Talk:Paul Ryan

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: [1].--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)

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)

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)

Add a Controversies Section

2012 Republican National Convention Speech

A lot has been said about the factual errors in Paul Ryan's 2012 RNC speech. We should add a section about it, under a larger section of controversies. Most other biographical pages have this section. Refer to the references for specific factual errors in his speech.

I think this belongs in the 2012 Vice Presidential campaign section, not a controversies section. Mforg (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy/criticism sections are discouraged, as they can often end up becoming a raw dump of POV content, which especially in BLPs can be a problem. That said, considering the coverage both the speech and his remarks therein have gotten in many, many independent sources, it would be silly not to mention it in the campaign section. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the 2012 vice presidential campaign section that covers his convention speech and the criticism it has received for its inaccuracies. Tiller54 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are all coatrack POV magnets and should not exist. If the material doesn't have relevance under a real heading it shouldn't be in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It is really sad that so many of the so call "Factcheckers" in their haste to attack Ryan have made so many fundamentals errors in their assertations of Ryan. Many of the so called falsehoods were clearly true to the point that I think it is time to start questioning the validity of "Factcheckers". Arzel (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a more reliable source for that than an IBD editorial? a13ean (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in the case of the auto factory (which is what the above editorial is referring to), it appears to be a case of semantics. According to Politifact, the plant was officially closed in December 2008. However, a skeleton crew of workers stayed there through April 2009 to complete a few outstanding orders. So the plant was not technically closed, i.e., emptied of employees and completely shuttered, until after Obama took office. That said, it's still clearly a decision that was made before he was inaugurated, and something he likely would have had little power to prevent afterwards. I've attempted to adjust the wording of those sentences in the article to clarify this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, GM announced the closing of the Janesville assembly plant in June, 2008, although the exact date of closing had not yet been determined at the time of that announcement. (See [2].) So the plant closing was in the works even before Obama was the official Democratic candidate. The reality is that closing a major operation like an automotive assembly plant doesn't happen overnight, but in stages. The fact that there may have been a few straggling employees at the plant in 2009 seems like a technicality. Mesconsing (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the paragraph about his speech at the RNC was painful. It's clearly not a neutral assessment and uses half truths and rhetoric to purport that Mr. Ryan used half truths and rhetoric. I'd expect better, especially from an article that is semi-locked. --T.S.77 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and if you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the section, I'd certainly like to hear them. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to parse the wording on the plant closing to get it technically correct, but it sounds very "He said...She said" at this point. How about something like: "Ryan was also challenged for implying that a General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville closed under President Obama. He failed to note that GM had announced plans to close the plant in June 2008, and major production was halted in December 2008, before Obama took office." (Sources: [3], [4]) Investors' Business Daily asserted that Ryan's statement was technically correct because some final production and cleanup work was completed in 2009." (Sources: [5], [6]) -- Just a thought. -- Mesconsing (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just an attempt at creating a strawman argument--that was hardly IBD's main point, as you must know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Convention speech section doesn't cover it

All that it has is one sentence on not-really "compliments", and then the rest is on actual flaws and ginned up "flaws". There's actually nothing in there on the speech! ....content, themes etc. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there needs to be more on the content of the speech. Why don't you expand the section? As to the "flaws," many reputable news organizations are calling them "lies": [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Mesconsing (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they call them lies, so should we. We must put our sources at the forefront. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately we don't use opinion pieces to report facts. Politcal articles are already slezzy enough around here. --Mollskman (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice try Mesconsing. Your sources, which you purport to be from "reputable news organizations," are conveniently taken from said news organization's politically liberal opinion writers. John Nichols? Sally Kohn? Joan Walsh (of Salon which posts links to the Huffington post on their main page?!?). You need to try harder. It does nobody any good to source opinion articles masquerading as hard news sources. Find something written by someone with the political neutrality and credibility of an Anderson Cooper or a Bret Baier before you start saying that these "lies" are coming from what you are implying to be hard news sources, when they are not. --T.S.77 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's FactCheck, which, according to our article, was cited by Cheney in the 2004 debate. FactCheck stated: "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements." ([15]) It went on to enumerate them.

The Associated Press ran a story using the term "fact check" but in a generic sense, not referencing the organization FactCheck but drawing on reporting by half a dozen AP writers. The AP didn't use the common term "lies" but delicately said: "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech".

Then there's Bloomberg L.P., a multi-billion-dollar business-oriented news service that isn't generally known for calling upon workers to seize control of the instruments of production. Bloomberg pointed out that "many of the criticisms [Ryan] leveled against Barack Obama apply equally to his and Mitt Romney’s own records." ([16]) This was from a writer, Josh Barro, who's written frequently for the right-wing National Review Online ([17]); who used his Bloomberg podium to join in the Republican smear-and-distortion campaign about "You didn't build that" ([18]); and who, in the very piece that criticized Ryan, also wrote, "The central attack in the speech is one that I agree with: The Obama administration is adrift on economic policies. 'They have run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they’ve got left.'" Are you going to dismiss him as another liberal?

I think that, with a little more effort, I could produce links to the nonpartisan PolitiFact and to the conservative Boston Herald, but enough with the piling on.

Furthermore, Wikipedia reports facts about opinions, when notable. Even if the only people commenting on Ryan's mendacity were Democratic partisans -- a hypothetical that is clearly not true -- it would still be undeniable that the speech attracted much more such "partisan" flak than most campaign speeches. Note the compilation in HuffPo, titled "Media Calls Out Paul Ryan Acceptance Speech For Falsehoods".

Of course, reporting facts about opinions works both ways. If there are sources documenting significant opinions to the effect that Ryan was telling the truth -- that the Wisconsin plant that everybody else says closed under Bush really did close under Obama, or whatever -- then we can cite those sources, too, and present the reader with both sides of the controversy. JamesMLane t c 04:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

JamesMLane, thanks for the sources and the thoughtful reply, but have you read the relevant section in the article? It contains numerous criticisms of Ryan, cites Politifact, and allows for one conservative response. Also, try not to go off topic with comments about alleged "smear campaigns"--although I understand why you did so in this case, as it helped demonstrate the fact that people on both the Right and the Left have been critical of the speech (which is certainly true).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To say that comments like mine are "off topic" is in one sense accurate, so let me explain why I do it. In my long experience with Wikipedia, some intense POV pushers find the NPOV principle hard to grasp. If they propose a heavily biased version, and someone else proposes a suitably neutral version, they think a reasonable compromise is one that's only somewhat biased in their direction. I therefore find it useful, as a practical matter, to include my POV (though of course only on the talk page). This helps make the point that their POV is not the only POV, and that all biases must be excluded.

As for the passage in the article, I wasn't commenting on any specific version. I was answering what I took to be a general statement that we couldn't say anything about Ryan's mendacity. That's a logical prerequisite to working out exactly what we do say. I will say, however, that there's no requirement that we describe all points of view at equal length. We give a fair presentation of each significant POV, which may require more detail for one side than for another. We can't achieve balance just by balancing the word count. JamesMLane t c 01:47, 2 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: [19] --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([20]), The Atlantic ([21]), and Mediaite ([22]). 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)

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: [23], [24], [25]. 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."[26] 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)

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)