Talk:Paul Ryan

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Please add template message to section Paul Ryan#Political positions:

{{Bad summary|section|Political positions of Paul Ryan}}

Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: Hello Becky, thank you for your careful consideration of this editorial issue; do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This edit request is an improvement to the article unlikely to be controversial. The concern expressed by the proposed template message follows straight-forwardly from guideline WP:SUMMARY. The template will function to draw the attention of editors to collaborating on improving the summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan here at Paul Ryan#Political positions as per WP:SUMMARY. Meanwhile, the template message is necessary here to notify readers that the current content of section Paul Ryan#Political positions may be inadequate, even to the point of non-neutrality, in its coverage of the subtopic. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Comments? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Objections? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

One week hearing no objection to a simple section hat WP:SILENCE; seeking collaboration on an obvious shortfall with respect to WP:SUMMARY; the edit is an improvement unlikely to be controversial WP:SNOW. Please add. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• There wasn't silence. An editor above said you should gain consensus for that. You haven't suggested what in the section needs improvement. Why do you feel the section is inadequate? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The inadequacies of the section are discussed in the immediately following section, below; this section is for discussion of the proposed edit: the addition of a section template which will serve to invite collaboration and meanwhile informing readers of a potentially non-neutral summary. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Do you think the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this issue. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 00:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. With reference to editing guideline WP:SUMMARY, do you think the Political positions section of this article Paul Ryan is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, haven't looked and don't care to look. - GB fan 00:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Ok, I guess. Would you perhaps at least agree that a section hat is a simple legitimate non-controversial approach to drawing the attention of editors who do care to collaboration on a possible editorial issue? BTW go Pack. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it is a non controversial approach to draw attention to what a single editor believes is a problem. You haven't had a single person who agrees that it is a problem. An RFC would be a better way to get others to look at it. - GB fan 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ten days without objection to a simple, straightforward, guideline-complaint improvement. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful, P&G informed consideration of this proposed edit. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thank you for your thoughtful response to this edit request. Based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please accept this edit request. Three weeks with no objection to a simple, non-controversial, policy-based improvement. Thank you in advanced. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You can also look at this from the opposite side, three weeks of you asking and not a single editor has agreed with you. There is no consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is not productive to keep this request open at this point. You have been asked to find consensus before using the Edit Request template. You have also been advised to open a Request for Comment if you'd like to bring this to the attention of a wider group of editors. I would suggest another approach: propose some actual changes to the section (in a "change x to y" format, with reliable sources). Clearly, you do not have consensus to add the template, and you're unlikely to gain it simply by asking again. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Thank you for your thoughtful disposition of this edit request. May I respectfully ask, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for sharing your policy and guideline informed editorial perspective. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't take the bait. I have no connection to this article, and I intend to keep it that way. You've been given more than one suggestion on how to get more eyes on what you've identified as a problem with the article. If you're serious about wanting to fix it, you'll try one of those approaches, rather than waiting for the right uninvolved editor to happen by and be drawn in. You may have a valid point, but procedurally you're going about things the wrong way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No bait; a colleague asked your opinion on an editorial issue. I am saddened that you have time to change a no to a yes on an edit request but apparently have no time to take a very brief moment to comment on a very obvious editorial issue, an assessment which demands little or no subject expertise, and requires only a cursory familiarity with policy and guideline; however, as we know, there is no deadline, and for now I am content to wait for a conscientious experienced editor to weigh in. Thank you for your advice. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that until you have consensus for the change nothing will be done. If you think the summary is bad, propose a new summary, get consensus and then ask for it to be changed. If all you want is a tag, then start an WP:RFC and get consensus. Until you get consensus nothing will happen. - GB fan 23:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your ongoing commitment to this editorial issue. I look forward to collaborating with you on a resolution. May I respectfully ask, since your last few contributions to this thread, if you have had a chance to briefly skim our project's article Political positions of Paul Ryan, review this article's section Political positions, and perhaps arrive at some conclusion, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, on whether or not section Political positions is an adequate summary of its main article? I take it your assessment is that section Political positions is a neutral summary of Political positions of Paul Ryan, I would please like to understand your basis. I believe the tag is simple and will help attract editor attention to this editorial issue, which is, after all, the main purpose of every tag, but also, as we collaborate on a resolution, improves the article by putting our readers on notice that the section may be non-neutral WP:READERSFIRST. Thank you in advance. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not read and do not plan on reading Political positions of Paul Ryan. I do not plan on taking part in any discussion concerning this issue. - GB fan 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your continued engagement with this editorial issue. I'm sorry, I'm confused, you say you do not want to participate in this discussion while you have inactivated this simple edit twice and commented in this thread six times; you are the most active participant in this discussion save for the proposer, yet for all that I regret I do not understand your position on the Political positions section of this article; can you please clarify? May I respectfully request some good faith WP:AGF and some focus on content WP:FOC? Also, go Pack! Thank you in advance for your reply focusing on content, policy, and guideline. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the political positions section of this article. I am only commenting on the consensus to add the tag. You do not have consensus to add the tag. If you want to get consensus you will need to try a different tactic. You might try starting an RFC on the question of whether the tag is appropriate. A better tactic is to actually try to improve the article. Write what you think the section should be and then start an RFC to get consensus for the New section. Just asking for a tag to be added is not an improvement. ~ GB fan 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thank you again for your suggestion of an RFC to add a "bad summary" tag to the Political positions section of this article. The justification for the tag is very, very obvious to anyone with passing familiarity with MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, WP:NPOV, and a quick browse of the Political positions section of this article and article Political positions of Paul Ryan. The non-conformance with policy and guideline is so clear that an RFC is overkill at this time. An RfC is designed to draw community-wide attention to an editorial dispute; here, we have no dispute, and the consent of just one confirmed user is all that is needed. In fact, the above edit request is so WP:SNOW that an RfC were it launched would almost certainly be accused of being disruptive by some. We agree the goal is to improve the section, but the deficiency of the section with respect to policy and guideline is so severe that a tag is an improvement to the article. It seems to me you do have an opinion on the section if you feel a tag is not warranted; I would like to better understand your thinking if possible. I am disappointed that for all your many contributions to this discussion you say you have not developed an opinion on the content issue, but I respect your lack of position; may I ask only that you not actively prevent a colleague from attracting the attention of collaborators to improving this section in a simple, low-impact manor? Thank you again, and, as always, go Pack. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You say it is blatantly obvious, but this has been going on for a month now and not a single person has agreed with you. It does not appear to be that obvious. You have many options available to you, I have suggested a couple. The one that won't work is for you to continuously reopen this edit request. ~ GB fan 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Inadequate summarization of political positions

The Political positions section of this article inadequately summarizes its main article Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please see WP:SUMMARY. The main article Political positions of Paul Ryan is 73,766 bytes long and has 4 sections and 11 subsections. Almost all of the main article is not summarized in the parent; the Political positions section of this article mentions just one area of public policy, social security. The Political positions section of this article might be better headed "Political philosophy" as it is almost exclusively devoted to the relationship between the topics of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand (a noteworthy relationship but not to the exclusion of noteworthy political positions) whereas the main article makes no mention of Ayn Rand. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please help summarize the Political positions of Paul Ryan in the lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Thank you! 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan in progress at Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft summarization available in lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with guidelines MOS:BODY and WP:SUMMARY? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Style guide of WikiProject Conservatism recommends a "Political positions" section in articles on politicians:

• Lead
• Early life
• Political career
• Election of year
• Term as office
• Later life or Personal life
• Political positions
• Legacy
• Awards
• Works published
• See also
• References
• External links

This article has such a section, however it is devoted exclusively to discussing the subject's favorite author. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Among of the most noteworthy aspects of the subject of this article are his political positions. This article makes no mention of Medicaid or Medicare. The Political positions section of this article makes no mention of the subject of this article's political positions on entitlement programs beyond social security. This article makes no mention of the positions of the subject of this article on abortion, pay equity, marriage equality, gun rights, climate, regulation, consumer protection, the corporate income tax, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, and many other issues on which his positions are manifest in multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article has two paragraphs including a long direct quote discussing the body fat percentage of the subject of this article. The systematic exclusion of the political positions, widely represented in reliable sources, is a serious neutrality deficiency with this article. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources identify the subject of this article as conservative. May the lead of this article mention that the subject of this article is conservative? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with policy WP:NPOV? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Issues addressed. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Ryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43705712.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826064029/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-WI-01 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-WI-01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717124830/http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/AboutRSC/Members/ to http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/aboutrsc/members/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House

On this and other articles the President is being added into the Infobox under the Speaker of the House. I do not feel it is relevant as these are two seperate and equal portions of the government. Congress does not work for the President. Who the President is does not make any difference. The latest revert to reinsert it used this search as justification. The President and the Speaker of the House have a very important relationship but not one that belongs in the infobox. ~ GB fan 19:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not denying whether they are separate or equal, but I think that the relationship is important enough for the infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Definite mention of the relationship of how it is and how it could be should be made in the article, but not relevant to the infobox. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key points of the subject. POTUS is not key to Ryan's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant in the Infobox. Ought to be included in most cases in the article, but not the Infobox.—GoldRingChip 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. Paul Ryan should not be considered equivalent to a Prime Minister in the European sense; his role isn't tied to the White House administration in power, and the Senate has equal political power as the House. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. They're separate branches of government, and their respective terms don't necessarily coincide (and never exactly coincide), so it's awkward for the infobox. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Broken Links

Links 10, 11, and 12 are either broken or not useful. Just a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed the broken links about Ryan's father. 216.83.65.74 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Spudnaut

"From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education.[26][27][28]". Link 26 doesn't cite where they got this information from. Link 27, politico, has a broken link as a reference. Link 28 is an article with no citations. Haven't found any evidence of this claim, can someone update with evidence or correct the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)