unless it's Krugman or Limbaugh or O'Reilly, most people have never paid attention to journalists' names. (Even for those, most readers of this article won't recognize them, but I'm just saying I'd put the bar for notable-in-their-own-right at LEAST at the level of people who are habitually referred to by last name only.) Homunq (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nay Unusually is a quantifier for which no baseline has been determined, and reads like a weasel word in the context. As I tried to note earlier is there a Usual amount of dishonesty which is acceptable? What is required to reach the level of Unusualy? If you are going to go into the weeds regarding claims of dishonesty you also have to state that most (all?) of what Ryan stated is factual true. The priciple complaints as I have read them is that he made a factual statement, but did not state additional statements. Finally, the detailed complaints would go (if anywhere) into the sub article per WP:SUMMARY Arzel (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support but close: I feel this has already had enough discussion in previous threads. This is just over-process. —Kerfuffler 20:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nay Unusually is a weasel word and anyway I don't think the proposed sentence is true. Name the sources that criticized the speech or leave out the sentence entirely. Otherwise it is not NPOV. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: the above mechanism was my attempt at having as normal as possible an editing process while the article was protected. Obviously, I didn't explain it well enough, because people only commented, instead of directly editing the proposed text itself. Now that the article is no longer protected, we can return to normal processes, and thus this discussion should return to the RFC section above. Homunq (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan convention speech statement

I have boldly added sources that defended Ryan's convention speech as factual. Thoughts? Slowtalk (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a small change and is a good move. As a sidebar, his speech was the usual for politicians....misleading but factually accurate. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

--I think that's fair enough. I also believe that this section is in as good shape as is necessary prior to the election. We will all have much better perspective on the historical and personal significance of this for Rep. Ryan after the election. Either the convention speech flap will be seen as the "game change" similar to the Palin fiasco or the election will show that most voters were on balance unconcerned by the claims of dishonesty and deceit. I suggest that this section is as good as it needs to be for the time being.SPECIFICO 22:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Foreign policy

Add:

Unlike his running mate, Ryan believes that Iran rather than Russia is America's greatest foe.

Hcobb (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Collect (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also:

In 2011, Ryan pointed to his support for $50 billion in defense cuts and for a sequester system to make further cuts.

Thanks Hcobb (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarified in the article, I hope. Ryan's response didn't line up with the question and it's hard to tell exactly what timeframe he was talking about. Hcobb (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (again)

The article should reflect that his RNC speech was seen as dishonest by multiple RSes. Sample wording and sourcing is just below, to be added at the end of the third (last) paragraph of the VP campaign section.Homunq (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being unusually dishonest.

Note: this is now the second time that the article has been protected in a form without this sentence, even though the clear balance of !votes above (and, I'd say, even clearer when discounting the arguments which directly run against policy) favors inclusion. This stinks and should be fixed ASAP. Reasonable debate exists as to the best form and balance for including this info; but none exists about whether the speech can be mentioned without covering the broader reaction to it at all. Homunq (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is still ongoing, and it is not a vote. I think it comes down to one basic issue. Should the main bio include detailed aspects of all parts of the 2012 presidential election, or a high-level WP:SUMMARY of the election with the details regarding the election within the sub. We have to be careful to not weigh down the main article with a ton of specific information. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Making an edit request to add material that is being discussed in an RfC seems like forum-shopping. Also, not everyone who supports including the material supports this manner of inclusion. Denying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There was healthy back-and-forth with this material before the article was protected, along with a few editors who insisted on removing this well-sourced material altogether. No violations of WP:RS or WP:BLP are even alleged here, so this hinges on WP:WEIGHT. It's not just that the removers seem to me to be a clear case of WP:BADPOV; it's that they, like the protection, are getting in the way of the good-faith give-and-take needed to actually resolve this. In that sense, protection is exactly the wrong remedy, because (it seems to me from experience) that an active back-and-forth on content, rather than a blah blah blah on talk, is the ONLY way to ever reach consensus.

So, instead of denying this edit request, I'd suggest that it would be best to have a standing edit request, and where we have the edit wrangle here on talk, and the request is to reflect all good-faith changes to the version on talk back to the page. Protection would then serve to keep bad-faith all-out reversions from reaching the page. I know that this is annoying busywork for admins, but that's the (considerable) downside of having the page protected.

I recognize that my suggested version above is not the last thing that was on the page before it was removed. But it's intended as a starting point. So, here's a WP:BOLD sketch of what I mean: Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Standing edit request

Process: The material in the following subsection should be copied to the page at the end of the last paragraph of the VP section. All editors are welcome to edit (but not to outright delete) the following "content" subsection. Comment and sign your changes in the "signatures/comments" subsection following. When you change the content below, also make sure this edit request (here in the "standing" subsection) has "answered=no", not "answered=yes". (You may also comment here, in this "standing" subsection, and/or change this bold "process" text; indicate what changes you made in a signed non-bold comment)

Created initial version: "The material in the following subsection should be copied to the page at the end of the last paragraph of the VP section. All editors are welcome to edit (but not to outright delete) the following "content" subsection. Comment and sign your changes in the "signatures/comments" subsection following. When you change the content below, also make sure this edit request (here in the "standing" subsection) has "answered=no", not "answered=yes". (You may also comment here, in this "standing" subsection, and change this bold "process" text; indicate what changes you made in a signed non-bold comment)" Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd humbly request that all editors respect 0RR/48h (or is it 1RR?) for the following section. That is, only 1 change (and any contiguous/associated minor edits) every 2 days. This is of course not a strict rule, just a request. Even with 0RR, this is plenty of busywork for the admins; we don't want more than that. Homunq (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Content for copying to page (Please directly edit this section as if it were the content page itself, and keep comments and signatures to the following section)

Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources as being dishonest.

Signatures/comments for edits to the above

• Arbitrary initial version please modify/improve, within 0RR/48H. (that goes for me, too). Homunq (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nay "unusually dishonest" is an opinion which must be cited to the person holding it, rather than using a vague implication that lots of sources said it -- in fact, the number of independent sources is quite small. Use the names of the editorial writers, as is usual when strong opinions are given. Collect (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'd welcome your edit to the material above as if it were the page itself (and I wouldn't touch/revert it for at least another 46 hours). Basically, I agree, though I personally think sources should be specified by media outlet, not by name. Unless it's Krugman or Limbaugh or O'Reilly, most people have never paid attention to journalists' names. (Even for those, most readers of this article won't recognize them, but I'm just saying I'd put the bar for notable-in-their-own-right at LEAST at the level of people who are habitually referred to by last name only.) Homunq (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nay Unusually is a quantifier for which no baseline has been determined, and reads like a weasel word in the context. As I tried to note earlier is there a Usual amount of dishonesty which is acceptable? What is required to reach the level of Unusualy? If you are going to go into the weeds regarding claims of dishonesty you also have to state that most (all?) of what Ryan stated is factual true. The priciple complaints as I have read them is that he made a factual statement, but did not state additional statements. Finally, the detailed complaints would go (if anywhere) into the sub article per WP:SUMMARY Arzel (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support but close: I feel this has already had enough discussion in previous threads. This is just over-process. —Kerfuffler 20:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nay Unusually is a weasel word and anyway I don't think the proposed sentence is true. Name the sources that criticized the speech or leave out the sentence entirely. Otherwise it is not NPOV. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: the above mechanism was my attempt at having as normal as possible an editing process while the article was protected. Obviously, I didn't explain it well enough, because people only commented, instead of directly editing the proposed text itself. Now that the article is no longer protected, we can return to normal processes, and thus this discussion should return to the RFC section above. Homunq (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan convention speech statement

I have boldly added sources that defended Ryan's convention speech as factual. Thoughts? Slowtalk (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a small change and is a good move. As a sidebar, his speech was the usual for politicians....misleading but factually accurate. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

--I think that's fair enough. I also believe that this section is in as good shape as is necessary prior to the election. We will all have much better perspective on the historical and personal significance of this for Rep. Ryan after the election. Either the convention speech flap will be seen as the "game change" similar to the Palin fiasco or the election will show that most voters were on balance unconcerned by the claims of dishonesty and deceit. I suggest that this section is as good as it needs to be for the time being.SPECIFICO 22:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Mixed reactions

I recently changed "reaction from the media was mixed" to "reaction from the media was primarily negative", in reference to hi now-famous speech.[53] I found "mixed" to contradict the three cited negative reactions from major news sources, as well as the overall pattern. NPOV means we have to be objective, even when that means reporting that the reality wasn't neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I feel like we've had that discussion at least twice (once over on NPOVN). —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For which I suggest you seek consensus. Both of you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We're seeking it right now, thanks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

--Current version is in good shape. Let's move on.SPECIFICO 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

• Note from a neutral admin outside the US - there's no doubt the reaction outside the US wss negative, but clearly the important reaction is intra-US. All sides should be mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

2 of the 3 on the Guardian panel were positive -- seems that saying anything more than "mixed" is not supportable. Collect (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Plant closing.

There's some disagreement about how much information we should keep about that plant closing.[54] I'd like to suggest that we need to mention both when it was decided to close it and when it was finally closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevance here in the Ryan article is assertions of factual errors in Ryan's speech. His statement was about when it was open and when it was closed. Open is open and closed is closed. Open with a lower level of production is open. Spin statements trying to make "open" sound like "closed" are not only slanted, they are irrelevant here. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

--"Open is open and closed is closed." North, having been involved in many closings and wind-downs of businesses and manufacturing plants, I can tell you that your characterization here is not right. These are complex decisions arrived at after careful and detailed deliberation. Once the decision is made, it takes time to reach full decommission but that doesn't mean the process can or would be reversed in mid-stream. It's not like shutting down a single valve, open vs. closed.SPECIFICO 00:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Aha -- you WP:KNOW the WP:TRUTH even though the reliable sources do not say what you aver is your personal knowledge. Alas, we can not use <ref>SPECIFICO's knowledge</ref> as a reliable source mainly because it ain't one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to SPECIFICO, even if everything you just said were confirmed.....Ryan's statements were all about the open/closed state of the plant. So with respect to claims that he made a factual error in his statements regarding the plant, he only thing that matters is the state of the plant. Open or closed. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of WP:TRUTH, it's a matter of what the sources say. None of the sources cited state simply that the plant was open; all consider it relevant to also mention that over 80% of the workers had been fired. We should summarize the sources, but when there is a disagreement on what to leave out, the more inclusive stance (within reason) should tend to prevail. Homunq (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. What matters is that our sources considered this hair-splitting on Ryan's part to be misleading and dishonest. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest going back to the version prior to this edit by Rtmcrrctr, only with IBD's editorial in place of the WSJ. Let's not get dragged into the weeds on this plant, in particular because Ryan did not even say it closed under Obama.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In this area what folks saying what you saying are are calling "sources" are actually participants. The real sources are the people that cover and analyze them. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Marathon time -- proposed addition and amendments

I've followed this a bit and added the Runners World base source recently. I thought the PRyan response, including the "honest mistake" phrase, was well spelled out on CBS Face the Nation this morning. I propose adding a line about it to the end (see below). A smaller but real discrepancy which I have not seen CBS, or others, do much with is that the original interview with HHewitt referred to "marathons" yet it's turned out to have been just the one. Here's pretty much the full exchange on both subjects from HHewitt's transcript:

• HH: Are you still running?
• PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or yes ["less" I assume].
• HH: But you did run marathons at some point?
• PR: Yeah, but I can’t do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.
• HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?
• PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.

So I'm also proposing adjusting the opening lines to incorporate the move from plural to singular. I don't think the wording I'm proposing over-emphasizes the plural but does reflect better the context and what PRyan said. This next is the whole of the marathon lines adjusted for the proposed changes and amplification:

In late August 2012, Ryan told Hugh Hewitt that he ran marathons with a best time "[u]nder three, ... two hour and fifty-something". In early September, Ryan acknowledged that it actually took him over four hours to complete his one marathon, the 1990 Grandma’s in Duluth, Minnesota. He explaining that he had been out of competitive distance running with a herniated disk since his mid-twenties and had made an "honest mistake" in the 2012 interview, thinking "under three hours" was a middling time.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problems? First, most folks who run in a marathon have run the marathon distance in practice -- very few people prepare for a marathon by running only a few miles <g>. The term "marathon" refers to a distance (26 miles, 385 yards) and not to just "official events." Thus asserting that Ryan only ran the distance once in his life is OR at best. Second, as he stated he misspoke, it is silly season editing at its worst to make more of it than that. Of course, if you can aver that a person runs a marathon having never run the full distance before, then I would like to see that person's training schedule <g>. Collect (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not fair to characterise this as OR. I've not been involved in this section, but this is a description of the reaction of other runners as widely reported. And because there is so much training involved, getting the times mixed up like did is not likely, according to other runners. Trishm (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Collect's whole argument there is WP:SYNTH. Kerfuffler (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you actually read WP:SYNTH it applies to making claims in articles - not in pointing out simple facts on talk pages. And I submit the entire marathon issue is one of silly season importance at most. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are very far from “simple facts” as you call them. They are definitely WP:SYNTH, not mention WP:OR. Kerfuffler (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH applies to taking two reliably sourced claims and linking them in a manner to make a claim not specifically supported by either separately. It is not applicable to a person saying that most runners in a marathon practice long-distance running, nor is your cavil here meaningful in any way whatsoever to the case at hand - in fact it borders on irrelevant carping for the sheer joy of carping <g>. The actual WP:SYNTH language is Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources in an article. And that clearly has absolutely zero applicability to my posts. So again - can you show me any runner who does not run pretty much the same distance in training for a race? I thought so. Collect (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. You're taking your personal beliefs on the subject and mixing them in with our sources to come up with something our sources never said. In other words, WP:SYNTH. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are absurdly off-base. Statements in the article talk page are not claims in the article. WP:SYNTH refers only to claims in an article using two or more sources catenated to create a claim found in neither source. Thus all of this strange colloquy is absurd from the gitgo. Is there an actual reason why you do not appear to understand what WP:SYNTH refers to? And I admoit it is my absurd person understanding that athletes practice running and do not simply wake up one morning and asay "I will run in a marathon today." But since I am not proposing this be in the BLP, there is no reason to present you with sources (though I found a few <g> which suggest that athletes do, indeed, train for races.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think people are confusing official marathons with unofficial marathons. He competed in one verifiable marathon, but this does not mean that he did not run any other non-sanctioned marathons. Grandma's is notable because it is a sanctioned marathon to qualify for the Boston. It is synthesis to imply that because there is only one sanctioned score that he has run only one, not to mention that it was 20 years ago. The bigger question is why is this even in here? This story came and went almost immediately and has no long lasting historical value other than to attack Ryan. Arzel (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So your unsourced claim is that Paul Ryan ran multiple marathons in training, ran one of those training marathons an hour faster than his official time, then forgot that his official time was higher, and that these other marathons existed? That's an interesting claim. What's the source on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.57.100 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Try reflecting what other editors actually wrote before setting up absurd straw man arguments. Ryan said he misspoke about a time from many years past -- and that is not really more notable than a person "visiting all 57 states". What I posted was that in training, only a fool does not train by running similar distances. The odds that a person can run a sub-4 hour marathon without training are nil. Nor does nayone need a source on the talk page for such obvious matters -- but here goes: [55] for a "beginning runner who juust wants to finish the race" from about.com has the beginner running 20 miles at a time. [56] has The long training runs of over 18 miles are the most important workouts in any training program (baa.com is the Boston Athletic Association which is a reliable source about marathons). [57] "livestrong.com" which is headed by a person knowledgeable in such stuff, says Most marathon training plans call for a weekly long run of 16 to 22 miles, with three to four long runs of 20 to 22 miles at the peak of the program. So yes -- people training for a marathon generally run very long distances in their training. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I ran one marathon, with a time similar to Ryan's (though a pretty good split at the halfway mark), and my training program included several >=20mi runs but none of the full marathon distance. But that's actually neither here nor there. Ryan's original "yes" to "marathons" is really a weak thread to hang a "lying" claim on; he could easily have not really noticed the plural (and I say this as someone whose personal opinion of Ryan could hardly be worse). But defending him on the basis of something he's never even claimed is even more pathetic, and criticizing that defense is hardly straw.

My overall opinion is that the article should briefly, neutrally mention the marathon time (as it does) but stay away from hairsplitting about singular/plural. Homunq (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

--Ordinary people may train for marathons per Collect's prescribed regime, but this is no ordinary man. This is Paul Ryan, who makes his own heart-healthy kielbasa and keeps the details of the US Budget and tax revenue accounts in his head, the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. I think that in noting Ryan's acknowledgement of his misrepresentation the language needs to indicate that he did so only after he was outed by the Runnners World investigation.SPECIFICO 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

I appreciate others coming in to respond to the response and carrying on. To the most recent comment above, I'd ask: Do you think my proposed draft "hairsplits"? I do use the plural and then say "the one" but don't draw any further attention to it and in the process do bring the account into closer alignment with the source. I'll also say the elaboration on "state of mind" which my proposal gives helps frame the "lying" argument. The arguments can continue but the article would have some good substance around which the discussion can continue. My proposal still sounds good to me. I know there's some favor for total elimination but don't think it's held sway. I propose a vote for Draft as proposed: Yes? I'll be first Yes vote. Thanks all. Swliv (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his original statement implied that he ran any specific number of official races. I still prefer the phrasing that the NYT used, something along the lines of "he later said he misspoke, and his best time was...". A sentence or two tops is probably best. a13ean (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing saying "official". I'm just quoting the interview. HHewitt asked "marathons ...?" and PRyan said "Yeah ...", per the above transcript excerpt. Then, I cite the one official marathon that anyone's claimed and/or documented.

The Times isn't cited at all in the current or my proposed lines. If you prefer different wording would you mind preparing a proposal including citation for consideration here? I don't have a subscription so I'm not going to try to track the alternative down myself, sorry. Since the Wiki article is locked we need to do it here before requesting an admin edit. Thanks much. Swliv (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

1. (They also refer to it as a "kerfuffle" =). My original suggestion has already fallen into the archives, but was this. On further consideration, it would probably make more sense if it was amended to include something like "this claim was later called into question, and he admitted that he mispoke" to give an accurate sense of the causality. a13ean (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, seeing as I do some running myself and know many other people who do: most runners do not refer to their training, whatever distance it was, as “running a marathon”, when engaging in braggadocio. You only get bragging rights if it's an official event. —Kerfuffler 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kerfuffler. I agree completely. A13ean, thanks for the link. I disagree with saying he said he ran in "a marathon" because, as shown above, he agreed that he had run "marathons". I think my proposed wording gets the statement/admitting mistatement course economically, doesn't blow anything out of proportion, and improves in small ways what is in the article. I'm sticking with my proposal but have given it "blockquote" treatment above for identifiability. I'd appreciate an up-or-down vote. This isn't too big a matter. Since the article has now been unlocked again, I'll be inclined to proceed with an edit as proposed if noone objects cogently and strenuously here. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Can we at least move this "material" out of the personl section and into the campaign section, since this has become more about his mis statement and response?--Mollskman (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

->Good idea. The marathon time is only significant to the extent it's believed to be part of a pattern of dishonesty. Maybe put it after the convention speech sentence. SPECIFICO 02:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the thoughts and will try, if/when I take it back on. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. What we have from the NYT is that Ryan made a misstatement and corrected it. Period. Making this BLP into a "Paul Ryan is intrinsically dishonest" sort of silly season piece is absurd, and beneath contempt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What's beneath contempt is pretending it's original research:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-ribbed-online-for-marathon-boast/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/pearlman-ryan-marathon/index.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/paul_ryans_marathon_lie/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/04/164766/yael-t-abouhalkah-paul-ryan-admits.html

http://deadspin.com/5939809/exercise-enthusiast-paul-ryan-lied-about-being-good-at-marathons

We don't write the news, we just report it. All of it, even when we don't like it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NOT#NEWS, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great, but how does it relate to the fact that there are reliable sources quite willing to draw the connection between Ryan's false statement about marathon times and a general notion of him as less than honest? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Have you heard the term "silly season" before? You consider dispute resolution to be a "cesspool" because the volunteers do not follow your "logic" on such matters - perhaps you might well read WP:PIECE at some point and resolve to edit from the viewpoint of the entire article and not from the viewpoint of let's show this man to be a chronic liar". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything here that might be mistaken for broad support for removing the marathon issue. If anything, it's clear that secondary sources consider it relevant, primarily as an indicator of Ryan's character. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And Arzel's removal summary even makes it clear that it was politically motivated. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. North8000 is just as bad, telling me to take it to talk when he's notably absent. This is ridiculously bad behavior. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because there was no context for inclusion. There was no context for inclusion because when all of the other context was added it was clearly undue weight. Since it was clearly undue weight there was no reason for inclusion in the named section. And it really is stupid. It was removed from the personal section because it was acknowledged as only an issue of the 2012 presidential campaign. The three sentences that I removed were simply out of place and had no context connecting it to anything to do with the election. The only way to do so would be grossly excess weight for the section. Furthermore, the section was just added by an editor that knew it was already a point of contention in a way to make it even more of a point of contention. I realize that SS247 is trying to use this as a way to make the point that Ryan is not honest, which alone is a red flag. Could we at least stick to issues actually pertaining to the election and try not to veer off into political talking points? Arzel (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You've just admitted you have a WP:COMPETENCY problem, by calling on other editors to write the article on the basis of what's relevant to the upcoming election. This page, and Wikipedia as a whole, is not about the U.S. election. To use it that way is clearly against WP policy and guidelines. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that you and they are using it that way, my question is if you realize your misuse of WP in this manner, than why do you continue to do so? Arzel (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This topic/Talk section has clearly been overtaken by a new level of action/discussion since my last visit. I don't personally have the interest even to look to see what's (not) currently in the article on the subject though I have a suspicion from a skim of the above. If total exclusion of the marathon issue has been effected I obviously (if one reads my contrib's above) think that's wrong. I don't think we have to resolve the "dishonest or not" issue to include a modest note of the extensively discussed, not-silly marathon issue for historical purposes. I've been working here (above) to upgrade modestly (and maybe move to personal) the modest note. If someone wishes to tell me we're at all still in that frame, maybe I can rejoin the discussion/action. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has mostly moved to a section below. There is clearly no consensus in either direction right now, but I and others still believe that a brief mention is appropriate, so I'd encourage you to make a try. In fact, I can see no reasonable basis in policy for resolving this failed consensus in the direction of excluding the info. Homunq (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012

In the 2012 vice presidential campaign section, the titles of Jennifer Rubin's "Ryan freaks out Obamaland" and James Rosen's "Fact Check: Paul Ryan's convention address" should be placed after the URL in the reference.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done--v/r - TP 03:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the Essential Problem this Article About Paul Ryan? ( - My take, at least)

Paul Ryan is a politician now facing an upcoming elections. Some people - that is my opinion, at least - think that using the WP article about Paul Ryan they can tarnish his reputation and thus affect the results of the elections. That is POV-pushing, and exactly what WP is NOT intended for. These people, and their (WP) identities should be very obvious to anyone wading through the history of revisions to this article, would do anything possible to tag him as a "liar". Interesting enough, apart from the Marathon claim (a very inconsequential claim at any case; If a politician whom has been in public life as long as Ryan is not caught in any worse case of cheating than falsely bragging about how fast he ran some stupid marathon than, more than it is an indication of his dishonesty, it is an indication of his honesty: Which politician does not have some exposed lie in their resume?!). Not once, during all this edit war - for several weeks not - around the honesty or otherwise of Paul Ryan, has EVER (to my knowledge) any more significant lie than that been expose. Rather, the "Ryan is a liar" camp merely quoted sources - with a very long and well-documented anti-Republican - calling him a liar. That is not good enought. Just about every prominent politician has been called - probably not without a good reason - a "liar" by critics. That is not enough to add this claim in WP article. Instead, WP editors and admins should remember that WP is not about providing commentary. Ryan said what he said. An article about Ryan should definitely include his words. Other peoples words about Ryan - that is already problematic territory: who to include - what is the neutrality/agenda these sources have? What is their credibility? Are these sources themselves being contradicted? Just one example: the claim about some factory being closed made in Ryan's Speech: some said he lied, then some said that those that said he lied were liars themselves. The simplest thing to do is leave commentary out of it. Those who insist on bringing the commentary do so for one reason: they cherry-pick the commentary which is most compatible to their own POV, and use this article for POV pushing about their own opinion on Ryan. Those should be banned! WP admins: please take note. Thanks 147.41.128.8 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can complain about all those POV-pushing lefties all you want, but the reality is that there is a significant attempt to whitewash anything negative on this page, even when independent criticism is highly negative. As for the marathon time, you can claim it's insignificant all you want, but he publicly admitted that he just made it up. Don't try to claim that doesn't say something about ethics. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"...independent criticism..."?! That a critical source could ever be regarded as "independent" is something very difficult to establish, if "independent criticism" is not downright an oxymoron. The fact that the only source you quote - presumably, as an example for "independent criticism" - in your comment above is the Huffington Post is kinda of case in point. Tell anyone on the conservative side of politics that you regard criticism of Republicans by the Huffington Post as "independent criticism" and watch them crack themselves up. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and how does this impact on the problem of Paul Ryan lying? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If he said something which has been established as a lie - like maybe the marathon time issue - then, by all means, add this falsehood to this article. But stick to the facts, rather than just quote unspecified (even if well referenced) criticism. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely the point you're missing. It's not about what you're certain is true, it's about what the sources say. If they say he lied about his marathon, we have to go along with it. If they say he lied during his big speech, ditto. It doesn't matter what we personally believe. We just report what the sources say. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is o.k. to reference information from other sources (how else are we supposed to know stuff if not by reading it in this or other source? By seeing it in our private crystal ball?); but at the same time you have to specify - in detail - what it was that he said that was a lie and why it was a lie. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, there is a difference between a "lie" and a "mistake". There is no evidence that Ryan "lied", although I know that the left media is trying to make that case. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not categorize editors as "left" or "right." It's an ad hominem argument and a personal attack.--v/r - TP 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not specify editors. However, in the media, the left is trying to use this as a character issue to promote the Democratic talking point that Ryan is a liar. From statements above some editors are trying to use this as a character issue to promote the talking point that Ryan is a liar. Arzel (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Both issues should be addressed at either the neutral point of view noticeboard or an RFC/U.--v/r - TP 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So I guess making it up as you go doesn't constitute lying in the conservative dictionary? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a pretty high bar for legitimately calling something a lie. Clearly factually wrong, and deliberately so. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

That in the sentence on the famed speech, that having the end of the sentence as (sources) defended him is inaccurate - the words "defended him" should be replaced by "disputed some of the claims by the fact-checkers" which is what the sources actually do. Collect (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (I have no COI - this is just the template I found) Collect (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I edit this in, is there any way this could be contentious at all?--v/r - TP 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems 100% kosher to me. Homunq (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done.--v/r - TP 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

unrelated additional request

My edit request, as per my comments in prev section, is to remove all UNSPECIFIED commentary. The marathon time and any other specific alleged lie can stay (provided they are well-proven as lies). Non specific general criticism as well of praise should go. (It could be the case that one of the two is added insincerely only to create a phony NPOV perception and thus allow the editor to POV-push the other.) As to the user who initially removed this edit request - User:TheTimesAreAChanging if I am not mistaken - claiming that it "does not belong here" (yet not making any contructive effort of moving where it should be, but rather only deleting it): note that it was in response to the admin TP asking "Before I edit this in, is there any way this could be contentious at all?" So, anyway, TP: I noticed that you have already made the edit, but, still, please consider this request as well. I believe this is the way WP articles should be handled in general (i.e., emphasis is on facts rather than commentary). Rtmcrrctr (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I don't know the topic well enough to make that determination on my own. If you have specific requests, like Collect or TheTimesAreChanging, then I will consider them if I don't think they'll be contentious. Right now, though, I'm not looking to modify contentious material without discussion. Protection is to encourage discussion and that's what should be happening. Aside from that, it expires tomorrow. As far as TheTimeAreAChanging's revert, he assumed you were a random IP who was making a troll comment since the rest of your comment had not been posted nor was it signed by you.--v/r - TP 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, to your question, of what I suggest. What I suggest is simple: throw the entire commentary about Ryan's speech in this article to WP's rubbish bin. I refer to the entire thing, namely: "The speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered.[183][184] However, media fact-checkers at the New York Times,[185] the Associated Press,[186] and Factcheck.org[187] accused Ryan of "a litany of falsehoods"; Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post,[188] the Investor's Business Daily,[189] and Fox News[190] disputed some of the claims by the fact-checkers." - This is all non-specific commentary (what were the "litany of lies" exactly? How do you a "well-delivered" speech exactly? What is the newsworthiness of saying that the speech was "well received by the convention audience" (as opposed to, presumably, "met with a volley of rotten tomatoes"?..). - All of this infomation is exceptionally non-informative, contains very few of what could be described as objective facts and thus, in my opinion - should be thrown out. In relation to this and to your comment: "Right now, though, I'm not looking to modify contentious material without discussion. Protection is to encourage discussion and that's what should be happening." I have the following comment: Now is a very opportune time to discuss this issue is a peaceful manner (free from the hostilities of edit-war being waged in the background). Yet you find that some of the worse offenders, such as StillStanding24/7 - with probably more edits in this section than anyone else, are conspicously absent after making one or two comments. They are not active in this discusion. My bet is that when the editing in re-enabled, all those whom are now very minor participants in this discussion, will come out in force, with exactly the same arguments they always have, totally ingoring any opposing arguements including ones made in this discussion. Please take note of that. You have done, in my opinion, the right thing by this temporary disabling of editing and enabling of a peaceful discussion. Please take note of whom does and whom does not participate actively in this discussion. Regards Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(This was written in response to Rtmcrrctr's first comment). Rtmcrrctr: Your request does not relate to Collect's request, and it is far beyond the scope of TP's question. Moreover, your comments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy: Namely, that praise, criticism, and commentary are not allowed; that only information you consider to be "well-proven" is acceptable. Perhaps you "believe" Wikipedia "should" work in this way, but that is immaterial. Your entire history on this article has been one of repeated mass deletions and edit warring; indeed, none of your edits have ever added text. A copy editor can serve a truly invaluable purpose, and your intentions are no doubt sincere, but your frequent sparring with the community--the warnings on your talk page; the comments from Homunq, Still-Standing, Kerfuffler, Black Kite, and I; your unilateral deletion of a redirect for a different page--suggests that you should reexamine Wikipedia guidelines and seek consensus in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Your entire history on this article has been one of repeated mass deletions and edit warring; indeed, none of your edits have ever added text." I have consistently said that commentary - in the form it appears here, i.e., unspecific criticism - is, in my view, rubbish. That is why I deleted this commentary before and now, that editing is disabled, asked an admin to throw this commentary to the rubbish bin. No apologies, if that is what you are looking for. As to my "frequent sparring with the community--the warnings on your talk page; the comments from Homunq, Still-Standing, Kerfuffler, Black Kite, and I; your unilateral deletion of a redirect for a different page...". There was, apart from this edit war which started long before I made the first edit in it, only one other issue in my history - the one you refer to, of me deleting a redirect. That hardly suggests "frequent sparring with the community" as much as it is merely - nor has it ever suggested otherwise by anyone but yourself - a matter of a new WP editor being unfamiliar with WP policies. But, hey, thanks for the assumption of good faith, eh! Rtmcrrctr (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Rtmcrrctr's entire history on and usage of WP is highly dubious, even racking up 6R in just above 24 hours at one point." —Kerfuffler

It's not just me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"It's not just me." That is no defence! (The same silly tactics is the one I rail against being used against Paul Ryan, btw: "...it is not us, it is THE SOURCES...". By making an allegation you have to be able to defend it, regardless of the fact that someone else made it before you. If you cannot defend it - apologize!Rtmcrrctr (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not germane to the article. We cannot get sidetracked with these personal issues.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"We cannot get sidetracked with these personal issues." - Said TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) who introduced them here. Notice a pattern of throwing around allegations without being able to back them up by someone? Rtmcrrctr (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This entire section is a WP:SOAPBOX. We should discuss these things on one of our talk pages, if we must, but I'd rather not. I could name several other editors who have had trouble with your edits. 6 reverts in a day is enough justification for a polite reminder. It will be your loss if you keep violating policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

((request edit}}

As I suspect it is not contentious, the fact that he was, indeed, nominated on 29 August, it would seem a line to that effect in the lede should not be a problem:

Ryan was officially nominated at the Republican convention in Tampa on August 29, 2012.

It is in the 2012 campaign section, but eliding it from the lede seems odd. Collect (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Homunq (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

Under 2012 vice presidential campaign, the use of the words “founding principles” should be in quotes, because there is no standard definition for the term, and it's simply quoted from the speech. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it is clear that the term is actually in quotation marks as a direct quote from Ryan -- adding scare quotes when this is already a quote obvious to readers makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not clear at all. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the words used, presumably in exactly the same context as Ryan intended, in, among other places: The_Jack_Miller_Center Rtmcrrctr (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot refer to a Wikipedia article as a basis for establishing commonality of a term; that's clearly against WP:RS. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler, I agree with Collect on this one. Homunq (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to insert scare quotes inside of a quote. I'm actually shocked that you requested such an obvious attempt at POV-pushing! That's the kind of thing people usually try to bury with a bunch of "minor" edits. Did you not see that it was already in quotes?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What the bloody hell are you talking about? The term is used outside the quotation. That's what I'm referring to. Perhaps that is also Collect's confusion, rereading what he wrote. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it a different way: if the quotation didn't follow, then the use of “founding principles” in the sentence describing the speech would clearly need to be in quotes, for the reasons I stated. The presence of the quotation later shouldn't change that. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No wonder I was so amazed that you would make this proposal! I just looked for the quote after reading Collect's comment and didn't check elsewhere. In fact, I will now do a 180 and endorse your request. Sorry!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Apologies if my response was a little strong. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It was, but I started it ("nonsensical" and all....)!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The use is absolutely clearly in parallel with the direct quote. Using a second set of scare quotes for the second use is what would be nonsense - anyone can read the use is in the direct quote. I dobt anyone could be "confused" when the two uses are as proximate as they are. Cheers - I submit this "edit request" does not fall into the "no objection" category. Collect (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not the "second use" we are discussing, but the first. And the phrase is a bit jarring--I wonder if it should say "America's founding principles" to be more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the text from the article:

...and promoted founding principles as a solution: "We will not duck the tough issues – we will lead. We will not spend four years blaming others – we will take responsibility. We will not try to replace our founding principles, we will reapply our founding principles."

I cannot picture a single reader unable to associate the non-quoted "founding principles" to the two that appear soon after in the quoted speech by Ryan. My opinion is that it is a non-issue. I second Collect (talk) Rtmcrrctr (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But if you read it from start to finish:

• "Ryan formally accepted his nomination at the 2012 Republican National Convention on August 29, 2012.[181] In his acceptance speech, he promoted Mitt Romney as the presidential candidate,[182] supported repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[182] said that he and Romney have a plan to generate 12 million new jobs over the next four years,[182] and promoted founding principles as a solution".

It's a bit jarring without the later full quote.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Earlier I accused you of failing to give me the benefit of the doubt by not assuming good faith. I will now commit the same offence and myself accuse you of not acting in good faith here. The quote you brought ends with a ":" which you have neglected to add, but appears in my quote above. The humble little (colon) is not without a role: "The most common use of the colon is to inform the reader that what follows the colon proves, explains, or lists elements of what preceded it." (From the WP article.) So there is a connection, that is why the colon is for and, again, I second Collect. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the quote after the colon touch on all of the points listed? Why is that quote the summary? In any case, shouldn't the text specify that the "founding principles" refer to the US?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done Disputed change. Needs discussion.--v/r - TP 09:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

General comment

Deval Patrick claimed at the DNC that "By the time he [Romney] left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation"; the correct ranking is 28th. See this Washington Post fact-check. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been called a liar by numerous reliable sources and earned four pinocchios for her recent false accusation of a misquote. I could go on, but it seems that every politician has been called a liar at some point. I'm sure you could find published editorials calling President Obama a liar, although adding them to his BLP would not be very informative! Neither Shultz nor Patrick have people seriously trying to edit their BLPs with commentary about their "unusual dishonesty", "blatant lies", ect.--let alone claiming that not including such commentary is POV!

What if Ryan compared Pol Pot with liberated France and the American Revolution, like Noam Chomsky did? Would it be mentioned, or suppressed as in Chomsky's case? What if Ryan made the kinds of gaffes that Joe Biden makes on a regular basis? Why did an editor want to write that media commentary on Ryan's RNC speech was "overwhelmingly negative", citing blogs and unpaid contributors, when even 2 out of the 3 on the Guardian panel were positive (and there were many editorials strongly in favor of the speech, such as Rubin's and IBD's)? It seems clear that the level of non-neutral commentary in this BLP is far beyond what is normal or expected on Wikipedia; with quotes like the following interspersed at regular intervals:

"If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government."

How would George Galloway look if it was written with comparable hostility? Why doesn't Hilary Clinton's BLP mention her past admiration for Ayn Rand? Ryan always made clear that he didn't fully ascribe to Rand's philosophy, as did Clinton. It is true that editors could try to add more positive quotes. It is also true that mass deletions without consensus are not acceptable. But it seems undeniable that this page is slanted against Ryan, and unlikely to become a good article unless some of the excessive politicization is removed. How could his marathon time, to look at a current dispute, be more notable than DWS's lies?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What if? Then we report it. Wikipedia is not censored or whitewashed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that DWS, and most Democratic politicians for that matter, are being whitewashed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking here. I did not claim that not including criticism is POV; I claimed that quoting cherry-picked POV text from a POV speech designed for public reaction and not including any public reaction is POV. And I stand by that. I'm perfectly happy to settle it by deleting the cherry-picked POV text. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, and I deliberately avoided mentioning any editors by name.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So I understand the context here, can someone clarify if DWS means Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz?--v/r - TP 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

TP - Yes DWS means Debbie Wasserman Schultz Viewmont Viking (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Critiques of Ryan RNC Speech

RfC: Shall a critique or critiques of Paul Ryan's RNC nomination acceptance speech be included within this article?

At present, the coverage of the speech seems to simply be a neutral summary. This seems to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. If critiques of the speech are not included in this article, which article would they belong within? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include - The brief mention removed by this seems to be neutral, relevant and well-sourced. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Not here but here 2012 Republican National Convention. In any case, win or lose this speech will be a blip in Ryan's biography.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  07:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It may well also belong in the convention article, but if we're going to mention his speech here, it has to be neutral, and that means we give the criticism a sentence, particularly as it's become more notable than the speech itself. As for becoming a "blip", I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not convinced he'll ever live this down, particularly after Clinton's speech. I don't like Clinton or his politics, but he sure can orate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"...if we're going to mention his speech here, it has to be neutral..." says our friend. As in: "if you quote what Paul Ryan said about something, you have to quote what the response to his words was too, otherwise WP is not neutral." No, mate. I said it before and will say it again: this is an entry about Paul Ryan. Whatever Ryan thinks is relevant and what others do - is not relevant. If you, Mr I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk), had your own WP article, your thoughts would matter and the thoughts of, e.g., Paul Ryan about your opinions wouldn't. Simple, no? Rtmcrrctr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Because the speech is included, we have to include criticism? And your claims that RS's have determined the pundits and their punditry have more weight than the speech itself, where are those?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. That's what WP:NPOV demands of us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think at present the summary is ok because it neither praises nor critiques Ryan's speech. It pretty much just provides an insignificant summary. HOWEVER, if it is expanded at all, I would say it needs to actually include critiques because you would likely begin to include analysis of the speech. Just my two cents on it. -- Avanu (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My take on it is that, given the results of the speech, failing to mention it would be POV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"...given the results of the speech...". These "results" being... What? Elaborate, please. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Both praise and criticism. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Both praise and criticism". No kidding!? And the importance of the mentioning a fact that a speech by a vice-presidential nominee's nomination speech receiving both praise and criticism being...? Rtmcrrctr (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Very important - otherwise that speech would be surrounded by all the other campaign speeches he's made since joining the 2012 election contest. It stands alone as unique; separate from any other to date. Therefore the repsonse to it is pertinant. I have no objection to removal of the entire section to the 2012 RNC Convention article if thats what it comes to. Hosting it here means the reaction to it is legitimately ok to include, just as it would be to include it anywhere an analysis of the speech may appear. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include It is neutral and pertains to the subject. No reason not to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrous (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include - The summary reaction and reporting of the speech, a noteworthy historical event win or lose, provides praise as well as criticism, both using reliable sources. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Not here. If anywhere, then in the article that focuses on the event itself (2012 Republican National Convention). This article focuses on the man Paul Ryan. This stubborn insistence by some to include criticism of his speech as dishonest is nothing more, nor less, than an attempt to tarnish the man's reputation and paint him as a dishonest man generally. There is no established significance of the inclusion of the (obvious) fact that some didn't like his speech. The contrast between the lack of an established significance on one hand and, on the other, the significant passion in which the "Include" camp fights here to include this "dishonest" criticism suggests - I believe - a hidden agenda: to paint Paul Ryan - and probably, by extension, the Republicans - as liars. It is POV-pushing ("do not vote for them") and nothing more, based on the above. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If we mention the speech, we must do so in a neutral way, which means we also mention the responses. If we cut out all mention, we could avoid the criticism, but this seems like too big a thing to omit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Leave it out He just had the normal amount of spin / omission of any typical speech. Opposition has been trying to juice it up into something else but there are not been even claims of specific factual errors much less actual factual errors. Would be imbalanced, abnormal, and wp:undue to start putting the opponents talking-points in after every item on a candidate. Finally, the "sources" claimed as the basis for this aren't sources, they are participants. North8000 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - That's factually wrong. Our sources do not support the contention that this is just spin. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your "sources" aren't sources, they are participants. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include: As has been pointed out by someone wiser, these speeches are designed for public reaction in the first place. To suppress discussion of the public reaction is an inaccurate representation; to do so while actually quoting cherry picked parts of the speech is particularly onerous. We discuss public reaction in many other politicians' pages, and we should here as well.

But mostly I'm very irritated that this has now been chased from the actual page, through this page, to a noticeboard, and now back here. This is unacceptable. Kerfuffler (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include: as per Kerfuffler. Trishm (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include: as per Kerfuffler and StillStanding-247 (first comment) iselilja (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - wrong question This is really not the main question. The more likely question is whether or not to include the type of crap that people have been trying to game in under analysis of the speech. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude as presented in the past The idea that "criticism" should be a main topic during political silly season, while rebuttals of the criticism are excluded, and praise is excluded, is contrary to NPOV and BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include: as per Kerfuffler. Clearly relevant and well-sourced. Collect: if you have well-sourced rebuttals, make your case, not a WP:POINT. Homunq (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude Pretty much the whole thing. If anything all of the 2012 presidential election material should be included in the 2012 presidential election article, and per WP:SUMMARY only a high level summary of that article included here. Such a summary would preclude indepth analysis of anything including the speech. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include. Omission of criticism won't solve it. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude He gave a speech about the Obama administration, so naturally there is going to be criticism from the left and support from the right. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude Non-encyclopedic partisan cruft has no place here. It's non-neutral by definition. Pretending to "report what reliable sources say" is just a bullshit excuse to insert Democrat talking points into the article. Belchfire-TALK 18:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Please clarify; are you calling the Washington Post, Fox News, and the BBC "partisan cruft"? I reference your edit summary when you removed this section, and note that here you frame it as "Democrat talking points." KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument favoring the neutrality and factual reliability of Fox News is duly noted for future reference, but it's not applicable here. Belchfire-TALK 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I made no argument regarding any of the sources. I asked a question, which you have not answered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude All of the sources are from opinion pieces which are published without the same level of scrutiny that applies to news articles. These sources are only reliable to present the writers' opinions. Slowtalk (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming you say this because you simply aren't aware of the sources that are actually available. Here, for instance, is a non-opinion piece. Another. These were the first two I found; it took me about ten seconds. Now that you know your exclusion rationale was incorrect, presumably you will change your !vote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't view the "fact-check" genre as anything more than opinion.Slowtalk (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying that nothing that points out inaccuracies in Ryan's speech is a reliable source by definition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly not what I said, but thanks for the straw-man. Slowtalk (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (restored post removed by Kerfuffler without explanation) Collect (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Then could you please explain what sort of coverage you would not view as opinion, even if it pointed out misrepresentations in the speech? Plenty of sources discuss Ryan's statements in the context of a prose article, in exactly the same manner in which they cover any other story, yet you dismiss these as "opinion" because they compare Ryan's speech to reality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misclicked while using Twinkle. (I didn't know clicking the Edit tab while viewing a diff reverted to that diff.) Kerfuffler (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If there was an error in the speech that was objectively wrong, I would expect something similar to the marathon time gaffe that would be universally panned. The average reader of a fact-check article would note that as often as the facts themselves are checked, rebuttals are issued. This is not objective fact checking and no one should seriously expect us to treat it as such. Slowtalk (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include per WP:WEIGHT, which states that we should include viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. This principle is not superseded by the fact that the view of reliable sources happens to be less rosy than some editors would like. As for the argument that we should just talk about the speech with no outside perspectives at all, positive or negative - putting aside the fact that that's awfully convenient for people who would like to include Ryan's partisan talking points with no non-partisan rebuttal - we already are including outside perspectives on the speech; that's how we chose which parts to quote and which parts to omit, using the judgment of reliable outside sources as to what in the speech was important. Comments that dismiss assessments by reliable, unaffiliated news sources as purely partisan display a lack of respect for WP:RS that is unbecoming of WP editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the 2012 election; the entire section should be summarized appropriately. Your claim what is convenient is simply an attempt to balance out those that seem only interested in attacking Ryan, which really is unbecoming of WP editors. Arzel (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment would seem to suggest that the necessary action was adding more material about the election, not removing well-sourced material about the election. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include Ryan gave a speech that is of some significance in his bio and there was a reaction. A single sentence noting the reception in his bio would seem pertinent. The expanded details can go in the campaign article. Rather than having an RfC over whether to include the material the discussion should be about how to include the material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, sorry! Exclude the sentence. It is deliberate POV-pushing. It is meant to seems innocent and neutral, but it is deceitful like this. Notice it only describes the positive opinion as limited to the people inside the building where the speech was made and the negative response as being made by, after naming a few sources which criticized it, MANY other sources. Deliberate - and dishonest - attempt to create an impression whereby the positive reaction was far outweighted by the negative one. I would claim that it is not true and at the very least it is not established that it is so anywhere. POV-pushihg. Remove the sentence. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude - WP:WEIGHT would be relevant if we were already including one viewpoint and arguing over whether or not to include the other one. It might also apply if this were an article specifically about a speech, but it is not. As such, we have no obligation to include opinions on or reactions to the speech. He made a speech, and in the long run that will most likely be the only noteworthy fact about this whole thing. People who already liked him agreed and thought he was awesome; people who already hated him disagreed and called him a liar. Nothing new, and nothing to see here. Move along... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having actually read the sources I can safely say you and Rtm are mistaken in this assessment. The positive comments noted in the article also came from sources that raised the concern about factual accuracy. Also, I find FactCheck.org is rarely in the business of "hating" people in any detectable manner. Rather my experience has been that it is actually a reliably non-partisan site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include As per this Financial Times article, the election could turn on this incident, large numbers of voters can clearly understand that his marathon claim was a lie: it makes Ryan look "both ridiculous and dishonest" Very different to most alleged political lies, which take considerable insight to recognise as such, like republican claims that cutting back the state would be good for US in general, rather than helping just the very wealthiest while pushing more Americans into starvation and destitution.Before the lie was exposed, many neutral commentators were saying Ryan is at least a man of integrity. They dont sat that any more. Deserves considerable weighting as its the most consequential mistake he ever made, the FT article equates it with president Obamas You didn't build that phrase. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude - At best inclusion of the material in dispute would violate BLPSTYLE while at worst it would be WP:COATRACK, although, as long as the current version of the article stands, one need not be worried about their continued trangression. Hammerstown (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include commentary from major networks and newspapers of record giving due weight to all notable coverage from reliable sources. Follow WP:WEIGHT for guidance. FurrySings (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This debate is apparently grounded in WP:WEIGHT; none of the "exclude" !votes are alleging that it is actually a BLP violation. In that case, I think the default should be to seek a consensus version, not to censor it from the article; especially since so far "include" is slightly leading in the !vote (and it appears to me that some of the "exclude" votes don't understand policy). So I consider it a serious problem that people are still removing the sentence. Also, while I'm happy to AGF with each specific editor, I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few paid campaign staffers (on either side) among the edit-warrers here. I'm not going to put it back and flirt with 3rr; but I'd encourage anyone else reading this to do so. Homunq (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment about comment - Good points about understanding policy, but don't worry about anyone flirting with 3RR, as the article is protected now. Once we settle this RfC, we'll have to ask an admin to make the change for us. Welcome to the new normal. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include both here and at 2012 Republican National Convention, but keep it neutral and well-sourced, as opposed to the version at the 2012 RNC page, which leans left. Also, it should be just 1 or 2 sentences here. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include. As the nomination speech for his run for the vice presidency, it is undoubtedly notable in relation to his biography. Just as notable are the critiques of that speech, which are numerous and from reliable, well-established sources. While it certainly should be kept small (no more than a paragraph) so as to not give undue weight to the topic, removing it entirely looks at best like making the article more incomplete, and at worst an attempt to whitewash the article. It also appears that some of the exclude votes are implying that any criticism is inherently a BLP violation. While biographies of living people should not "pile on", and criticism should certainly be well-sourced, removing any criticism from an BLP is itself non-neutral. At least here, where many of the speech's critiques come from nonpartisan, non-opinion pieces that have long been established as reliable by Wikipedia's standards, those policies simply don't apply, so long as care is taken that the text placed into the article is neutrally worded. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include, but briefly - a formulation including the reception of the speech by the convention, later criticism of the "misleading" aspect by various organizations and commentators, and as Collect commented above perhaps a rebuttal by the campaign, would suffice. Hal peridol (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Include briefly -- and while I would prefer the briefer "was criticized by some for being misleading" verses naming several sources, I understand the rationale for including them. a13ean (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude unless sources can show the speech and criticisms of it have made a significant impact on him or the race. Perhaps a generic sentence saying "Ryan's speech was scrutinized by fact-checkers" would be appropriate, but that's all, I think. Instaurare (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we move to closure on this issue? I'm not seeing a lot of new arguments. Meanwhile, the page has only positive mentions of the speech; it would be better to not cover the speech at all (which after all is just one event in relation to his whole life) than to persist with such a biased version of it. Homunq (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and have said as much. BTW, it used to be worse—at one point it basically had all the “zinger” lines from the speech quoted, which was blatant overquoting and POV peddling. —Kerfuffler 18:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

With the wide disparity between the two sides for consensus on this issue, complete removal of any mention seems to be the closest we can get to NPOV, and I would support that decision. Slowtalk (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, but wouldn't stand in the way. On the whole, it's been my experience from similar battles in the past (at Sarah Palin, or the Honduran Coup articles) that situations like this can contain both good-faith and bad-faith editors on both sides. The only way to reach a lasting solution is to actually battle it out, without obstructive full-protection; that way the bad-faith editors eventually show that they're WP:GIANTDICKs, and the good-faith ones can then find a more-or-less-stable compromise. In my view, temporary measures like (in this case) deleting the coverage of the speech altogether just slow this process down. Still, I must admit that in the short term it would be better than the status quo WP:WRONGVERSION... :)... Homunq (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Include - His acceptance speech has received huge media attention and plenty of reliable sources. It's a very notable event and criticism of his speech is required for a neutral report of the speech. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude - Frankly, I don't think critiques of the speech belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Seems like it has little value to anyone. Think WP:NOTOPINION is the most relevant policy here. Wikipedia is not a place for posting commentators opinions. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

I propose to remove the quotation from Ryan's RNC speech. The quotation is out of context, is not an accurate summary of the speech, and is clearly irrelevant given that no major media has seen fit to write about it since the day after. In short, it fails WP:UNDUE completely. If the speech is to be quoted, WikiSource is that way ⇒. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving in this new request of yours what I have said all along about the "Ryan is a liar"/"We cannot have the speech without the negative commentary it drew" camp: you guys clearly have a very unhealthy obsession with Paul Ryan, or, more simply: you are pushing a political agenda. For weeks now you have been insisting that the criticism of Paul Ryan's speech is important because it was so prominent. Suddenly now we learn that "no major media has seen fit to write about it since the day after". What a joke! You - not just you personally, but definitely including you personally - clearly are uncomfortable with Ryan's words. For a long time you tried to discredit him by adding dubious, non-NPOV criticism of him claiming that it was too major an issue to ignore. Now it is too minor. I say: this proves that you are very uncomfortable with the speech, for not-necessarily-the-right-reasons, and therefore try to obscure his words by any means. Caught out! Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks are uncalled for. And when I said “no major media…since the day after”, I was referring to the quotation, not the speech as a whole. Do try to pay attention to context. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a point of fact, my proposal to remove the quotation is precisely in line with many of my earlier comments. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I get back to this article, I would like to refer to your "Personal attacks are uncalled for. " You have accused me of having an entirely dubious editing history, haven't you? Anyone can go to my talk page and view this allegation by you (it is quoted and referenced there by someone else; you have actually made it in another forum without my knowledge), as well as viewing how unsubstantiated and false it is. Anyway, if personal attacks are uncalled for, what about "malicious and deceitful personal attacks"? Anyway, back to the article. I could go back and wade through the history of this edit war - but I couldn't be bothered really to - in order to find out who made that claim about the alleged significance of the criticism. If the speech is not important - why would the criticism about it be. And as for you now splitting-hairs, talking about some "quotation, not the speech as a whole": If that was your point, why did you not suggest a more representative quote instead? Clearly, you wanted the speech either entirely out of the way, or it being discredited to the point of making it sound insignificant. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want a more accurate summary of the speech, you could try CNN: “Ryan energizes GOP convention with speech attacking Obama”. To summarize the speech based on one line near the end is, in fact, completely disingenuous and WP:UNDUE, since it represents only a tiny fraction of the speech as a whole. As for your other comments, they have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what Rtmcrrctr's objections are, other than a general hostility towards non-conservatives. In any case, Kerfuffler's suggested change is in line with a due representation of the source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

His objection (if I am reading it correctly) is why, if Ryan's own words are of minor importance, then why is the criticism of those words doubly important. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer, the "words" in the first instance entail neither meaning nor controversy whilst the words in the second instance are purported facts which some listeners believed to be intentionally false or misleading.SPECIFICO 01:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

So only stuff from the speech which some consider to be false, controversal, or misleading are worthy of inclusion? That does not appear to be very neutral. Arzel (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"...the "words" in the first instance entail neither meaning nor controversy..." SPECIFICO 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

(There are too damned many threads here.) Your characterization is ridiculous. My proposal is precisely to remove a controversial and misleading quotation which is used as a summary of the speech, but does not accurately reflect the speech. I don't see how that could possibly be controversial, unless the quote is there specifically to push a POV. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Obviously controversial change. Needs more discussion.--v/r - TP 09:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, more "neutrality". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Drop. It. Now. Both of you.

Seriously, SS, just making this edit would be an attempt to do something productive. Continuing to try to "win" an argument with an admin? Not so much. Homunq (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify who you're referring to with “both of you”? —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think it's safe for me to make this edit? I can easily see TParis using it as the basis for a topic ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for TParis. I personally think it should not be hard for you to change it to something that is clearly more NPOV on this count, if you try. I personally would expect TParis to be able to see that if you did. Even if you're right that they're out to get you, they are not a blind partisan. Be careful with NPOV and you should be fine. Homunq (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should do it. TParis' problem isn't partisanship, it's personal animosity, so the same action that would get me topic-banned would not cause any problems for others. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to do it myself. We're getting near three days since I proposed it, and there has been no actual disagreement on my reasoning for the change, only a few oblique attacks on me and general criticism of other people's editing. I don't think that has much sway on consensus. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  21:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not giving him any excuse to topic ban me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, even if you're incapable of obeying the spirit of AGF, you still have to obey the letter. I mean, again, even if we assume you're right and they're out to get you, you're giving them the perfect excuse. Strike the "it's personal animosity" out. And more importantly, cut it out. Right or wrong, you're only hurting yourself. Homunq (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC) To clarify: "X was wrong to do Y and Z" is OK, as is "Hey X, please leave me alone". But "X was unfair to do Y and Z but not P and Q" isn't, nor is "X hates me and will probably do א". I personally think it's smart to actually take AGF as a working hypothesis, but if you have to, just fake it.

Seeing no objection to my premise after 72 hours, I've made the change. While there, I noticed we had four footnotes to the same article in one sentence, so I also fixed that. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  05:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I approve. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

…and we have an absolutely clear failure to participate in the discussion process: [58]. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What discussion? Your argument basically came down to the only reason for editors wanting to include is to push a POV. Arzel (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been hidden under a non-title. Somebody already took most of the coverage of the speech out of the speech section (as extracted by he source) and now you want take the final remnant out. I know StillStanding/Kerfuffler would prefer that the speech coverage would just include what his opponents had to say about it. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Improve Personal Life Section ?

It seems to me that there may be some text in this section that refers to information that is either dated or of little long-term significance to Rep. Ryan's bio. Does anyone agree with me that it would be worth some effort to try to improve this section?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much speech

I'm concerned that this edit is a move in the wrong direction. It brings in a large, puffy quote from his speech, which has no informational content. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

37 words != excessively puffy. In fact it is far shorter that quotes in other political BLPs by a large margin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

SS, I too was puzzled by the use of this quotation. There must be some more meaningful quote that would better convey the message of his speech. I googled "founding principles" just as a sanity check to see whether I was missing something, but found little of significance.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The reverse could be said as well. What is it about that quote that has some so concerned? Arzel (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it couldn't. The quote isn't just long, it's substance-free. It's empty rhetoric. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? If there is no substance to worry about, then why the big problem? Arzel (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here goes:

We will not duck the tough issues – we will lead. We will not spend four years blaming others – we will take responsibility. We will not try to replace our founding principles, we will reapply our founding principles.

Why is this even in the article? It's idle rhetoric, signifying nothing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the speech should be covered at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's notable because of the response, which is that fact-checkers noticed that he said some false things. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Only they couldn't specify what they were, exactly. Have you added any of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's actual lies to her BLP? It's looking like a "whitewash".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, fact-checkers finding "errors" isn't particularly notable; they do it all the time! They examine every word of every politician. Ryan's article is uniquely hostile among Wikipedia's political BLPs, and that is why it is not a good article--which challenges your "right-wing cabal" thesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to find a polite way to express how incredibly out of touch with reality you are on this matter, but I'll try. No, it's not that a few fact-checkers think he could have been a little more clear, it's that they found him to be completely dishonest. If these sound like strong words, keep in mind that that they're positively wimpy compared to what our reliable sources actually say.

So, no, there's nothing odd about us reporting on the furor over his deception. The only oddness is this long, empty quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't been able to demonstrate what made Ryan's speech "unique". On the face of it, common sense doesn't dictate that denouncing Obama for Medicare cuts you supported is worse than pretending to be misquoted when your words are caught on tape, or asserting that Romney left office with his state in 47th--rather than 28th--place at job creation. Did Ryan win Politifact's Lie of the Year? On the usual scale of 1 to 4, how did Glenn Kessler rate his "false" statements? How many "lies" are "normal" for a political speech? In truth, you're not talking about actual fact-checkers; you're talking about bloggers and opinion writers like Sally Kohn. Did any actual fact-checkers like Politifact describe Ryan's speech as an unprecedented abomination? "Opinions pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact", according to WP:RS, so any attempt to evaluate the integrity of Ryan's speech by reference to the amount of hyperbole directed at it in whatever opinion pieces you have read is grossly insufficient to establish the notability of the criticism. None of your opinion pieces are reliable sources, and none of them can be used to verify a single inaccurate claim. I know (as everyone knows) that you're WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons, but you're going to have to learn Wikipedia policy at some point, and your belief that every sourced opinion deserves inclusion is simply not how things are done here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes it unique is that he was caught lying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No - what makes this all "unique" is your ongoing mission to have this Wikipedia article shout "liar" is big letters about a living person when the requirement for NPOV is not negotiable at all. Wikipedia should never be allowed to become a "campaign vehicle" as some editors appear to wish. Yet we find some editors who repeatedly push POV edits, disallowing any balance utterly, in their zeal to make Wikipedia a campaign tool. Cheers - but please read WP:PIECE to see a suggestion. Collect (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's our job to report man-bites-dog, not dog-bites-man. When a politician gives a speech full of vague rhetoric, that's not a story. When that speech is recognized as packed full of lies, it's another matter entirely. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about using that word "lie". There is no evidence that he "lied" about anything, there is the opinion of some that he lied, but those are two different animals. Perhaps it would be easier to accept your POV if you went about and added the "lies" from the left rather then purely attempt to add "lies" from the right. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from his comments that SS has absolutely no grasp of Wikipedia policy, and no desire to learn it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you're not big on following WP:CIVIL. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to tell you, TheTimeAreAChanging, that is an inappropriate comment. Focus on the content and not the editor. If you have a behavior concern, it is appropriate to start an WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI thread with sufficient diffs. It is not appropriate to comment on it on an article's talk page.--v/r - TP 01:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ALTERNATIVE SPEECH QUOTATION: Here is a link to the text of Rep. Ryan's convention speech. I suggest we read the text, search for alternative quotations that might be more meaningful than the current quote and poll for consensus on one that is more meaningful than the current text. [[59]]'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be Original Research. The one nice thing about the existing quote is that it is already cited in a secondary source. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be finding a better quote. Feel free to delete the existing excerpt if you think such quotes are taboo.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this (I suggest we read the text, search for alternative quotations that might be more meaningful than the current quote and poll for consensus on one that is more meaningful than the current text.) would be Original Research, Getting a few other editors to agree on the best Original Research does not change it from being so. I think you should read what I wrote again. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of valid secondary sources for a more notable quotation from the speech. Interestingly, the one cited appears to have been altered from the cited secondary source. The article should use a more meaningful quotation, not one that is virtually unintelligible like the current choice.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much Klein

The blogger and MSNBC talking head Ezra Klein is cited for his criticism of one of Ryan's budgets, and one of his works is linked to in further reading. In addition, he is quoted for these needlessly inflammatory statements, which are presented without rebuttal:

Ezra Klein wrote in 2012 that "If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government."

I propose removing the quote as it contributes nothing of encyclopedic value to the page. It is but one blogger's opinion, and it's not clear that it's a common or mainstream opinion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that this quote is larger than the "excessive" speech excerpt.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Length is fine so long as there's substance. Is there a rebuttal available? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The best rebuttal is the Klien is a known left-wing blogger without a hint of objectiveness, not to mention that he started the JournoList in order to organize left-wing talking points with other "journalists" In that cotext, his opinion is not worth all that much at all. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your original research is not a rebuttal. Try again. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the JournoList article to see that what I stated is not Original Research, that is why I linked it for you. So I ask, why is a left-wing bloggers opinion notable? Arzel (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm StillStanding (24/7), while original research is unacceptable in an article, it is perfectly acceptable to use during discussion about an article and about discussing the validity of the sources. Arzel, biased sources are acceptable sources. However, if you are concerned about their overuse then I suggest you gather a list of the sources and the political stance and determine if there is balance in the sources themselves.--v/r - TP 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but when the argument comes down to what we can use in the article, we know we're going to need reliable sources, not original research, so requesting them up front is, I think, a reasonable way to save time by avoiding an interminable debate. By the way, the "I'm" is not part of my name. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The objection to Klein would arguably be relevant if he were the only one to point out the contrast between Ryan's approach to the deficit under the Bush vs. Obama Administrations. In fact, this apparent contradiction is a common thread in a lot of reliably sourced coverage of Ryan. For example:

• New Yorker 2012: "Like many young conservatives, [Ryan] is embarrassed by the Bush years. At the time, as a junior member with little clout, Ryan was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits: sweeping tax cuts, a costly prescription-drug entitlement for Medicare, two wars, the multibillion-dollar bank-bailout legislation known as TARP. In all, five trillion dollars was added to the national debt... Ryan told me recently that, as a fiscal conservative, he was 'miserable during the last majority' and is determined 'to do everything I can to make sure I don’t feel that misery again.'"

... and so on. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's absolutely not the issue, MastCell. We already have such criticism in the article. What is objectionable is Klein's comment about Ryan transfroming the entire federal government.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then you can do whatever, as far as I'm concerned. I don't find that objectionable, or even particularly meaningful - after all, presumably everyone running for high office wants to transform the government in some way. Very few politicians run on a promise to keep the federal government unchanged. I don't see that as a slur against Ryan in particular. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs cleanup

If editors might take a few moments away from arguing over other content issues —

this article has some pretty basic errors that need to be addressed.

Suggest start with the Budget Proposals section:

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top corporate tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax[citation needed], and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[111][112] It would have also phased out Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model; instead, starting in 2021, it would offer fixed sums in the form of have provided Medicare beneficiaries with vouchers, with which Medicare beneficiaries could that could be used to buy private health insurance.[113] The federal government would no longer pay for Medicare benefits for persons born after 1958.[113][not in citation given] The plan attracted criticism since the voucher payments would not be set to increase as medical costs increase, leaving beneficiaries partially uninsured.[113][not in citation given] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out paying federal income taxes using the standard of the federal income taxation system with its numerous itemized deductions, and instead pay using a simplified tax system with few deductions and a flat rate of 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 for married couples filing jointly ($50,000 for single filers) and 25 percent on any remaining income.[112] It would also have set the tax rate for capital gains and dividends at 15% and abolished the estate tax. Ryan's proposed budget was criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.[114] It was ultimately rejected in the House by a vote of 293–137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.

• the proposed top tax rate reduction to 25% was for corporations, not individuals
• the 8.5% VAT was not mentioned in the April 2009 budget proposal (as far as I am aware; it was introduced in a later budget proposal)
• there is no mention in the article of the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, or on the elimination of the estate tax Dezastru (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should not neglect the rest of the article. The above appears to be a good start. In the "personal" section, I propose deleting the following trivia:

Ryan proposed at one of his favorite fishing spots, Big St. Germain Lake in northern Wisconsin.

and was an altar boy

Paul Ryan's Secret Service code name is "Bowhunter" and Janna Ryan's is "Buttercup", a nod to the movie The Princess Bride.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Comments

"At a 2005 Washington, D.C. gathering celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth,[31][32] Ryan credited Rand as inspiring him to get involved in public service.[33] In a speech that same year at the Atlas Society, he said he grew up reading Rand, and that her books taught him about his value system and beliefs.[34][35]" I believe these two events were only one speech. See http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/paul-ryans-ayn-rand-moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.9.159 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Debate

Should we put in a sentence or two about last night's debate? pbp 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

At least. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at this time. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Let the pundits sort it out first. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  17:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, they waited a couple of days before writing anything about the Romney-Obama debate. I think that's a minimum. --Jonund (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 mentions nothing about the debate. Precedent for not mentioning debates? Slowtalk (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a one sentence mention here that basically says "It happened" (and added a similarly-worded sentence to Biden's page). We can add what happened in a few days pbp 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Politifact query

Of interest, since the PF "rulings" were added to this BLP, are the other PF pages [60] which shows a statistically insignificant difference between their "truth ratings". Obama has a higher truth rating than Ryan or Biden. Harry Reid is worse than any of the others. Oops - Pelosi absolutely is worst of all I checked -- only 1 claim out of 20 was ruled "true." Boehner was 1/3 true -- which is a very high rating (I think about as high as PF ever gets). McConnell is 20% true (pretty good) but the numbers are tiny (no one seems to doubt what he says that much). What the query is - is this of any value in the BLP? We do not add such figures elsewhere, and the "ratings" in many cases are a teensy bit subjective in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Still needs cleanup

(Rescuing this topic from the Archives)

If editors might take a few moments away from arguing over other content issues —

this article has some pretty basic errors that need to be addressed.

Suggest start with the Budget Proposals section:

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top corporate tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax[citation needed], and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[111][112] It would have also phased out Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model; instead, starting in 2021, it would offer fixed sums in the form of have provided Medicare beneficiaries with vouchers, with which Medicare beneficiaries could that could be used to buy private health insurance.[113] The federal government would no longer pay for Medicare benefits for persons born after 1958.[113][not in citation given] The plan attracted criticism since the voucher payments would not be set to increase as medical costs increase, leaving beneficiaries partially uninsured.[113][not in citation given] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out paying federal income taxes using the standard of the federal income taxation system with its numerous itemized deductions, and instead pay using a simplified tax system with few deductions and a flat rate of 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 for married couples filing jointly ($50,000 for single filers) and 25 percent on any remaining income.[112] It would also have set the tax rate for capital gains and dividends at 15% and abolished the estate tax. Ryan's proposed budget was criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.[114] It was ultimately rejected in the House by a vote of 293–137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.

• the proposed top tax rate reduction to 25% was for corporations, not individuals
• the 8.5% VAT was not mentioned in the April 2009 budget proposal (as far as I am aware; it was introduced in a later budget proposal)
• there is no mention in the article of the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, or on the elimination of the estate tax Dezastru (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should not neglect the rest of the article. The above appears to be a good start. In the "personal" section, I propose deleting the following trivia:

Ryan proposed at one of his favorite fishing spots, Big St. Germain Lake in northern Wisconsin.

and was an altar boy

Paul Ryan's Secret Service code name is "Bowhunter" and Janna Ryan's is "Buttercup", a nod to the movie The Princess Bride.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Still an active issue. Dezastru (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Marathon deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

Please stop removing the documentation about the marathon issue. It's entered the political discussion-- the event(s) need to be neutrally covered here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC) It only needs coverage in one article - not in every single article remotely connected to Ryan, nor is "we need to show he is a liar" a proper base for any editor to approach any article from. This is campaign "silly season" in America and on Wikipedia - but the rules of WP:BLP still apply, as do the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Agree. BTW, being an entire hour off on something that is clearly documented, it seems apparent to me that it was only an error. The "sources" that imply otherwise aren't sources, they are participants. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC) At this point, the 'marathon story' has been widely told. I'm entirely agnostic about the 'merits' of the marathon time issue. But whether it's a comedic gaffe or a political cudgel, we should be mentioning it and helping readers sort out what happened. Just saying nothing is to ignore the reliable sources that talk about its political impact on the campaign. It might be "silly season"-- but silly season moves votes-- there are people who think obama's a kenyan muslim, there are people who think mormons are inherently immoral, both wrongheaded groups vote. We document, neutrally. More words are almost always more informative than silence. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I'm staying out of the content issues, but I do want to say that WP:WEIGHT is also a concern of WP:NPOV. So keep it in mind. The words can be neutral, but if the majority of the topic is negative despite neutral language, than the article is still not WP:NPOV.--v/r - TP 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Any high-profile politician will naturally accumulate more negative stuff in the "silly season" than positives. That doesn't mean we should keep it out of the article in search of "balance". The article will always be unbalanced from almost every perspective. The only one that counts is, what do the sources say. Homunq (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, that's not true. Give WP:UNDUE a read. Quote: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."--v/r - TP 15:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) If you are getting at what I'm guessing, you may be mistakenly counting participants as "sources" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not getting at anything. I've not read the sources and I have no opinion about the article. I am trying to make sure that proper content policies are kept in mind to combat the edit warring that has been happening here.--v/r - TP 16:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC) TP, I think that North8000 meant that comment to be directed at Homunq.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC) It was directed at only a guess on where TP was going. (e.g. preponderance in sources) And of course my guesses can be wrong. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Then we interpreted his remarks very differently. I thought TP was disagreeing with HectorMoffet's assertion that more text and more coverage of news stories is always and everywhere superior to less coverage, and with Homunq's assertion that we shouldn't even try to be balanced as whatever gets the most media coverage becomes (at least for now) the most vital information to cover. The quote "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" seems to be a useful rejoinder to that line of thought.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I am aware of all internet traditions WP:UNDUE. What it's tells us in this case is that we should not give too much emphasis to the VP campaign in general, despite the fact that it's led more ink to be spilled over Ryan than before. But it absolutely does not say that we should try to balance negative versus positive coverage in terms of their "importance" to Ryan's life. Any politician campaigning for high office will have pseudo-scandals. As long as they get significant coverage by a spectrum of sources who agree they're based in fact, they belong (briefly) in the article. The marathon issue clearly meets this bar, and any persistent reversion to keep it out of the article is/would be against policy. (Note: I haven't followed the article edits enough to know precisely how much edit warring is going on over this.) Homunq (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC) No, you see, that's where you are wrong and that's what leads to edit warring. What it tells us is that opinions on whether or not the marathon issue is appropriate weight should be discussed. What you think is appropriate weight may not agree with others. That's why this article is on probation right now. Discussion needs to be the default action before reverting. You need to discuss how much WP:WEIGHT, if any, to give to this issue. "The marathon issue clearly meets this bar" isn't going to be clear to others or might be outright disputed (and is in this case). I'm staying out of the dispute on whether you want to include it or not, but I want you guys to consider that this revert thing isn't helping either case. While the article is protected, no one can edit. That's not good, is it? You all need to recognize the difference in opinion instead of assuming that you hold indisputable facts. I really hate to topic ban folks, put folks on 1RR, or even put the entire article under WP:BRD. Please, edit appropriately despite differences of opinion and respect each others opinion.--v/r - TP 17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Sure, we should discuss it, but there has to be a basis besides "that feels undue to me" or "this article ends up looking like a litany of criticisms /// this article ends up looking totally whitewashed". The overall balance of the article is a good argument on what level of detail to include on a given issue, but not whether to include a given issue. I proposed a clear standard: an issue should be included if: it gets significant coverage by a spectrum of sources which agree the issue (in this case, that Ryan misstated his marathon time) is not a complete fabrication These are not necessary criteria, but I believe they are sufficient. So yes, discussion is good. By all means, let's discuss whether these criteria are met in this case. And as to naked (ie, without WP:RS) assertions that this is UNDUE, or a key fact; that it was just a misstatement, or a lying liar's lie; that it's a trivial matter, or speaks to his character; or that certain sources are biased and therefore not real sources... these assertions are all getting in the way of a real discussion, not helping it. WP:RS, people; back up what you say. Homunq (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) WP:FORUM. WP:RS. Desist. Homunq (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Not appropriate. WP:FORUM is about threads that have nothing to do with the article and WP:RS is a content policy; not a talk page guideline.--v/r - TP 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) How does the statement "Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter" relate to the article? How does it help us apply policy as to whether covering this issue in the article (in 1-3 sentences) is supported by a broad enough base of WP:RS to not be WP:UNDUE? If it doesn't help, doesn't it just serve as a distraction? If I believe it is such a distraction, what would be an appropriate way to express that, while feeding the distraction as little as possible? Homunq (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Arzel's comment is very clear. He doesn't think that labeling Ryan a "liar" is a non-trivial matter unworthy of discussion. He feels you should've discussed it. How does that not relate to the article? Keep in mind, I don't give two hoots and a howl either way, I'm here to enforce behavior policies and I'm trying to do it by reminding you all of content policies.--v/r - TP 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (later response: Arzel specifically said that "liar" accusations were nontrivial, yet you say Arzel doesn't think they're nontrivial. Also, you say Arzel feels that I should've discussed "it". But if "it" is a liar claim on talk, I never made such a claim; my comment to which Arzel was responding mentions the liar claim as one that should NOT be made baselessly, so in that regard I'm in agreement with Arzel. And if "it" is some hypothetical article edit: I have never edited this article regarding the marathon. Homunq (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC) ) Edit confict. Here's what I added before TP replied. Reply to TP forthcoming. Let me try to answer my own final question. What I meant to say was: the arguments of whether or not he is a liar, or whether the allegation that he is is a trivial matter, are arguments based on personal opinions, and thus appropriate to a WP:FORUM and not to wikipedia. The question at hand is, is this matter covered by enough WP:RSs that to cover it in a neutral tone is not WP:UNDUE? Homunq (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Responding to TP: I feel that a discussion of whether Ryan is a liar, or whether that's trivial, will quickly devolve into "is not"/"is too". I feel that the only way to avoid that is to focus on the facts we can agree on: what sources cover the matter and how. Homunq (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC) That's why we have the WP:RFC process, the WP:3O process (which doesn't apply here because there are already more than 3 people), WP:DRN, and WP:MedCab. All of them can be used to solve this dispute using impartial or uninvolved editors as the tie breakers.--v/r - TP 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I agree, all of those are options. Why is it not also an option to ask another editor to desist from a line of conversation which is impossible to resolve within WP policy, and too politically-charged to resolve through mere good-will? It's my contention that such irresolvable questions are covered by WP:FORUM. Why am I wrong? It's also my (perhaps naive) belief that, if we weren't distracted by such questions, we could actually settle this issue without RFC/DRN/mediation. I realize I could be wrong there but I'm willing to try. Homunq (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) We should be reporting on the actual material, not be trying to game in slam words from opponents. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I agree; "liar" is inappropriate, because it's not the word any WP:RSs are using to describe this. However, they do cover the issue, and so should we. Homunq (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq: Because who gets to tell others to desist and who doesn't? It's certainly not me. All I can do is enforce community policies. Coming from you, Arzel isn't going to care. Would you care if he told you to drop it? That's why we have so many dispute resolution processes. The only thing I can do is sit here with a stick and poke and say "Hey, don't forget WP:WHATEVER" and then block/ban if my warnings arn't heeded. But I can't step in and say, "This topic cannot be discussed" or "this is how this article is going to look." It's beyond my authority as an administrator and it's beyond your authority as an editor. All any of us can do is try to find consensus and use the tools (dispute resolution processes) that are afforded to us to get there. The thing that helps me the most is, I look at my opponents and I say "That guy is trying to do the right thing and improve Wikipedia." If you cannot say that about someone, then it's time you start an WP:RFC/U about that person because they've consistently proven otherwise and it's time for the community to discuss. But an RFC/U takes an abundance of evidence about a person's intentions. You can't infer someone's intentions over a small (large in scale, small in scope) issue like this. So discuss, try dispute resolution, seek consensus. If there are behavior issues, WP:RFC/U. If all else fails, book a cruise to Jamaica and relax.--v/r - TP 00:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) In my opinion, rules like WP:FORUM are made for exactly this situation: comments that have the effect of derailing a resolvable question (What are the relevant sources? Are there enough of them to pass WP:UNDUE for a few sentences?) to an irresolvable one (Is Ryan a liar? How important is the controversy about Ryan's marathon time in a fundamental sense?). As for authority: we're all equally authorities when it comes to insisting on policy here. I can't say "my interpretation of WP:BLP is right and yours is wrong so shut up", because the whole point of the talk page is to discuss such issues. But I can, and should, remind other participants that unless they're grounding their arguments (right or wrong) in policies such as (in this case) WP:RS, they are effectively using this talk page as a WP:FORUM. And others have equal right to say that to me, if I should make arguments that aren't grounded in policy. (speaking of derailing: much of this side-discussion is off-topic, and if you were to move it somewhere like another subhead or even my talk page, I'd consider that a favor. Or put a collapse/show template around it. I won't do so, because I don't want to give offense.) So. Back on track. I proposed a standard for WP:UNDUE that I think could apply in this case: an issue should be included if: it gets significant coverage by a spectrum of sources which agree the issue (in this case, that Ryan misstated his marathon time) is not a complete fabrication These are not necessary criteria, but I believe they are sufficient, and I believe that the marathon time issue meets them. For those who disagree, do you disagree on the standard, or on the fact of whether this meets the standard? Homunq (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq: You don't get to write policy. Your comment to Arzel was inappropriate. The issue of what to include is "resolvable"; indeed, it must be resolved here. Arzel does not need a "reliable source" to declare something undue; your shifting arguments and strawmen don't change the fact that Arzel was not starting a debate over Ryan's integrity. You previously accused your opponents of making "naked assertions that this is UNDUE", only to throw unrelated policies at them without elaboration. As was the case when you tried to insert your own personal commentary about Ryan being "unusually dishonest" into the article, you are acting in good faith but do not seem to fully grasp Wikipedia policy. News coverage does not equal notability, period.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Strange, other editors have claimed to me that notability only applies to whether an article should exist, not to its contents. That aside, the media is still talking about this episode, and both “blatant lies” (Fox News) and “unusually dishonest” (MSNBC) are quotes from actual media that's been cited in this edit-war. Other direct quotes were also tried and objected to, despite being properly sourced. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  02:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq: Your understanding of WP:FORUM is way off. Your suggestions for WP:UNDUE would be proposed at WT:NOT.--v/r - TP 02:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Kerfuffler: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Sorry, but Homunq cannot rewrite the definition of undue. Nobody ever mentioned such a quote from MSNBC, although that phrase was added without quotation marks, as though it was a neutral summary. Fox News defended Ryan, so you must be thinking of the editorial by an unpaid contributor. Editorials are "not reliable for statements of fact" according to WP:RS. Note that in the current revision, there is a negative quote ("litany of falsehoods")--but none of the positive sources are quoted. Homunq essentially said that news coverage should equal Wikipedia coverage, and I think you must agree that this interpretation of Wikipedia policy is not accurate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging(edit conflict, responding to "You don't get to...". My response to the UNDUE comment is further down, these edit conflicts are heavy): I am not attempting to write policy, only to summarize it as it applies to this case. If you feel I haven't done so faithfully, please, tell me why. As to Arzel, the comment I was responding to said, "Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter." I have yet to hear anyone give a plausible grounding for that in policy. Certainly, your intepretation that "not a trivial matter" means that something IS undue seems illogical to me. Regarding your charge that my initial response to Arzel lacked sufficient elaboration, I suppose you are right. I hope the discussion since then has remedied that. Now, can we return to an actual policy-based discussion of whether or not this is undue? I claim it isn't, and gave my arguments. Responses (grounded in policy)? Homunq (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC) TP, regarding WP:FORUM: your talk page or mine? I'm watching yours so you can reply on either; here is not the place. Regarding WP:UNDUE: it wasn't a proposal, but an attempt to interpret and apply the existing standard to this article, intended to spur productive discussion. How would you interpret/apply the standard here? I don't mean, what verdict would you reach; I mean, what standards would you use in reaching that verdict? Homunq (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC) TTAAC: Since this is specifically stated to be the opinion of fact-checkers and/or editorials, your WP:RS argument is completely wrong; we are stating a fact about opinions, which is legitimate. The WP:UNDUE argument comes down to a personal decision. I claim that, given the media is still both actively mentioning it and making more oblique references 3 weeks later, that it's certainly worth a mention if we're going to mention the speech. What I do disagree with is cherry-picking a “zinger” quote from the speech, which the article still does. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  02:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC) The whole point of WP:UNDUE with reference to current events is that we shouldn't be updating our encyclopedia, and especially not BLP's, with every little item that catches the media's attention. We need to step back and use editorial judgement to decide which factors have the potential to be important after the "L" in BLP no longer applies. And, because it is a BLP (and not an article on the 2012 election, where this issue might find a permanent relevance) we need to err on the side of conservatism (no pun intended). WRT the marathon issue, it's clearly just a media tempest in a teapot that won't be remembered once the election is behind us. Therefore, we should not include this in the article. If we are wrong and it turns out to be the defining issue of this election then we will have all the time in the world to revise this article later. Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Please don't patronize me; I know very well that facts about opinions can be reported (see my comments to Rtmcrrctr below). I was focusing on specific edits made by Homunq; for example, using editorials to casually state that Ryan is "unusually dishonest" without quotation marks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Minor point: I was clearly using indirect quotation; none of my versions ever had the article itself making that charge. Homunq (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC) When you combine several sources that don't use the phrase, and write that they criticized the speech "for being exceptionally/unusually dishonest", that's pretty iffy. You should have said that a source called it "unusually dishonest", or "several sources criticized it as dishonest".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Djkernen: As I've pointed out before on this page, your longevity argument makes an argument for removing the entire discussion of the speech. Since these speeches are written for public response, mentioning the speech—and even including quotes from it—without mentioning the reaction is itself WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) TTAAC: Thanks for bringing this back to policy, and sorry we got tangled in edit conflicts (I shouldn't have tried to put my comment above yours even if it was written three edit conflicts earlier). My contention here is: in the phrase "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports", the "isolated" modifies all three nouns. That is, it means "isolated events, [isolated] criticisms, or [isolated] news reports". With many sources covering the matter of the marathon, and with the campaign itself having retracted the original statement (that is, addressing the matter on at least two occasions - the original claim and the retraction) this is technically none of those three. Assuming it were an isolated event, a single sentence of coverage would not per se be disproportionate for an article of this size. That is, there are certainly sentences in this article which refer to events or statements which are just as isolated. There is legitimate debate over the "significance" of this incident. Some of that debate is clearly ideological. That doesn't make the debate illegitimate; but it does make it probably irresolvable by arguments purely on the merits. People's perspectives are just too disparate. When a debate like this is never going to be resolved through ungrounded debate, we have to search for a solution based in policy. In my opinion, the most promising policy is WP:RS. That is, if we can't agree on what is "significant" enough for bare inclusion, we must rely on the judgment of multiple sources as to what is significant enough to cover. On that basis, the matter deserves inclusion. Homunq (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I realize that I've made this suggestion before, but I think the best thing to do would be to RFC on a a short mention along the lines of "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours." I think it's equally unreasonable that we would omit something which continues to receive so much coverage or that we would include anything which suggests that he intentionally lied. a13ean (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree. If we're going to have a Ryan rebuttal, it should be what he actually said: he quoted that time because he “thought that was an ordinary time”.[61] —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq: One of the things some people do is they take all the subjects of an article and they do a google search for each. Then then use the google search results to weigh the appropriate percentage of article that each section should have. It's not fool proof and not 100% accurate; but it gives you a good idea.--v/r - TP 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC) On that basis, "Paul Ryan" gives 51,000,000 results, while "Paul Ryan" marathon gives 3,580,000. So about 7% of the pages mentioning "Paul Ryan" mention "marathon". Say that those pages spend 5-10% of their attention on the marathon issue on average; that would suggest that about 0.5% of this article should be about the marathon issue. In an article with around 70 paragraphs, that's almost half a paragraph. I'd say that's in the right ballpark. Homunq (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) With all due respect to TP, while that method is used by some editors to claim justification for inclusion of material, it is not, in general, a good way to write an encyclopedic article, and would result in a strange article where his one breif mention of a marathon over 20 years ago would be more important than his views on many social issues and just as important as many other policy issues. Interestingly, one of the most talked about issues regarding Ryan (over 40,000 of the ~370,000 news articles) is regarding energy, and energy is hardly even mentioned in the article. Additionally, because he was just named the VP candidate, he is getting a lot more attention. Such an approach would create WP:RECENT problems because anything that happens now will greatly outweigh anything in the past simply because he is in the news now more than in the past. Also, such an approach is also prey to recent events which get a lot of attention over a short period of time but end up not having any long lasting historical value. Arzel (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You're right that this method has numerous problems, especially if it were to be used strictly to determine how much of the article to devote to each subtopic. However, as an argument for inclusion in the first place, it's pretty strong. If 7% of pages on Paul Ryan mention the marathon, that is not an issue this article should ignore entirely. A one-sentence mention, such as a13ean suggested as modified by Kerfuffler's comment, is the kind of thing that's called for. Homunq (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) GoogleNews shows 579,000 results for "Paul Ryan" (initial page figure), and 7.940 fot "Paul Ryan" "Marathon" or a tad under 1.4% as a ratio. I rather think the ratio is fairly substantial. Thanks for suggesting the exercise. Collect (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC) So you agree that 1.4% of 70 paragraphs (i.e. one paragraph) should mention this? Interesting. Hal peridol (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I said nothing of the sort, so your post is not very useful here. If 100% of the content of the 1.4% of articles were on the "marathon issue", then you might have some sort of point - but that is not likely the case, nor do we even know what percentage viewed the word "marathon" as controversial in their own context. So you have what is termed in mathematical an "upper bound" but that dpes not mean Wikipedia should go the the maximum when the likely percentage of words written about Ryan and the marathon is likely well less than 1/5 of 1% (positing that every article with the word "marathon" devotes a full 15% of its total size to the issue) of all the words written in news articles. The remarkably small number of articles found by GoogleNews (which includes opinion sites etc.) indicates that any coverage here should be well under the upper bound for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Ah, must be because I forgot <g> - cheers. Hal peridol (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) All of this to try to game in somebody's spin comments on an error he made. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Woah woah woah, let just stick to discussing whether or not to include it. There is no reason to label anything gaming. Let's not stray into people's intentions here.--v/r - TP 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Why are we talking about Google hits in this talk page? The article is a BLP not a news story nor an article on Ryan's Google rankings. Google hits are completely irrelevant when determining weight. What matters is what will be important in the long term. I think we should reduce the section on Ryan's VP race to just the facts around when/how he was nominated and when the election is going to occur. We do not need to nor should we report on the race in realtime, blow-by-blow, nor on whether he sucks or rules. We should update the section when the election is over to summarize the events and the result, since they will form an important part of his bio either way. All this chatter about his speech and his marathon race are a huge waste of time as neither really will matter over the long-haul. And recent events, especially during silly season, will disproportionally show up in Google searches and are not necessarily important from the life-long perspective that this article should have. Further, limiting the VP Race section to just the bare facts until the race is over will reduce the noise and the POV-pushing.Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I have previously stated, I think it's evident that everyone will have more perspective on the degree and significance of Ryan's (dis)honesty after he election. However on a purely logical point, if the question of significance is to be investigated by Googling, I suggest that the useful search term is not "marathon" but something broader and more to the point such as "dishonest," "lie," or "misrepresentation." Otherwise, after having ascertained the ratio for "marathon" there will be endless additional searches on "body fat" "mountain climb" "medicare voucher" and so on until the sum of all the double-counted searches exceeds 100%.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arb Break

Extended content

As I said above, I don't think we're going to ever get agreement on the deeper significance of this event. Some obviously see it as just a minor sporting event from many years ago; others agree with Paul Krugman here that this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers. I give that link NOT to claim that it is a WP:RS in this matter; it isn't. I'm merely showing that there are arguments for the broader significance of this matter out there, and that these arguments come from sources that are clearly going to seem more credible to some of the editors here than to others. Given that we can't agree, what should we do? I think things like the google searches, flawed as they are, are the best option in this circumstance. I also think that given the kind of data we're seeing in those searches, it would take a stronger argument than "maybe in the long run this will blow over" to justify censoring this info. Homunq (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq, acknowledging for the time being your point about pressing forward with this, how do the Google ratios compare when you search on something like ""Paul Ryan" dishonest" or something else that gets to the underlying question as to whether these arguably insignificant misrepresentations add up to a broader perceived character issue.Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Demonstrating the weakness in this method, from www.google.com: "paul ryan": 1,860,000 "paul ryan" dishonest: 698,000 "paul ryan" misleading: 2,840,000 "paul ryan" lies: 7,980,000 Trying news.google.com instead: "paul ryan": 574,000 "paul ryan" dishonest: 3,180 "paul ryan" misleading: 5,440 "paul ryan" lies: 43,800 And just for comparison, also from news.google.com: "paul ryan" asshole: 3,060 "paul ryan" stupid: 12,800 "paul ryan" truth: 24,100 "paul ryan" smart: 26,000 Interpretation is left to the reader. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I said, Google will give you an idea. Not fool proof. It's a tool to start from.--v/r - TP 22:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Google did give me an idea. When I searched for “"paul ryan lies” on news.google.com, the number of articles that turned up was astonishing, and they continue this week, across at least three continents; e.g. [62] [63] [64] [65]. By contrast, Obama has been president for 4 years, and <.5% of articles with his name match “lies”—and many of those aren't actually about him. That's particularly surprising given that Palin used “Obama lies” as part of a campaign slogan. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  22:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I stated previously the Google numbers are worthless as this is not an article about Google. It is not even an article about Ryan's VP campaign. As someone way up there (Humonq?) said, "this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers". Notice the big bold "if" (emphasis mine). We simply don't know if this will influence enough voters to be weighty and we might as well wait to find out. The election is soon; the wisest course of action is to stop this endless bickering and let the election play itself out, and then update our encyclopedia with ACTUAL FACTS (remember those?) once we have them. Trying to predict the election or what the impact on voters will be each time a candidate farts is not our job. If that's what you want to do then Wikipedia is not the place for you, at least not right now. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The question was asked how important this is. I'm simply providing evidence. Indeed, if you compare with other politicians, it does seem that, strictly by the numbers, Paul Ryan is quite a bit more noted by the media for telling lies/misstatements/euphemism, than any other current office holder that seemed worth checking. Assuming bad faith on the part of other editors will get you nowhere. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) And BTW, if this was all about actual facts, we would not have had an insipid argument about whether GM announced they were closing a plant or actually finished closing it by X date. The facts are that they announced it on X date, reduced the staffing on Y date, and finished closing it on Z date; “both sides” have attempted to tell it differently in order to put spin on it. (I'm just picking one example here, but that's the BS that goes on here.) —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) It is a somewhat unusual situation in that Ryan is running for VP without any record of real legislative accomplishment. His career to date has been principally about self-promotion and bluster. It's therefore not surprising that, like Sarah Palin before him, he attracts what may appear to be an undue degree of skepticism and scrutiny from the press and the electorate. All this grappling with character issues could well be temporary and we do not yet know how history will look back at Ryan's time in the spotlight. That said, it's clear there's been controversy that should be noted without enumerating in text the details of each of Ryan's misstatements. Perhaps they can be aggregated into one or two well-crafted and well-annotated sentences rather than presented with the specifics of each alleged fib.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I seem to remember a president without any legislative accomplishment who's only real accomplishment was a self-promoting book who recieved almost no broad criticism or scrutiny...hmmmm...wonder why that was. Arzel (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) You can't count Decision Points as an accomplishment; it came out after his presidency. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I don't care and neither should you. This is not a forum and SPECIFICO is entirely correct: there is plenty of notable criticism of Ryan from reliable sources. It's our job to report it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC) And that's precisely where I disagree. It is not our job to report anything. We are not reporters, nor do we have any responsibilities with regards to the upcoming US presidential elections. This article is a biography of a living person and not an article on the election. The mention of his speech should be neutral and no more than one sentence; at this point there is no reason to include the statement about his marathon at all. Arguments to the contrary are clearly pushing a POV. Arguments that it reflects on his character are in my view extremely quite very silly and obviously driven by a POV. If at some point it looks like that comment influenced other events then we can revisit the question then. I do not advocate keeping this page up-to-date with the latest drama of the campaign. It is not encyclopedic and it's very boring. I would like to reiterate that we should reduce the section on his campaign way down and expand upon it when the campaign is finished and the dust has settled. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and it is not our job to mention every news story about someone who is destined to be in the news a lot in the next couple of months. (Ironically, I noticed that in the article on the election there is very little updating going on, despite the fact that details such as this would be more appropriate there.) Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Dusty, you wrote "Arguments that it reflects on his character are in my view extremely quite very silly and obviously driven by a POV" -- The 'arguments' are those of the writers at the cited news media. To read your note, one might think you are asserting that they are the opinions of the editors here. Some of the cited media commentators may have a point of view, I don't know, but to read your comment one could easily think you are saying that some Wikipedia editors are driven by a point of view. If that's what you intend to say, I see no basis for it nor do I feel that ad hominem is a constructive mode of discussion.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC) In reply to Homunq's top level comment "this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers" is an invalid argument. If this event is trivial, then there is no need to include it. If it can be used to reach another political end (ie. it convinces people not to be so credulous) that is the very essence of POV. There are valid arguments for inclusion, but this is not one of them. Slowtalk (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, wrong tense. I meant "if it has convinced", not "if it convinces". WP has plenty of entire articles about political ads and slogans, or about propaganda films; inherently POV material that is significant for its impact. Homunq (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Marathon time

What is the most appropriate way to treat Ryan's comments on this marathon time? Please choose one closest to what you feel is most appropriate, assuming reasonable sourcing:

1) No mention in this article.

2) "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours."

3) In late August 2012, Ryan told Hugh Hewitt that he ran marathons with a best time "[u]nder three, ... two hour and fifty-something". In early September, Ryan acknowledged that it actually took him over four hours to complete his one marathon, the 1990 Grandma’s in Duluth, Minnesota. He explaining that he had been out of competitive distance running with a herniated disk since his mid-twenties and had made an "honest mistake" in the 2012 interview, thinking "under three hours" was a middling time.

4) Some more detailed and/or more strongly worded mention.

• 2 -- Support as nominator. a13ean (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think that this RFC should have been done with specific wording; the question of how much space to give the issue and the question of wording should be separate. However, I think one sentence should be sufficient, and that as argued above, given the level of coverage of this issue, the presumption of wikipedia policy should be on the side of inclusion unless there's a broad consensus against. Homunq (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and I otherwise have not been following the page. I think that either 2 or 3 would be fine, and I see no good reason for 1 or 4. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed -- It is extremely unlikely that, once Ryan is dead and gone, that this will be one of the issues that he is remembered for. It is just not likely to have that kind of staying power. We should wait until the media frenzy has died down and then with cool and encyclopedic heads assess it with respect to WP:WEIGHT and act accordingly. Right now it is too WP:RECENT to consider. Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll file that under 1 if that's OK. a13ean (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• 1 (no mention) Wikilawyering aside, we should be here to build a good, informative, germane article, not crap nor an attack article via gamed-in trivia. My guess is that he just screwed up when he said that. After all, he was talking about clearly recorded numbers, was a mile off, and had nothing to gain by misleading. (people don't chose politicians by marathon times) And we have the usual opponents trying to give it negative spin / characterizations, some of which folks might wiki-lawyer to mislabel as "sources". So we not only have folks trying to game in the trivia of his error, they are trying to game in the non-germane double trivia of swipe-mis-characterizations of it by his opponents. Lets build an article, not crap. Leave it out totally. And the same answer for the next similar case that will come along. North8000 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• No Mention because this article is about Paul Ryan has a whole. In 10 years, will Paul Ryan's marathon record be important to have in this article? No. Perhaps at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 but not here. If it must be included, I would include something as brief as 2 in the "Personal Life" section. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1 If it belongs anywhere it is withing the sub article because it is only an issue because of his vice-presidential run, and it is still a minor aspect there as well. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 3 - I can't endorse 4 because it's unspecified, and 2 is a step in the right direction, but too misleading; it makes it sound as if he can run a marathon in 3.5 hours when the truth is that it's over 4. We absolutely positively cannot go with 1 because that would be whitewashing. I cannot help but to notice that the supporters of 1 are, entirely by coincidence, conservatives who don't want Ryan to look bad for lying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Calling other editors conservatives who are whitewashing is assuming bad faith. I suggest you retract that.--v/r - TP 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe you would "suggest" TParis but I would use stronger words, as I am one of the 1's and I am absolutely NOT a conservative and I absolutely DO NOT APPRECIATE being called one. Not even a little bit. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, calm down. It's been stricken and there's no need to drag it up again.--v/r - TP 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, some people on this talk page said:

While it certainly should be kept small (no more than a paragraph) so as to not give undue weight to the topic, removing it entirely looks at best like making the article more incomplete, and at worst an attempt to whitewash the article. It also appears that some of the exclude votes are implying that any criticism is inherently a BLP violation.

You can complain about all those POV-pushing lefties all you want, but the reality is that there is a significant attempt to whitewash anything negative on this page, even when independent criticism is highly negative. As for the marathon time, you can claim it's insignificant all you want, but he publicly admitted that he just made it up.

So I guess making it up as you go doesn't constitute lying in the conservative dictionary?

They complained about conservative whitewashing in as many words, but they didn't get threatened by you, so I guess it was different when other editors say it.

I've redacted my statement, but I'm noticing that your special mistreatment of me has not ended despite calls for objectivity from other admins. I formally ask that you recuse yourself due to your obvious bias against me and I strongly suggest that you honor my request immediately. If you refuse to, I will most certainly bring it up if you should decide to single me out for sanctions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I will continue to treat you exactly like I treat every other editor here. If you have a concern, you are welcome to invite any admin of your choosing to help me patrol this topic area. However, if I had any concern at all about my role here being brought up after issuing a sanction, I wouldn't be here. If you wish to avoid warnings or sanctions, then avoid the behaviors. Pointing out other people's behaviors that I have not seen doesn't negate your own.--v/r - TP 12:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not negating my own: I redacted the comment that you pointed out. However, it is not neutral for you to single me out while ignoring substantively identical comments by others. You can talk about your neutrality all day long, but your actions belie your words. And this is not the first time by any means.

I have asked you to recuse yourself due to your demonstrated pattern of partiality. In my view, a truly impartial admin would agree to this because they're truly impartial and therefore have no motivation to continue on despite the clear appearance of impropriety. As such, your refusal is itself a confirmation of the reasons I requested it in the first place.

For that matter, if we need to bring in other admins to monitor you, then we might as well keep them and get rid of you entirely. I am asking a second time for you to recuse yourself and urging you to do the right thing here. If you refuse to, then I will have to view all of your future actions here as tainted by your bias and therefore illegitimate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, I've acted in accordance with policy. If you have a concern, as I already suggested, you are welcome to invite another admin to help patrol these articles. My recusal is not necessary. If you wish to address it to WP:ANI or seek a wider opinion, I welcome it as you seem to misunderstand my purpose and responsibility here.--v/r - TP 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

People: if you can't take it somewhere else, then maybe this is a fight not worth having. As far as I'm concerned, you're both right that each other aren't blameless, but neither of you have anything to gain by continuing to try to have the last word. Homunq (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• • SS is just going to take that gentle reminder as more evidence that he is being unjustly persecuted by you and the vast right-wing conspiracy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • And that's also inappropriate. It's not a good idea to return like with like.--v/r - TP 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1 It's a wildly undue example of WP:RECENTISM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4: With the actual quote from Ryan himself, as I mentioned in another thread. I was actually going to vote “1”, but then I noticed there are 33 times as many hits for “"paul ryan" marathon” as for “dishonorable disclosures”, and so it's obviously worth mentioning. In fact, by any metric presented, the marathon thing should have its own page! There's plenty of available material; e.g. how it was actually discovered is described in several articles. —Kerfuffler  harass
  stalk  03:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4 The current significance of this event is that Ryan said this, that it fits into an ongoing narrative about his workouts, fitness, mountain climbing, bow-hunting, deer-skinning, etc etc and that he only retracted it when the running geeks called him out. As I've said, 6 months from now it can be revised. Future editors may no longer feel it's significant or alternatively may believe that it was one of the prime factors in an Obama 2012 landslide -- we don't know what weight future editors may rightfully assign to it. However for today, my opinion is as stated above.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 3 It's clearly notable and the article would be incomplete without it. If it turns out to be an example of [[WP:RECENTISM] it can be removed after the passage of time. Our standard should be would a naive reader be better informed with the inclusion. 04:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC) unsigned by Ucanlookitup
• 1) No mention in this article. Because it's not relevant or encyclopedic. It's just partisan cruft that has no place here. Belchfire-TALK 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4 (or 3). Notable, Verified, and relevant on an active politician's biography. After all, we already discuss his exercise habits. The marathon time has, better or worse, become part of the national discourse. --22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 This seems to be as good a compromise between weight and NPOV as we're ever going to find. Slowtalk (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 (or 3). Notable. Goes to his proclaimed attitude on health and fitness re: family history of less than optimal health and fitness. Relevant. goes to character one way or the other regardless of any percieved meme in the campaign of the moment or his politics in general. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm late, but I'm voting for #2. One sentence seems about right. I think it's gotta be either #1 (the mode) or #2 (the mean and median) pbp 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the mean and median have no meaning in an nominal scale. Only the mode has any value. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a nominal scale, it's an ordinal one. Therefore the median is appropriate, though you are correct that the mean isn't. Homunq (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not an ordinal scale because their is no clear delimination between each group on an order scale. And ordinal scale is (Rate your satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10) or some aspect like that, this is a categorical scale, which is nominal. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time for you to disengage Arzel. You're really in the wrong here too. Homunq (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You know just saying that does not make you correct. I gave you a clear example of an ordinal scale, this is not one of them regardless of condenscending you try to be. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So ordering the options 3,1,4,2 would make just as much sense as 1,2,3,4? It's pretty strange, then, that there were examples of 1/2 votes, 2/3 votes, and 3/4 votes but no 1/3 or 2/4 votes. (This comment was originally more sarcastic. That was poor form of me; sorry, Arzel. Also, the "you're in the wrong" comment above wasn't helpful. I mean, you are absolutely wrong about the level of measurement here but I should patiently explain that or walk away.) Homunq (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You assume that those 4 involve all possible solutions and that they are equally different. This is really a dichotomous choice (something or nothing) On a side note, why the HELL did you do this? This is really poor form. Arzel (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2 or 3 - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Both 1 and 4 are extremes; 2 or 3 are most encyclopedic. Since this is a major politician, allegations of untruthfulness are important, so totally omitting it (1) is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 Honestly I think we're sweating the details. He's human, so what?--RandomLittleHelpertalk 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• 1 No mention. This is WP:RECENT and frankly not relevant to the biography. This factoid won't stand up to the test of time, it provides no useful information to the reader. Running marathons are not relevant to the biographee (at this time). If that were to change (say he becomes a pro runner) then this could be added later. Do we report every malapropism someone makes, no matter how well sourced? Of course not. What sourcing there is about this issue is all related to the election. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs there, not here.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Approximately 2 but include all relevant references. It's not a major issue; the text just has to be enough to clue the reader to what the references are about. The key is that they are available so that anyone interested can research further. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2 but with more references, per Wnt. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• 3 with 2 as second best William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2, 3 or 4 - Why not? Its notable, its verifiable, it should be included. Fabulinus 07:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2 seems like a good compromise. It's a fair thing to add, so long as there isn't undue weight. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• 1 Can you honestly imagine an other encyclopedia than WP mentioning such an incident? --Jonund (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary proposal to close RfC

Speculation about close of the RFC and discussion of a controversial early attempt to include the material.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Six days since anybody has chimed in. Keep in mind that a couple of users indicated they were good with a couple of the listed options and my count reflects some users choosing multiple options. Option 1, six votes. Option 2 or "one sentence", five votes. Option 3, four votes. Option 4, three votes. The article as of the current revision omits all mention of the marathon incident. Obviously, no strong consensus for any option, but a slight majority favor little or no mention of the incident. Synthesizing the general sentiment, probably a one line blurb in the article would be appropriate (Option 2). There is clearly no consensus for any broader mention, but not a strong enough consensus for no mention. I am not going to close this discussion yet, in case anybody objects to this proposal to close. Safiel (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC) That sounds reasonable, so long as that one line gets the gist across. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Added the underlined "or one sentence" nitpick, otherwise I agree that this is fair. Homunq (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Perhaps the bigger issue is that noone has chimed in in six days, becuase no one really cares anymore. It was a simple blip without any longstanding historical value, hense option 1 is the clear correct close. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree. The existing votes still stand. "Bold, revert, bog it down in process, and then declare victory for status quo because it took too long" is absolutely not a valid procedure, even if it was taken in good faith, as I must assume it was. This goes for more than just this one issue; the entire "too much speech" section on this page also concerns such a reversion. Homunq (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Safiel, you actually can read a consensus from the above and you've accurately read it. 66% of commentators favor some mention (Options 2, 3, and 4). 61% support little or no mention (Options 1 and 2) and 38% support a detailed mention (Options 3 and 4). You are correct that that can lead us to believe consensus favors a minor mention. However, we often leave these open for a month even if they are inactive for a week or more.--v/r - TP 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 15 opined. 7 for 1, 2.5 for 2, 3 for 3 and 2.5 for 4 by my count. The median is clearly within the range of "2" as Homunq noted. I suppose my reading of positions differs from yours, but I trust my maths background here. Collect (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC) TP, Since 66% voted for mention, doesn't it make sense that the way to get closure would be to have a runoff between 2,3,and 4? One of those who voted for 4 might propose specific language to help converge on the result.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 53% voted for mention, not 66%, not sure where you are getting 66%. Arzel (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Per TP above.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) You could, but RFCs generally stay open for 30 days. You have a group of about 15 people whom have had active participation in this article (for the most part). In 30 more days, the folks with casual interest may have an opinion. After ec/re Arzel and Collect: I am using Safiel's numbers.--v/r - TP 18:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC) These are my numbers: Option 1 - 6 - North9000, RedSoxFan2434, Dusty|n, TheTimesAreAChanging, Belchfire, Arzel Option 2 - 3.5 - a13ean, .5 Tryptofish, Homunq, Slowtalk Option 3 - 3 - StillStanding24-7, Ucanloopitup, .5 Tryptofish, .5 HectorMoffet Option 4 - 2.5 - Kerfuffler, SPECIFICO, .5 HectorMoffet 15 Total !votes 40% in favor of Option 1 23% in favor of Option 2 20% in favor of Option 3 16.6% in favor of option 4 63% in favor of options 1 and 2 which I take as 'minimal inclusion' 36.6% in favor of options 3 and 4 which I take as 'detailed inclusion' 60% in favor of inclusion --v/r - TP 18:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Just a minor point, I think the 4 (or 3) vote was User:HectorMoffet rather than NickCT. Hal peridol (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC) RedSoxFan2434 is a 1 not a 1 or a 2. They clearly said no, but if it is included it would be a breif mention, this is a conditional response. I think it can be reasonably assumed that anyone that voted 1 would have the same conditional response. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Does it really matter at this point? An RFC would not be closed after a week of discussion and the result would be the same.--v/r - TP 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I added 1, with references, to the page. This is NOT intended to imply that the RFC is closed; it is merely a tentative, in-the-meantime edit. However, to revert it would be to go against 60% of the !vote here, by TP's count. Homunq (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) And I removed it as a highly inappropriate violation of the RfC process. I suggest you not go down this path again. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I consider your reversion to be edit warring in violation of article probation, and I think you should get a short-term (24h?) ban on this article for it. The RFC process is not a freeze on one version of an article; it is a way to arrive at a conclusion without edit-warring. As tentative conclusions emerge, they should be added to the article. Otherwise, simply starting an RFC would be like locking a section of an article for a month. Homunq (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I've just reviewed the policies on WP:RFC, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:CONSENSUS, and in none of them is editing during an RFC discouraged. Thus I feel that Arzel's reading of policy, as evidenced by his reversion, is clearly wrong. However, on second thought, I can see how his understanding of policy could have been good-faith. Arzel: if you show that you have read the above policies, and either self-revert your reversion or state its clear basis in policy (that is, clear enough to override the fact that it is a crystal-clear example of edit warring), I will withdraw my suggestion that you should get a short term slap-on-the-wrist article ban. Homunq (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC) You know this is a contentious issue and as a primary participant are in no position to assume what concensus is or will be. You have needlessly agrevated the situation in a manner you absolutely must have known would have been viewed as contentious. Additionally, RfC are not !votes, so the number for or against are ultimately pointless, the decision is supposed to be made on the merits of the arguments. I will not revert my removal of your contentious edit. Generally speaking (and to my knowledge) sections regarding RfC are rarely (if ever) edited during the RfC, and I see no reason to reason to change that becuase you think that 60% - 40% is somehow a huge concensus. Even when changes are made they are first discussed within the talk page to avoid contentious issues. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC) My reading of consensus was not my own, as I agree that as a participant I am unqualified (though this is the first time I've edited the article on this issue, and to my memory only the second time I've commented on the issue here). My reading of consensus was thus based on explicit statements above by Safiel and TP ("Safiel, you actually can read a consensus from the above and you've accurately read it."). And the very existence of this section refutes your claim that I did this without discussion. I realize that this issue is contentious but fail to see how my edit makes it any more contentious; it only switches the WP:WRONGVERSION to one that, from the perspective of over 60% of !voters, was better. You have not given any justification in policy for your edit warring, and a "generally speaking" usage argument is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption against edit warring on probationary articles. This is also not your first time edit warring on this article. My request that you get a short term, slap-on-the-wrist ban therefore stands. If article probation is to mean anything, it must be enforced eventually. In fact, although I only think that I am in the right here, I know that you are in the wrong. Therefore, though I of course don't want to be banned myself, I'd rather we both got a short-term article ban, than that neither of us do. Homunq (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Gents, we are not even close to a close so let's not pretend there is a consensus yet especially when the numbers are this close. If it closed today, that's what it'd look like. How it closes in 3 weeks from now, we'll have to see. Homunq, I think you should be able to agree with me that it's a misunderstanding on Arzel's part that editing is not allowed. Would you support a topic ban over a misunderstanding? Arzel, Homunq has checked the relevant policies and determined there is no freeze on editing the article right now and in the future on an article with probation, defer contentious reverts to an uninvolved sysop. As to the rest of this conversation, this is entirely premature.--v/r - TP 21:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Would I support a topic ban over a first-time misunderstanding? Definitely not. However, this isn't Arzel's first time edit warring on this article or even on this very point, and I feel that a short-term (24-hour) single-article ban is appropriate at this time. 1 day is essentially nothing, but it would make the point clear. Obviously, though, I'm not the admin here, so that's just my opinion. Also, I won't change the article again myself, as that would only be escalating. However, I will reiterate that I believe that a change is appropriate and would support anyone else (involved or uninvolved) making it. The RFC process is a way to eventually reach a final consensus, but there's nothing wrong with the article tracking the tentative consensus in the meantime, as long as that appears stable (>1 week). Also, if Arzel is not given even a 1-hour ban and the article remains on his favorite WP:WRONGVERSION, we are essentially rewarding his misbehavior. Homunq (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'd like to extend Arzel this last grace period being that I can understand how this mistake was made with the understanding the future mistakes will be regarded as being reckless and blockable.--v/r - TP 22:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) OK, I'm satisfied with that, now that you've stated it clearly. Homunq (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I refuse to be baited into this. TP, I will grant that you have been quite even-handed, but show me where it is the norm to make contentious edits during a RfC. Arzel (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC) You continue to focus on my edits, which you argue contradict common usage although you can't point to any policy (and I can). That may be a debatable issue, as I've already admitted by saying I only "think" that I'm in the right. But you still fail to face the fact that your edit was wrong, by two separate policies: WP:CONSENSUS and the combination of WP:EDITWAR and WP:PROBATION. You should still remedy this by reverting your edit. Homunq (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Consensus is not a majority. Until you understand that you will continue to fail to understand how RfC's work. I made one edit of a clear attempt to cause a heated situation, that is not an edit war, which I think you also fail to understand. I will not restore your attempt to hijack the RfC process. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC) It's time for you to disengage Arzel. You're really in the wrong here.--v/r - TP 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC) I would prefer you acknowledge that consensus is not a vote. Per the policy. Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Of course it's not a vote, but we're not even at the part of determining consensus yet. For me it was an idle curiosity of whether Safiel read it correctly. When it is time to close, I or some other uninvolved editor, will be happy to fully read and comprehend all of the opinions. If you have concerns about my ability to read consensus, I can point you to quite a few contentious RfCs and AfDs that I've closed.--v/r - TP 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq is under the impression that it is a vote and that you can edit based off the current counts, to me this is in the wrong. You would also have to realize how such an approach to an RfC would undermine the process completely. You telling me I an "really in the wrong" does not improve on the process. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Arzel, it would be helpful if you would confine your comments here to the article under discussion and not accuse or speculate about the motivations of other editors or TP.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Arzel, that is not what he is doing at all. He has taken a tentative consensus and felt it was appropriate to work on that piece of the article. There is nothing that says he cannot. You are wrong to assume that there is any sort of freeze on the topic under discussion and that it is an exception to the edit warring policy. Homunq made an edit that is discouraged and not in good taste during an RFC but not disallowed by policy. I strongly recommend that you take my advice and disengage and come back when your not charged up about this issue.--v/r - TP 15:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC) RfCs nominally last for 30 days. I just received a notice about this RfC from the RfC bot today, 30 Sept, so things are still moving along. Closing now would be premature. --Noleander (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I agree; a close at this point is far too premature. RfC's speed up and slow down at their own pace (pun intended) and to close now (especially with the uncertain data provided above) misses out on valuable opinions from Feedback Request Service members like ourselves and any others that may be directed here by the RfC bot. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Related statement in current version

For better or for worse, the article currently reflects the 2nd choice from the RfC above, but rather than stating that he mispoke it now says "he later stated that he forgot his actual time and was just trying to state what he thought was a normal time".

I'm concerned about this for two reasons (plus the fact that it hasn't been discussed at all here). The first one is that, at least in my mind, it characterizes this situation significantly more negatively that what people seem to support above: namely it implies that he knowingly gave false information by making up a time, rather than unknowingly giving false information of what his time was. In addition, it doesn't seem to be well sourced to the cited article. In that article a direct quote attributed to him is "I literally thought that was my time. It was 22 years ago. You forget sorta these things," which seems to support the less harsh statement that he mispoke. Secondly, I think it's good practice to always source things with the most neutral article available, which IMHO is not the huffington post one in this case. If possible I would like to generate a consensus to restore the statement in the article to the number 2 choice above temporarily, pending the outcome of the RfC rather than let it sit as a statement that hasn't been well discusses here. a13ean (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to bump, but I'm intrigued -- am I really the only one concerned about this addition?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reminder about U.S. House district (and notes about other incumbent members of Congress who had seat up for election & were also on national party tickets)

I find: "Ryan is also running for re-election to his seat in the House in November 2012."

OK, but since this is a year ending in 2, the district he is running in may be at least slightly different from the one he's representing now, because of reapportionment. Even if a state ends up with the same number of U.S. Representatives as in the previous census, district boundaries are subject to shift (the only time there is guaranteed to be no shift is when a state has only 1 U.S. Representative). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be mentioned in his district's article? pbp 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Politifact dealt with this - he is legally powerless to remove his name under Wisconsin law unless he dies. Collect (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I am finding "Ryan is also running for re-election to his seat in the House in November 2012, as required by Wisconsin law". Politifact is cited as reference, and I don't quite understand about this "requirement". I had already written to Politifact and suggested looking up John Nance Garner in 1932 (running for US House seat and also being Democratic VP nominee), noting that that is also a year ending in 2. And I also wrote that there are 4 cases I know of where a US Senator ran for re-election while also being the Democratic VP nominee: Lyndon Johnson (1960), Lloyd Bentsen (1988), Joe Lieberman (2000), Joe Biden (2008). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I recall hearing about these then-incumbent members of Congress who went onto a national party ticket and did not also run for re-election to a seat up for election then: Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative William E. Miller, the 1964 Republican ticket Senator John Edwards, Democratic VP nominee, 2004

I think the sentence quoted above needs to change--right now it is confusing. I had to read the Politifact source to understand what it meant. Without mentioning the June deadline and the fact he can't remove his name from the ballot, this implies he had to run for re-election no matter what. I think the important thing for the lede is the fact that he's running for Vice President, not the minutiae of Wisconsin election law, so I suggest we delete the entire sentence the IP address quoted above and deal with this in the Elections section below. Mforg (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he wasn't going to run for House seat if he was the Republican VP nominee -- but was the ballot already set (for that House seat) when he was tapped for VP nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The house ballot was already set when he was tapped for the VP nomination. That's not what the lede implies at the moment. As for what he would do if he had a choice, he hasn't actually said, so we should remain silent on that subject. I'll go ahead and make the change to the lede, and clarify the situation lower in the article. Mforg (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Broken link fix: External links, CongLinks, change waspo parameter to gIQAUWiV9O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Marathon

Is this really important enough to warrant its own paragraph? Instaurare (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail and there was a related RfC: [66]. To summarize, there was a consensus to include it but not one on a specific wording, and the current version has been stable for a while. a13ean (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, should have done my homework. Thanks. Instaurare (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

The majority of his ancestry is Irish, yet his English and German ancestry comes first in categories. Same old bigoted nonsense and crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.243.44 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

a b c d E f G h I j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z , no crap just alphabetical ordering, this eliminates agenda pushing and is common pratice on the encyclopedia. Murry1975 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding footnote references

A reference (or two) could be added to the VP debate of the 2012 election cycle. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Joe Scarbourough comments

I undid this edit as it was not neutrally phrased, and in particular it did not attribute the comments to who made them. a13ean (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the second-last paragraph under the "Fiscal, education, and health care policy" heading it says: "Ryan is a supporter of for-profit colleges and opposed the gainful employment rule, which would have insured that vocational schools whose students were unable to obtain employment would stop receiving federal aid."

It should say "ensured", not "insured". WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, posting this edit request gave me enough edits to fix it myself. Oh well. Sorry to be a nuisance... WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Intro

Why is the following statement significant enough to be included in the intro?

"Ryan has developed budget plans that propose privatizing Medicare for those currently under the age of 55,[3] funding Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through block grants to the states,[4][5][6] and other changes. Ryan introduced these proposals in his spending plan for the House Budget Committee in April 2011 and in an updated version in March 2012."CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are they not? Ruby Murray 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They look significant to me. I didn't revert the deletion, but it should probably get reverted. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the intro for living politicians are typically devoted to milestones in their careers, not a specific bill or plan.CFredkin (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I would agree that calling that a milestone in his career is recentism, so I'd be OK with moving the references cited in the intro down to the "Budget proposals" section. But please be careful when removing content from intros, and do a page preview before saving, to check that you're not removing references that are used in repeat citations elsewhere in the article. Thanks, Ruby Murray 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Debt Ceiling?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359818/paul-ryan-cr-fight-will-inevitably-roll-debt-ceiling-fight-jonathan-strong

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/15/paul-ryan-debt-ceiling_n_4449213.html?ir=Politics

Ryan keeps bringing up the issue over and over again. Why are we silencing him? Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And again the subject is reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&action=historysubmit&diff=586528268&oldid=586501605

Ryan keeps bringing the subject up in the context of the budget. Who are we to censor the congressman? Hcobb (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the context for your statement? Concessions for what? When did he say it? CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Added in a little more of the context, but he's said volumes on this subject over the years and it's never been allowed to be entered. So there is a lot more to add it. Hcobb (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And once again you have silenced the man who said "Default is the unworkable solution." Hcobb (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The intro to this article currently contains a number of statements that I believe are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead:

1. Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, and is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio. He worked as an aide to legislators Bob Kasten, Sam Brownback, and Jack Kemp, and as a speechwriter before winning election to the U.S. House in 1998.
2. Ryan has developed budget plans that propose privatizing Medicare for those currently under the age of 55,[3] funding Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through block grants to the states,[4][5][6] and other changes. Ryan introduced these proposals in his spending plan for the House Budget Committee in April 2011 and in an updated version in March 2012.[7]
3. On December 10, 2013, Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray announced that they had negotiated a two-year, bipartisan budget, known as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.[11][12] Although the deal was controversial among conservatives in Congress, other Representatives said that Ryan's support for the bill was a major reason why they were considering the deal.[11]

If you disagree, please explain their significance. Thanks. CFredkin (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

#1 sounds like normal main stuff for an article on a person Suggest keeping

#2 Is older, dead and superseded. Suggest leaving out.

#3 is gigantic, assuming that it passed. Suggest keeping.

North8000 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 should go to life and ed. #2 goes under policies or history. #3 is not a done deal, but would be more or less expected of somebody who held his job. So trim the lead down to name, rank, and affiliation. Hcobb (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Leads should be "a summary of [the article's] most important aspects". His "Path to Prosperity" budget plans are, along with his vice presidential candidacy, what he is best known for and should obviously be mentioned in the lead. As for the 2 sentences on his background, that's standard and I see no reason why that should be removed either. The Bipartisan Budget Act I'm not sure about. I'd suggest wait and see what happens with it. It may turn out to be very significant, or it might not. Tiller54 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove 1 or 3. As I understand it, the lead section is a summary of the key details of what the rest of the article is about. Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation? The last - the budget - is also extremely current, so a lot of people looking him up will be doing so because of that detail. Three years from now, maybe his budget deal won't be one of the most important things about him. Right now, it is. (Oh, the the budget passed the House, it will probably pass the Senate today or tomorrow). Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article, not just the middle of the article. The first 28 years of someone's life are obviously significant in a biography. —Designate (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect what appears to be the consensus above: Leave #1 and #3, remove #2. I've also edited #3 to make the significance more apparent. CFredkin (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Tiller54 is the only editor advocating keeping paragraph #2 in the intro. CFredkin (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO it is older, dead and superseded and better left out. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Did you read what HistoricMN44 and Designate wrote? Tiller54 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe HistoricMN44 indicated that he thought 1 & 3 should stay in, which implies that 2 can go. That would mean 4 editors agreed that 2 could be removed, while 1 (Tiller54) wanted it to stay. Designate agreed with the previous posts, which would presumably support the consensus. CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, did you actually read what they said? "the lead section is a summary of the key details of what the rest of the article is about. Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation?" does not "imply that 2 can go" and how does "The lead is a summary of the entire article, not just the middle of the article. The first 28 years of someone's life are obviously significant in a biography" mean that he supports removing three-quarters of the lead? Tiller54 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There are thirty or forty areas / items in the article that could be selected for the lead. And only a few actually get into the lead. IMO there is no reason to select an old, dead, superseded proposal for the tiny fraction that gets into the lead. And Tiller, you are the only one who said "keep it in the lead". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And how many of those areas/items are significant pieces of legislation? His budget plans clearly meet the criteria set down by WP:LEAD. You constantly refer to them as "old, dead and superseded" but the single largest section in the article is the one dealing with his budget proposals. They are, along with his vice presidential candidacy, what he is best known for, and the proposals he made in the plans were a key issue of the 2012 election. Tiller54 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tiller54, you are clearly in the minority here, perhaps a minority of one. CFredkin (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) The budget referenced in the paragraph in dispute did not pass Congress and become law. The remaining paragraphs in the lead do describe the notable points in his life. CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you refusing to read what other users have written or are you just ignoring them? As for his Path to Prosperity plan, no, it didn't become law. That doesn't make it any less significant or notable. Like I said, along with his vice presidential candidacy, his budget plans are what he is best known for and easily meets the criteria in WP:LEAD. Tiller54 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep implying (IMHO incorrectly) that something in the the other posts weighs in on your view (e.g to include that material in the lead) but you are never specific in pointing out what they said that supports inclusion in the lead. IMHO this is because it is not there, but either way if you are going to carry on with the claim that others support inclusion in the lead, please point out specifically where they said that. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not specific? Are you ignoring my posts as well as other users'? I'll quote them again. HistoricMN44 said quite clearly (emphasis mine): "Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation?" And Designate (emphasis mine): "I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article." And as I've pointed out to you several times, his budget proposals are the largest single section in his article! But no, let's completely ignore 1/2 of what he's best-known for and remove from the lead any mention of what policies he proposes because there are "30/40 other things" that aren't in the lead as well. Is it really more worthwhile mentioning that he was a speechwriter but ignoring his budget proposals?

You said in your edit summary: "it has been clearly decided / a strong consensus." Where is this "strong consensus"?!? HistoricMN44, Designate and myself all disagreed. There is no consensus to remove any of the lead. Tiller54 (talk)

I think that you are creatively interpreting what they said as being a statement of agreement with you, and I don't see it there. Maybe they could be asked (in a neutral fashion) whether or not they intended their comments to be supporting retention of that paragraph. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly have I creatively interpreted then? And after you've explained that, could you point out where either of those users agree that the paragraph in question should be removed. Thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question, it is interpreting their comments as saying to keep that item. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly am I "creatively interpreting" the comments "Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan?" and "I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article."? What am I "creatively interpreting" there? Both of the users specifically said that the content should be kept. Tiller54 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not accurate. I'll do and present a more thorough analysis/summary.North8000 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a she (not a he - female editors represent!) and I went on vacation. I said I thought there was no reason to remove 1 and 3 because I strongly felt they should remain. I did not mean to imply that 2 should be removed, just that I did not feel as strongly about it as 1, 3, (and 4, which I added).

This argument seems to be about one tree in the forest. Editors are unhappy with the lead section of the article, right? Why not expand it a little more? Are there other policy positions or events we could add to the lead to flesh it out more? Something like "He has served eight terms in the House." or mention what Committees he serves on? Is there other content from the article that anyone would propose should be added to the lead?

Or what about rewriting the offending paragraph? Ryan has a history of being introducing his own budget plans, he is the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he negotiated the recent budget deal. Maybe it would be better to rework the paragraph to cover his general involvement with budgets plans. A statement about what types of policies he likes to include could still be part of that.

So, I guess my actual response is rewrite the paragraph to create a general paragraph about Ryan's budget policy activities. Does that make sense? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that that would be a good idea, and different than the text in questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied, I've mostly been off-Wiki for the past week. Yes, I agree with HistoricMN44 as well. Tiller54 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of results

Editors

Clearly against inclusion: CFredkin, HCobb, North8000

Clearly for inclusion: Tiller54

HistoricMN44 seemed to make statements leaning in both directions. Saying "I don't see any reason to remove 1 or 3" somewhat implies that they do see reason to remove / exclude #2 (which this is about). But they also expressed that generally the lead looked OK (while not commenting on #2 specifically, I believe that #2 was in at that time) I'd call this no clear statement to include or exclude, and also the net effect as 50/50.

I'm now in favor of rewriting it to create a stronger paragraph about Ryan's general budget activities. My original statements were correctly interpreted as ambiguous. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Editor Designate explicitly weighed in on keeping the "early life" section. Other than that, they just said that they agree with the "above replies" which are the replies by the above 5 posters. And of those 5, 3 were clearly for exclusion, one clearly for inclusion, and one unclear. I'd call this somewhat indicating exclusion, but uncertain.

Designate subsequently clarified that they have no opinion on the item in question. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, two made no clear statement for either. With respect to general leaning, I'd call HistoricMN44's 50/50, and Designate's somewhat indicating exclusion. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being vague earlier. The early life part should be included. I don't really have an opinion about the budget plans. —Designate (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Updated summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, one has said they had and have no opinion on the item in question, one made no clear statement for either. With respect to general leaning, I'd call HistoricMN44's 50/50. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, one has said they had and have no opinion on the item in question, one supported "rewriting it to create a stronger paragraph about Ryan's general budget activities". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguments

There were not many arguments regarding the content itself. IMO plausible points were made in both directions. An important context to remember is that this is not about what is going in the article, it is about what is going into the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point unrelated to the analysis of the results

I just noticed that the item which Tiller seeks to insert has a claim that the 2012 plan has all of those described provisions from the 2011 plan. This is NOT in the source, it's not even in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Undid the addition

I undid the addition, citing the three issues:

1. Clearly not supported by the results in talk. And reasonably clear that it conflicts with the results in talk.
2. The second half of the statement is not in the source. Namely that all of those described provisions were in the 2012 version.
3. The second half (that all of those described provisions were in the 2012 version) is not even in the article.

Any reinsertion would need to clear all three of these issues. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Huge wikipedia violation...original research, especially political positions

The whole section is a disaster and original research. I do not doubt that people spent a lot of time writing, but effort is not a criteria for content.

What document says "I am Paul Ryan and these are my political positions"? None.

How do you know that his main position is a topic that is not covered. Another problem is differentiating his true opinion and a generic Republican platform. How about his position on Kenneth Bar, trapped in North Korea? All members of Congress are for him. For some, the issue is more on the back burner than others.

This whole section, sadly, should be removed to the sandbox.

Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It should not be up to us to demand a coherent position platform from Paul Ryan. All we can do is report what he has done and said. What would be helpful is to split things he's done as a Rep. from things he's done as say a VeepCan. This is what Tenure sections are for. Hcobb (talk) 10:25,

10 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire section claims it is his political position even it may not be. That is OR. Also, was it his position or was he just repeating Romney's? Other times, politicians do different from what they say and, if so, which is their position? Wikipedia needs to grow beyond an amateur project and self reflect, like I am prompting. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we seem to be in violent agreement, I'll start moving bits out to the different lifestage sections tomorrow so we can split what he said as a Rep from what he said on the ticket, etc. Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

War on Poverty

• http://swampland.time.com/2014/03/03/paul-ryan-critiques-war-on-poverty-in-new-report/
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/paul-ryan-sees-799-billion-war-on-poverty-failing-poor.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-budget-will-focus-on-reforming-welfare-overhauling-social-programs/2014/03/02/26b17b78-a23e-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

WOP is Ryan's big thing this year and the focus of his budget. Why not mention it? Hcobb (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. This is new News. There is no point in filling up a bio with everything bit of news you come across. WP:NEWSPAPER Arzel (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is not not just "news". This is a report by Ryan on one of the most significant aspects of US politics, and worthy of inclusion even worth to have its own section. Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It already has a section. It's all part of his budget plans. This is simply the start of the Paul Ryan Budget Season this year. Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. You add a WP:RECENT blurb using Rachel Maddow as a source. It is quite clear what you both are trying to do. Please stop using WP to push your political view. Arzel (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: I just read your comment, and given the recent RFC about your behavior, I'd suggest you cool it, take a break or something, and come back refreshed to collaborate with others rather than attempting a Don Quixote. If you want to safeguard the neutrality of articles, work with others, or even better, try WP:ENEMY Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How very hypocritical of you since you don't seem to practice that yourself. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So an official House Budget Committee report is not notable?

http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

Hcobb (talk) 18:03, 5

This statement is not notable. It's just a POV attack on Ryan. It definitely does not belong in his WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The fix it, don't delete it! There are numerous sources that describe his plan, and many of them are critical and should be reported. As I can see that it seems no one is interested in fixing it, I will. Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Y It was not that hard. Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like another chance to push your anti-Ryan POV. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What I have added is just factual information and devoid of any anti-Ryan POV [67]. If you think otherwise you may need to take a breather. Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

War on Poverty Con't

I think the discussion got off track, it seems to me that a section, or at least a mention of Ryan's effort to reform poverty reduction programs, should be included. There is a lot of coverage in the last few months on both sides - it can be done without POV issues. TheWarOfArt (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the point is that there's a huge difference between the original edit by Hcobb and the proposed revised draft by Cwobeel. The initial response was based on the original edit. There was no dispute over the subsequent revisions. From my perspective, it's reasonable to expect other editors to revise (rather than revert) edits which make a reasonable point and which may only require wordsmithing to come to mutually agreeable content. However, when dealing with POV-pushing nonsense, I don't think it's reasonable to expect other editors to try to polish that into something different.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as the subsection is concerned, I think the page created for the the report itself would be a better place for responses to the report, i.e. "Several economists and social scientists whose work had been referenced in the report said that Ryan either misunderstood or misrepresented their research."TheWarOfArt (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it's part of this year's budget, why not trim down to a single mention of the report here? Hcobb (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as the summary is balanced, I have no issues, as we have to report what sources say for NPOV. In re-reading what we have there it is already a good, well balanced summary. Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I am trying to say, that a biographical article (and on a politician in particular) can't just contain what the subject said or did, but also what reliable sources say about him. It is always good to re-read WP:NPOV to remind us what our job is here (highlight is mine): Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to me that the inclusion of the opinions of the economists and social scientists, while a fact, does trend it towards a negative POV. At least that's my take. If the consensus is to keep it in, that's fine. But as far as expanding on any reception, do we agree that it would best to add it to the report's page?TheWarOfArt (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We report positive and negative POVs, as long as these POVs are significant and based on reliable sources. That is the the way of this land. Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This report was just released and some on the left were instantly critical, which is what you added. You don't seem to understand long term significance. I am not surprised. Arzel (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I added substantial materials that was factual, and also added a counterpoint by the researched cited in the report. Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel:Removed WP:NOR [68]. We don't get to decide what is "one of Ryan's main issues", and the source provided does not assert that it is. If you want to add material about what the report says, edit the The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later article Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That was one of the main things he pointed out in that source. Apparently only negative POV meets your definition of significant. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what the Business Week source says. For Ryan, federal antipoverty programs suffer from two main defects. The normative problem is that many programs “penalize families for getting ahead.” Financial aid is withdrawn, sometimes abruptly, as family income rises. “The complex web of federal programs and sudden drop-off in benefits create extraordinarily high effective marginal tax rates,” the report notes, “which reduce the incentive to work.” Practically speaking, there is a confusing maze of programs with too little evaluation of effectiveness. I summarized the two into simply main. There is no original research. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To my point about NOR: What you wrote is: One of Ryan's main issues is that many programs penalize families as their incomes rise; reducing the incentive to work. You don't get to decide what Ryan's main points are Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The source says "For Ryan, ....suffer from two main defects." Ryan stated his main points. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have refactored to avoid NOR. Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WH Press Release

A press release by the White House is not necessarily notable for Ryan's BLP. Please provide a reliable secondary source to indicate significance. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not notable? This is not a "press release", and it is published by the Office of Management and Budget of the executive branch of the US government. Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you need more sources, here are some:

* NY Times Editorial [69]

* Fox News [70]

Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The OMB is a department of the WH. The NYT reference is to an editorial. And the Fox News article predates 2014. That's not justification for including this POV statement in Ryan's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(a) It is the same budget than 2013, (b) editorials are reliable sources (to assert the opinion of a major newspaper), and (c) the OMB is a reliable source as well for the opinion of the Executive branch. If the text was not attributed, I would agree. But it is clearly attriuted to these sources so it is 100% WP:V and in compliance with WP:BLP. I will dig more sources for you (you can do that too, you know?)Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few more: [71], [72],[73] Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, everything is "POV". But as long as we attribute the POV to these that hold it, and we reference it to a WP:RS, and the source is notable, we are in full compliance with WP:BLP. If you don't agree, it is because you may need to refresh your memory on what the WP:BLP policy states. Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it notable that Sylvia Mathews Burwell got an appointment days after after writing her attack piece? Hcobb (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

repeated claims of insider trading by user:Cgersten

I am posting this because Cgersten has made this edit several times now. Once un-sourced, once with a poor source, and now once with a source that completely blows apart the argument. Below is the section with the last source.

On the same day of Ryan's acceptance as Romney's running mate, accusations were made of Ryan using inside information to sell stocks. The accusations were immediately refuted by the Ryan campaign staff.[74]

It is interesting that the Huffpo source takes the following stance. "The impression I get from these 27 transactions in individual bank stocks in 12 months, 17 of which involve not net injections or withdrawals but rather switches between banks, is of a guy who simply does not know what he is doing." I would ask Cgersten to present some far better sourcing if they are going to allude that Paul Ryan was involved in insider trading as the best source they have provided thus far indicates that he is a terrible trader. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This would not be a reliable source, but it gives a good explanation. Interestingly this whole story is a feedback loop due to some stuff that was in WP back during the 2012 election. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Current elections

I'm unsure why this page doesn't reflect Ryan's current election, which presently has two candidates vying for the democratic nomination - Rob Zerban and Omar Kalecka. I feel like that's important to include and I encourage somebody to do so. --216.56.8.244 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

TALK page

Doesn't this article deserve a TALK PAGE for discussion? Since I will now be 'watching' I'll have some things to say to improve the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) The first is to start this auxiliary page for discussion.

New NEWS today

It may not fit into the article yet, but will become interesting as elections approach and Paul Ryan participates. Also, his work in Congress is not reported in the article at this point, two years after the failed run with Romney. His current activity in Congress can be selectively summarized in the article.

Headline-1: Paul Ryan to IRS Commissioner on "Lost" Emails: I Do Not Believe You, No One Believes You

• http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/20/paul-ryan-to-irs-commissioner-i-do-not-believe-you-no-one-believes-you-n1853891

QUOTE: "During a contentious House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill Friday, former vice presidential nominee and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, "Your problem is, no one believes you." Koskinen tried to assure lawmakers the IRS isn't engaged in a cover-up and isn't misleading Congress, despite failing to disclose massive data loss and a "hard drive crash" until asked about where emails belonging to IRS officials and officials outside of agency were located." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: 'I don't believe you!': Paul Ryan levels blistering attack against IRS boss over 'lost' emails explanation

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/20/irs-boss-faces-cover-up-claims-ahead-hill-hearing-on-missing-emails/?intcmp=populardiscussions

QUOTE: "WASHINGTON – A congressional hearing Friday into how the Internal Revenue Service lost thousands of emails from an ex-official accused of targeting conservative groups turned into an angry shouting match, with Republicans accusing the IRS commissioner of lying to Americans. “This is unbelievable," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., angrily told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. That’s your problem. Nobody believes you.” Koskinen responded, “I have a long career. That’s the first time anyone’s said I don’t believe you.” "I don't believe you," Ryan shot back again." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

WP:NOTNEWS, but could be useful material at 2013 IRS controversy, not here - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Chair

Ryan is chair of Ways and Means, not Budget. Page still says Budget (Chair). 66.67.32.161 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

First profession. From article (with two refs)

"position as a staff economist attached to Senator Kasten's office, which he did after graduating in 1992." Capitalismojo (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

That is not his profession. That is a job he did after graduation. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See related discussion at WP:BLP/N#Paul_Ryan - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

Questions of insider trading. On September 18, 2008, Ryan, and other leading congressional leaders, were called to a closed meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to discuss the imminent financial collapse of a number of leading banks. That same day Ryan, and coincidentally other congressional attendees, including Senator Dick Durbin, sold shares in various troubled banks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryjones422 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Name

He has requested that he now be referred to as Paul D. Ryan. The article should be changed to reflect this. http://www.politico.com/blogs/the-gavel/2015/10/paul-ryan-changes-name-to-paul-d-ryan-215248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.216.185.157 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For official business, yes. For WP:COMMONNAME, this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Links in Electoral History section

Anyone aware of a reason the Electoral History section does not have links to Wiki articles on opponents or other candidates? They are sparingly used on the "Main Page" entry as well, although some non-linked names in this section are linked to on the detail page. Is this a helpful task to undertake or is there a technical or editorial constraint that links aren't used? Iowajason (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

Edit to reflect in introduction paragraph that Ryan is no longer on the Ways and Means Committee. This is fully covered in Tenure section and seemed misleading in implying he was currently serving on the committee. As noted later in article, as Speaker, he serves on no committees.

His tenure on Ways and Means does seem important and might warrant inclusion in some form in the introduction. I added to following sentence in subsequent edit.

Iowajason (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A first?

He initially wanted to be the presiding officer of the US Senate, but has become the presiding officer of the US House of Representatives. I wonder if this is a first & should we add it to the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

John Nance Garner and Schuyler Colfax were both Speaker and became Vice President. Henry Clay was Speaker and was twice offered the Vice Presidency, for both Harrison and Taylor (would have become President either time). I think the fact for Ryan is implied be extant information, and doesn't really bear significant mention, as many people run for many offices, winning and losing in many interesting combinations.   Spartan7W §   18:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You certainly need a section on the astounding omnibus spending bill with which Ryan opened his tenure. The White House and Pelosi were delighted with it, and Ryan helped in it to fund amnesty, Obamacare, uncheckable Syrian refugees, H1B expansion, Planned Parenthood, and pretty much every aspect of the Democrat agenda. Because of this, Ryan was targeted by conservatives for future defeat. In other words, Ryan bids fair to become the fastest failure as a Speaker in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.238.77 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

54th or 62nd?

Wikipedia has Speaker Ryan listed as the 62nd Speaker of the House. But the Associated Press is reporting him as the 54th Speaker. The Armchair General (talk)

It appears they don't count speakers (who've served non-consecutive terms) more then once. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Should that differentiation be noted in the article, or is that too nit-picky? The Armchair General (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, if the major sources are counting the speakers that way (individual only), then we should abide by it. If given the word, I'll easily change the numbering of all of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be changed! But, I'm still new to wiki-editing and think someone with a bit more tenure than me should perhaps make that decision. The Armchair General (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead & fixed the numbering at Speaker of the United States House of Representatives article, FWIW. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

According to House.gov, he is the 54th. He himself is the 54th speaker, while the office he holds is the 62nd Speakership. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the numbering in all the bio articles of the Speakers. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If we've done this renumbering for Speaker Ryan, shouldn't we do the same for President Obama? Due to President Cleveland's non-consecutive terms, Obama is the 43rd person to be President of the United States... Do you see what I mean? -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

... Just as with the Speaker of the House position... there have been 54 people who have been speakers, but 62 positions. This is the same with the US Presidency; there have been 43 total men who have held the office, but 44 positions total. Just as Henry Clay had non-consecutive terms as Speaker of the House, Grover Cleveland had non-consecutive terms as POTUS. I can't be any more clear. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the House speakers are numbered though, according to reliable sources. The sources have Ryan as the 54th Speaker, thus the speakers who've served non-consectutive tenures, are numbered only once. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Award Update

Paul Ryan received the Manhattan Institute's Alexander Hamilton Award in 2014. Appropriate section should be updated to reflect this. ArsDiscipulus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect choice of words: "reticence" vs. "reluctance"

In the section labeled "Elections," the last line refers to Sarah Palin's endorsement of a Ryan opponent because of Ryan's "reticence to endorse Donald Trump...." The writer should have used the word "reluctance" here. "Reticence" means unwillingness to freely reveal one's thoughts or feelings. "Reluctance" means unwillingness to perform an action. Since there is a specific action identified - that of endorsing a candidate - the correct word to use is "reluctance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8A02:5A00:F47D:43E6:9334:6519 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

While Paul Ryan stated that Donald Trump is racist during Trump's campaign for President, Ryan himself has also been accused of being racist by CNN's Jeffrey Lord, noted the Huffington Post.[1]

Surprisingly, for Ryan, that is not the first time that he has been accused of racism in the past. And there seems to be some substance to such claims, according to various reports.

In 2012, Ryan started a scandal when he reportedly referred to "Judeo-Christian values," reported Buzzfeed.[2] The concept here is that other faiths lack values--or not the values espoused by 'real' Americans such as Ryan.

Not too long thereafter, Newsone reported that Ryan again made some racist comments about "inner-city" people, referring to such as just plain "lazy." Whites certainly don't fill up the inner-cities, so there is little question to whom he referred. Newsone noted:

"Ryan went on to cite the work of Charles Murray, a conservative social scientist who believes Blacks collectively are less intelligent than Whites due to genetic differences. As outlined by Think Progress, Murray believes poverty remains a problem given 'a lot of poor people are born lazy.'"[3]

Politico ran an article, which echoed many people's sentiments at the time, headlined, "Is Paul Ryan Racist?" The article cites Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who decried Ryan's comments as 'a thinly veiled racial attack.... [W]hen Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says, 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black.'"[4]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeffrey-lord-trump-ryan-racist_us_5756d8d6e4b07823f9514271 [2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ryan-obama-plan-compromisesthose-judeo-christ [3] http://newsone.com/2967515/paul-ryan-poverty/ [4] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/is-paul-ryan-racist-104687 50.5.139.177 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Please review the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. GAB^gab 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think realistically it won't be possible to include everything that everyone has ever said about Paul. Alicb (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is "Ayn Rand Affiliation" the 2nd section of his biography? Polemicizing?

This sort of category should come at the end of his biography not toward the beginning. It doesn't make sense for it to be the first section after "early life" and before "early career." It doesn't make sense even chronologically since his public comments on Ayn Rand come long after his "early career." Whoever put this section there seemed to want to polemicize him from the start! If this was not his/her intention, that is surely the outcome either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.46.40 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"a native of Oklahoma"

Is it just me, or does this seem like a not-entirely-PC wording for "she is of First Nations extraction"? Of course I know it doesn't mean that, but is there no better way to write that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - Not sure what you mean. When Americans use the word "native of [X]" they usually just mean that they are from a certain state or city. (For example, you might say that Paul Ryan is a 'native of Wisconsin' or that Barack Obama is a 'native of Chicago'). If you Google the phrase 'native of' and the name of a city or state in the U.S. you can find hundreds or thousands of examples of this being used without suggesting or implying anything other than they were born in or a long-time resident of that place. We can definitely change the wording if you want but I think it's not really accurate to suggest that the phrasing there now has a connotation of First Nations or Native Americans because it really doesn't. Alicb (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

• • Add paragraph at end of "2016 presidential election" section:

Ryan criticized Trump on multiple occasions prior to and after announcing his support for Trump on June 2, 2016 but did not withdraw his support for the candidate. On May 27, 2016 after Trump suggested that a Federal Judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, was biased against Trump because of his Mexican heritage, Ryan stated, "I disavow these comments — I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment." On July 31, 2016 after Trump had criticized the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq, Ryan responded, “Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.” On October 7, 2016 when a lewd recording of Trump was released, Ryan released a statement saying, “I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” Ryan also cancelled a joint appearance that had been planned in Wisconsin for October 8, 2016 and invited GOP Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence to substitute for Trump.

Rrobbins12 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is Congress talks the talk but can not walk the walk for US citizens in health, housing, employment, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans. All Congress is to stall each and every thought or process that would benefit the citizens of 50 US states.

We are living in 2017, but nothing is getting done for health, social security, medicare, Veteran's issues. You all in Congress have your own ideas-philosophy and never will comprise occur as you don't give a dam about each and every citizen in the USA. One reason is that once elected you don't have a foggy idea of what is best for the citizens of the US. But, you do know what great benefits you will receive while in Congress, from health, housing, salary, vacation, retirement etc. Must be great to do nothing in Congress but get all those benefit. Those hearings on Trumps cabinet are a joke. Common horse sense any of those billionaires are not interested in the average American or the poorest. They have it made and challenge anyone who attemps to climb to the top of the mountain. The two parties (Democrat & Republician)will be the down fall of the USA, for their are too many that don't have the KSAs to run a federal government for the benefit of all its citizens. America is falling by the wayside and we are losing many of our neighboring countries with the advent of a new administration that doesn't have a clue as how to run a federal government. Plus, they have no incentive or desire of to work for the people, because they are at the top of the mountain and don't have a worry on their mind. They are thinking how can I make more money while in the US Government. Our relations with foreign powers is sinking like a battleship. China is slowly by up land in the USA and our government doesn't give a dam. Russia has hood winked us and will continue to do so in the coming decades. We really need leadership like it was in the 1950-80s, where regardless of party affilation they sat down and talked and worked and came up with things that were for their US citizens, something that Congress & executive office can't do in 2017. We are falling apart when some laws get passed: such as allowing any citizen to carry a gun on plane, train, boat, or take to church, school, college, supermarket, theater, admin buildings, shopping malls, etc. Hope you are real proud of yourselves in not doing anything for all US Citizens.

George w agnew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.108.29.231 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for twitter

In the article, there are numerous references to twitter announcements that are not linked, but still included. This doesn't make sense to me, as I feel there should be a referenced tweet, a verified image of a deleted tweet, or no reference to said tweet at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaspoontom (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Please add template message to section Paul Ryan#Political positions:

{{Bad summary|section|Political positions of Paul Ryan}}

Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: Hello Becky, thank you for your careful consideration of this editorial issue; do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This edit request is an improvement to the article unlikely to be controversial. The concern expressed by the proposed template message follows straight-forwardly from guideline WP:SUMMARY. The template will function to draw the attention of editors to collaborating on improving the summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan here at Paul Ryan#Political positions as per WP:SUMMARY. Meanwhile, the template message is necessary here to notify readers that the current content of section Paul Ryan#Political positions may be inadequate, even to the point of non-neutrality, in its coverage of the subtopic. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Comments? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Objections? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

One week hearing no objection to a simple section hat WP:SILENCE; seeking collaboration on an obvious shortfall with respect to WP:SUMMARY; the edit is an improvement unlikely to be controversial WP:SNOW. Please add. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• There wasn't silence. An editor above said you should gain consensus for that. You haven't suggested what in the section needs improvement. Why do you feel the section is inadequate? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The inadequacies of the section are discussed in the immediately following section, below; this section is for discussion of the proposed edit: the addition of a section template which will serve to invite collaboration and meanwhile informing readers of a potentially non-neutral summary. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Do you think the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this issue. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 00:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. With reference to editing guideline WP:SUMMARY, do you think the Political positions section of this article Paul Ryan is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, haven't looked and don't care to look. - GB fan 00:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Ok, I guess. Would you perhaps at least agree that a section hat is a simple legitimate non-controversial approach to drawing the attention of editors who do care to collaboration on a possible editorial issue? BTW go Pack. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it is a non controversial approach to draw attention to what a single editor believes is a problem. You haven't had a single person who agrees that it is a problem. An RFC would be a better way to get others to look at it. - GB fan 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ten days without objection to a simple, straightforward, guideline-complaint improvement. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful, P&G informed consideration of this proposed edit. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thank you for your thoughtful response to this edit request. Based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please accept this edit request. Three weeks with no objection to a simple, non-controversial, policy-based improvement. Thank you in advanced. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You can also look at this from the opposite side, three weeks of you asking and not a single editor has agreed with you. There is no consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is not productive to keep this request open at this point. You have been asked to find consensus before using the Edit Request template. You have also been advised to open a Request for Comment if you'd like to bring this to the attention of a wider group of editors. I would suggest another approach: propose some actual changes to the section (in a "change x to y" format, with reliable sources). Clearly, you do not have consensus to add the template, and you're unlikely to gain it simply by asking again. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Thank you for your thoughtful disposition of this edit request. May I respectfully ask, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for sharing your policy and guideline informed editorial perspective. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't take the bait. I have no connection to this article, and I intend to keep it that way. You've been given more than one suggestion on how to get more eyes on what you've identified as a problem with the article. If you're serious about wanting to fix it, you'll try one of those approaches, rather than waiting for the right uninvolved editor to happen by and be drawn in. You may have a valid point, but procedurally you're going about things the wrong way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No bait; a colleague asked your opinion on an editorial issue. I am saddened that you have time to change a no to a yes on an edit request but apparently have no time to take a very brief moment to comment on a very obvious editorial issue, an assessment which demands little or no subject expertise, and requires only a cursory familiarity with policy and guideline; however, as we know, there is no deadline, and for now I am content to wait for a conscientious experienced editor to weigh in. Thank you for your advice. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that until you have consensus for the change nothing will be done. If you think the summary is bad, propose a new summary, get consensus and then ask for it to be changed. If all you want is a tag, then start an WP:RFC and get consensus. Until you get consensus nothing will happen. - GB fan 23:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your ongoing commitment to this editorial issue. I look forward to collaborating with you on a resolution. May I respectfully ask, since your last few contributions to this thread, if you have had a chance to briefly skim our project's article Political positions of Paul Ryan, review this article's section Political positions, and perhaps arrive at some conclusion, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, on whether or not section Political positions is an adequate summary of its main article? I take it your assessment is that section Political positions is a neutral summary of Political positions of Paul Ryan, I would please like to understand your basis. I believe the tag is simple and will help attract editor attention to this editorial issue, which is, after all, the main purpose of every tag, but also, as we collaborate on a resolution, improves the article by putting our readers on notice that the section may be non-neutral WP:READERSFIRST. Thank you in advance. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not read and do not plan on reading Political positions of Paul Ryan. I do not plan on taking part in any discussion concerning this issue. - GB fan 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your continued engagement with this editorial issue. I'm sorry, I'm confused, you say you do not want to participate in this discussion while you have inactivated this simple edit twice and commented in this thread six times; you are the most active participant in this discussion save for the proposer, yet for all that I regret I do not understand your position on the Political positions section of this article; can you please clarify? May I respectfully request some good faith WP:AGF and some focus on content WP:FOC? Also, go Pack! Thank you in advance for your reply focusing on content, policy, and guideline. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the political positions section of this article. I am only commenting on the consensus to add the tag. You do not have consensus to add the tag. If you want to get consensus you will need to try a different tactic. You might try starting an RFC on the question of whether the tag is appropriate. A better tactic is to actually try to improve the article. Write what you think the section should be and then start an RFC to get consensus for the New section. Just asking for a tag to be added is not an improvement. ~ GB fan 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thank you again for your suggestion of an RFC to add a "bad summary" tag to the Political positions section of this article. The justification for the tag is very, very obvious to anyone with passing familiarity with MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, WP:NPOV, and a quick browse of the Political positions section of this article and article Political positions of Paul Ryan. The non-conformance with policy and guideline is so clear that an RFC is overkill at this time. An RfC is designed to draw community-wide attention to an editorial dispute; here, we have no dispute, and the consent of just one confirmed user is all that is needed. In fact, the above edit request is so WP:SNOW that an RfC were it launched would almost certainly be accused of being disruptive by some. We agree the goal is to improve the section, but the deficiency of the section with respect to policy and guideline is so severe that a tag is an improvement to the article. It seems to me you do have an opinion on the section if you feel a tag is not warranted; I would like to better understand your thinking if possible. I am disappointed that for all your many contributions to this discussion you say you have not developed an opinion on the content issue, but I respect your lack of position; may I ask only that you not actively prevent a colleague from attracting the attention of collaborators to improving this section in a simple, low-impact manor? Thank you again, and, as always, go Pack. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You say it is blatantly obvious, but this has been going on for a month now and not a single person has agreed with you. It does not appear to be that obvious. You have many options available to you, I have suggested a couple. The one that won't work is for you to continuously reopen this edit request. ~ GB fan 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Ryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43705712.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826064029/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-WI-01 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-WI-01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717124830/http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/AboutRSC/Members/ to http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/aboutrsc/members/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House

On this and other articles the President is being added into the Infobox under the Speaker of the House. I do not feel it is relevant as these are two seperate and equal portions of the government. Congress does not work for the President. Who the President is does not make any difference. The latest revert to reinsert it used this search as justification. The President and the Speaker of the House have a very important relationship but not one that belongs in the infobox. ~ GB fan 19:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not denying whether they are separate or equal, but I think that the relationship is important enough for the infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Definite mention of the relationship of how it is and how it could be should be made in the article, but not relevant to the infobox. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key points of the subject. POTUS is not key to Ryan's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant in the Infobox. Ought to be included in most cases in the article, but not the Infobox.—GoldRingChip 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. Paul Ryan should not be considered equivalent to a Prime Minister in the European sense; his role isn't tied to the White House administration in power, and the Senate has equal political power as the House. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. They're separate branches of government, and their respective terms don't necessarily coincide (and never exactly coincide), so it's awkward for the infobox. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Inadequate summarization of political positions

The Political positions section of this article inadequately summarizes its main article Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please see WP:SUMMARY. The main article Political positions of Paul Ryan is 73,766 bytes long and has 4 sections and 11 subsections. Almost all of the main article is not summarized in the parent; the Political positions section of this article mentions just one area of public policy, social security. The Political positions section of this article might be better headed "Political philosophy" as it is almost exclusively devoted to the relationship between the topics of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand (a noteworthy relationship but not to the exclusion of noteworthy political positions) whereas the main article makes no mention of Ayn Rand. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please help summarize the Political positions of Paul Ryan in the lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Thank you! 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan in progress at Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft summarization available in lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with guidelines MOS:BODY and WP:SUMMARY? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Style guide of WikiProject Conservatism recommends a "Political positions" section in articles on politicians:

• Lead
• Early life
• Political career
• Election of year
• Term as office
• Later life or Personal life
• Political positions
• Legacy
• Awards
• Works published
• See also
• References
• External links

This article has such a section, however it is devoted exclusively to discussing the subject's favorite author. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Among of the most noteworthy aspects of the subject of this article are his political positions. This article makes no mention of Medicaid or Medicare. The Political positions section of this article makes no mention of the subject of this article's political positions on entitlement programs beyond social security. This article makes no mention of the positions of the subject of this article on abortion, pay equity, marriage equality, gun rights, climate, regulation, consumer protection, the corporate income tax, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, and many other issues on which his positions are manifest in multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article has two paragraphs including a long direct quote discussing the body fat percentage of the subject of this article. The systematic exclusion of the political positions, widely represented in reliable sources, is a serious neutrality deficiency with this article. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources identify the subject of this article as conservative. May the lead of this article mention that the subject of this article is conservative? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with policy WP:NPOV? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Issues addressed. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Broken Links

Links 10, 11, and 12 are either broken or not useful. Just a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed the broken links about Ryan's father. 216.83.65.74 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Spudnaut

"From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education.[26][27][28]". Link 26 doesn't cite where they got this information from. Link 27, politico, has a broken link as a reference. Link 28 is an article with no citations. Haven't found any evidence of this claim, can someone update with evidence or correct the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paul Ryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626123339/http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/paul-ryans-very-mixed-election-day-in-wisconsin-3t7iit7-178024521.html to http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/paul-ryans-very-mixed-election-day-in-wisconsin-3t7iit7-178024521.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817061917/http://www.milwaukeemag.com/article/242011-ThatHairThoseEyesThatPlan to http://www.milwaukeemag.com/article/242011-ThatHairThoseEyesThatPlan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001923/http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/44616232.html to http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/44616232.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913075724/http://paulryan.house.gov/contact/mobileoffice.htm to http://paulryan.house.gov/contact/mobileoffice.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427164020/http://www.archerytrade.org/news/press-releases/633-ataonryan.html to http://www.archerytrade.org/news/press-releases/633-ataonryan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Ryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160911090950/https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/conservative-challenger-to-run-against-paul-ryan to https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/conservative-challenger-to-run-against-paul-ryan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rod Rosenstein/Paul Ryan Meeting

• @Jasonanaggie and MelanieN: I agree with MelanieN's removal but for different reasons. We don't include every minor mention of Paul Ryan in this article. He's a well known person and there are a lot of media references. Inclusion in the article should have importance to the topic of the article. This meeting does not. Belongs in the article on the investigation, not in an article on every name mentioned. @Jason: Other editors have been sanctioned in the past for massively adding this type of material where it doesn't belong for the sole purpose of soap-boxing it. Please don't do that.--v/r - TP 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, TP. I have removed this item from several articles where it was either irrelevant or trivial. In a few other articles I retained the meeting, but removed the claim that the meeting was about "Devin Nunes' interference with the investigation", because the source does not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Immediately before the Authority Control section at the end of the article is a hidden group of category boxes inexplicably titled "Articles related to Paul Ryan". These are not articles, but categories. Please clarify this by changing the title to "Additional categories related to Paul Ryan". 174.197.17.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Those aren't categories. They are navboxes, and they are collapsed because there are alot of them. This is standard operating procedure. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please rename "Articles" to "Navboxes". The problem isn't the collapsing but the title of the collapsed section. They are not articles, so the current title is very misleading. 174.197.17.82 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone of the links in those collapsed navboxes are articles. ~ GB fan 17:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:NAV Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Please add the following template after the first two official links in External links

• Paul Ryan/Archive 2 at Curlie

Please remove the THOMAS links. Congress.gov replace THOMAS years ago and the referenced information is available from the Member link for Paul Ryan at Congress.gov

The last link, for the WI Historical Society, is broken. It might be https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS12588 although that contains little information. 174.197.17.82 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Representative Ryan skipped the filing deadline

Hello. This article confirms that Mr Ryan skipped his district's primary filing deadline. Can anyone tell me if this fact is notable enough to be included in the 115th Congress section? --Синкретик (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There is already a mention in the article detailing his announced retirement from public service. The assumption in that announcement is that he will not file to run for elected office again. (Technically speaking, he could serve as "Speaker of the House" without being an elected member of it's body, but that has not happened yet in U.S. History.) -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Cite Error

Every single citation after #223 in this article has a cite error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that auto sign. Sleyece (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Due to the lack of concern for this broken aspects of this article, as well as new broken citations in recent days, I added a multiple issues template to the article. Please do not remove it until all citations are fixed/replaced. Thanks! -- Sleyece (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the references problem after #224. See article history. There were refs that were not being used. Corky 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order. I'm removing the template. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede: cover Ryan political career

The lede needs to cover Ryan's political career more comprehensively. One editor added a bunch of content to the lede, but it was not reflective of the body and did not provide a NPOV summary (for instance, no mention of the ballooning deficits under Ryan's speakership despite the career-long attempt to portray himself as a fiscal conservative). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Jr?

Sources seem to indicate that Ryan's father was named Paul Murray Ryan, not Paul Davis Ryan like his son. Thus, the Jr. should be taken out and his father's name fixed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/25/nation/la-na-ryan-assets-20120826

And his father's page on an ancestry site

https://www.geni.com/people/Paul-Ryan/6000000017432726076 PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's would-be successor as House speaker.

We should show TBD in the successor's slot under Speaker of the House, as Paul Ryan will be leaving office on January 3, 2019. Leaving nothing there, suggests he'll continue as Speaker of the House in the 116th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Congressional Leadership Fund

I just removed the section on the Congressional Leadership Fund. It doesn't belong here. The first problem is that the majority of the material in the section did not even mention Paul Ryan. The second problem is that the section did not describe the CLF in an unbiased, comprehensive, encyclopedic manner; rather, it simply took a few potshots at the CLF (including one dubious one). Perhaps there should be a separate page on the CLF, but if one is created, its content should be even-handed. SunCrow (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the RS clearly and explicitly link the CLF and its actions to Ryan (see our discussion on the Rick Scott page where made arguments along similarly erroneous lines). Second, if the language fails to adhere to RS or somehow omits RS, then fix the language or add those RS (see the Mitch McConnell page where you made arguments along similarly erroneous lines about a lack of balance). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans The information in question has been removed for BLP concerns. Per policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.. The material has not changed significantly, and there is not consensus to restore. As a reminder, this article is twice under discretionary sanctions. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that the text in question was WP:COATRACK and that "The sources link CLF with Ryan. Fine. But they don't link these particular ads with Ryan, and there is no evidence ryan had any involvement with them". This is false. Every single cited source links the CLF and its actions to Ryan, and in fact opt to do so in the very first line about the CLF. Here is the WaPo fact-checker in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), has been running a series of negative ads about Democratic candidates in close races across the country." Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "In repeated ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan". Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its mishandling of classified info about Abigail Spanberger: "A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application". The content should be restored immediately, because rationales for keeping this content out of the article are baseless and the content in question in no way touches on WP:BLP. The content is all sourced to high quality RS and the RS all clearly and explicitly tie the CLF and its actions to Ryan. The requirement that Ryan had to personally sit in front of a computer and put together these ads is ludicrous and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I left in text which discusses Ryan's relationship with the CLF. But there is no evidence that Ryan had anything to do with those ads, and therefore including detailed content about those ads is a WP:COATRACK. Nobody is saying the standard is "personally sat in front of a computer", nice strawman. It is absolutely a strawman. Person A has a relationship with entity B. Entity B has done X. X is not relevant to A's biography. You disagree. Great. Find consensus. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing how every single RS finds it important to note that this is Paul Ryan's super PAC and to do so in the context of the actions of the super PAC, even though Paul Ryan supposedly has nothing to do with the super PAC and its actions. Who among us hasn't accidentally headed an organization with a reputation for pushing falsehoods and racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. therefore you are either accusing paul ryan of a crime (without sourcing, blp violation much?) or the actions of the super pac WERE NOT COORDINATED WITH THE CANDIDATE. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple RS has identified this verbatim as "Paul Ryan's super PAC", with the PAC itself saying Ryan "remains personally committed to ensuring CLF continues to succeed". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, your sarcastic statement that he "headed" the org is a BLP violation. But more realistically, the content of a particular ad, its production, its scripting, its approval, its budget would all be coordination, which would be illegal. A crime is certainly a BLP concern, and as there is no allegation that he did any of the actions that would make it a crime, including such information in this article is against policy. Again, I do not object to the content saying that he is linked to the pac. I do object most strenuously to the specific actions of the pac which he had no control or influence over, nor has anyone alleged he had any control or influence over. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Right on, ResultingConstant. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of Speaker tenure

Why is the WP article by editorial writer Erica Werner cited as a valid/reliable source? Snit333 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This Washington Post article (i.e. not op-ed) by congressional reporter (i.e. not editorial writer) Erica Warner?[75] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

There is an extra period at the end of the first sentence of this article (it reads "January 2019..") Someone needs to correct the typo. Thanks! 98.173.176.125 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)