Talk:Paul Ryan

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)

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)

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) Comments please? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:16, 22 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)