Talk:Paul Ryan

RfC: Critiques of Ryan RNC Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Include - His acceptance speech has received huge media attention and plenty of reliable sources. It's a very notable event and criticism of his speech is required for a neutral report of the speech. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Marathon time -- proposed addition and amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? Try reflecting what other editors actually wrote before setting up absurd straw man arguments. Ryan said he misspoke about a time from many years past -- and that is not really more notable than a person "visiting all 57 states". What I posted was that in training, only a fool does not train by running similar distances. The odds that a person can run a sub-4 hour marathon without training are nil. Nor does nayone need a source on the talk page for such obvious matters -- but here goes: [1] for a "beginning runner who juust wants to finish the race" from about.com has the beginner running 20 miles at a time. [2] has The long training runs of over 18 miles are the most important workouts in any training program (baa.com is the Boston Athletic Association which is a reliable source about marathons). [3] "livestrong.com" which is headed by a person knowledgeable in such stuff, says Most marathon training plans call for a weekly long run of 16 to 22 miles, with three to four long runs of 20 to 22 miles at the peak of the program. So yes -- people training for a marathon generally run very long distances in their training. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign policy

Add:

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

Edit request (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standing edit request

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

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

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

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Signatures/comments for edits to the above

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

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

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

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

Ryan convention speech statement

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

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

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

Mixed reactions

I recently changed "reaction from the media was mixed" to "reaction from the media was primarily negative", in reference to hi now-famous speech.[4] I found "mixed" to contradict the three cited negative reactions from major news sources, as well as the overall pattern. NPOV means we have to be objective, even when that means reporting that the reality wasn't neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant closing.

There's some disagreement about how much information we should keep about that plant closing.[5] I'd like to suggest that we need to mention both when it was decided to close it and when it was finally closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 17 September 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marathon deletions

Please stop removing the documentation about the marathon issue. It's entered the political discussion-- the event(s) need to be neutrally covered here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It only needs coverage in one article - not in every single article remotely connected to Ryan, nor is "we need to show he is a liar" a proper base for any editor to approach any article from. This is campaign "silly season" in America and on Wikipedia - but the rules of WP:BLP still apply, as do the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. BTW, being an entire hour off on something that is clearly documented, it seems apparent to me that it was only an error. The "sources" that imply otherwise aren't sources, they are participants. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the 'marathon story' has been widely told. I'm entirely agnostic about the 'merits' of the marathon time issue. But whether it's a comedic gaffe or a political cudgel, we should be mentioning it and helping readers sort out what happened. Just saying nothing is to ignore the reliable sources that talk about its political impact on the campaign.

It might be "silly season"-- but silly season moves votes-- there are people who think obama's a kenyan muslim, there are people who think mormons are inherently immoral, both wrongheaded groups vote. We document, neutrally. More words are almost always more informative than silence. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the content issues, but I do want to say that WP:WEIGHT is also a concern of WP:NPOV. So keep it in mind. The words can be neutral, but if the majority of the topic is negative despite neutral language, than the article is still not WP:NPOV.--v/r - TP 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any high-profile politician will naturally accumulate more negative stuff in the "silly season" than positives. That doesn't mean we should keep it out of the article in search of "balance". The article will always be unbalanced from almost every perspective. The only one that counts is, what do the sources say. Homunq (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Give WP:UNDUE a read. Quote: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."--v/r - TP 15:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are getting at what I'm guessing, you may be mistakenly counting participants as "sources" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting at anything. I've not read the sources and I have no opinion about the article. I am trying to make sure that proper content policies are kept in mind to combat the edit warring that has been happening here.--v/r - TP 16:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TP, I think that North8000 meant that comment to be directed at Homunq.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It was directed at only a guess on where TP was going. (e.g. preponderance in sources) And of course my guesses can be wrong. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we interpreted his remarks very differently. I thought TP was disagreeing with HectorMoffet's assertion that more text and more coverage of news stories is always and everywhere superior to less coverage, and with Homunq's assertion that we shouldn't even try to be balanced as whatever gets the most media coverage becomes (at least for now) the most vital information to cover. The quote "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" seems to be a useful rejoinder to that line of thought.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of all internet traditions WP:UNDUE. What it's tells us in this case is that we should not give too much emphasis to the VP campaign in general, despite the fact that it's led more ink to be spilled over Ryan than before. But it absolutely does not say that we should try to balance negative versus positive coverage in terms of their "importance" to Ryan's life. Any politician campaigning for high office will have pseudo-scandals. As long as they get significant coverage by a spectrum of sources who agree they're based in fact, they belong (briefly) in the article. The marathon issue clearly meets this bar, and any persistent reversion to keep it out of the article is/would be against policy. (Note: I haven't followed the article edits enough to know precisely how much edit warring is going on over this.) Homunq (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you see, that's where you are wrong and that's what leads to edit warring. What it tells us is that opinions on whether or not the marathon issue is appropriate weight should be discussed. What you think is appropriate weight may not agree with others. That's why this article is on probation right now. Discussion needs to be the default action before reverting. You need to discuss how much WP:WEIGHT, if any, to give to this issue. "The marathon issue clearly meets this bar" isn't going to be clear to others or might be outright disputed (and is in this case). I'm staying out of the dispute on whether you want to include it or not, but I want you guys to consider that this revert thing isn't helping either case. While the article is protected, no one can edit. That's not good, is it? You all need to recognize the difference in opinion instead of assuming that you hold indisputable facts. I really hate to topic ban folks, put folks on 1RR, or even put the entire article under WP:BRD. Please, edit appropriately despite differences of opinion and respect each others opinion.--v/r - TP 17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we should discuss it, but there has to be a basis besides "that feels undue to me" or "this article ends up looking like a litany of criticisms /// this article ends up looking totally whitewashed". The overall balance of the article is a good argument on what level of detail to include on a given issue, but not whether to include a given issue. I proposed a clear standard: an issue should be included if:

• it gets significant coverage
• by a spectrum of sources
• which agree the issue (in this case, that Ryan misstated his marathon time) is not a complete fabrication

These are not necessary criteria, but I believe they are sufficient.

So yes, discussion is good. By all means, let's discuss whether these criteria are met in this case. And as to naked (ie, without WP:RS) assertions that this is UNDUE, or a key fact; that it was just a misstatement, or a lying liar's lie; that it's a trivial matter, or speaks to his character; or that certain sources are biased and therefore not real sources... these assertions are all getting in the way of a real discussion, not helping it. WP:RS, people; back up what you say. Homunq (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. WP:RS. Desist. Homunq (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not appropriate. WP:FORUM is about threads that have nothing to do with the article and WP:RS is a content policy; not a talk page guideline.--v/r - TP 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How does the statement "Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter" relate to the article? How does it help us apply policy as to whether covering this issue in the article (in 1-3 sentences) is supported by a broad enough base of WP:RS to not be WP:UNDUE? If it doesn't help, doesn't it just serve as a distraction? If I believe it is such a distraction, what would be an appropriate way to express that, while feeding the distraction as little as possible? Homunq (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel's comment is very clear. He doesn't think that labeling Ryan a "liar" is a non-trivial matter unworthy of discussion. He feels you should've discussed it. How does that not relate to the article? Keep in mind, I don't give two hoots and a howl either way, I'm here to enforce behavior policies and I'm trying to do it by reminding you all of content policies.--v/r - TP 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(later response: Arzel specifically said that "liar" accusations were nontrivial, yet you say Arzel doesn't think they're nontrivial. Also, you say Arzel feels that I should've discussed "it". But if "it" is a liar claim on talk, I never made such a claim; my comment to which Arzel was responding mentions the liar claim as one that should NOT be made baselessly, so in that regard I'm in agreement with Arzel. And if "it" is some hypothetical article edit: I have never edited this article regarding the marathon. Homunq (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC) )

Edit confict. Here's what I added before TP replied. Reply to TP forthcoming.

Let me try to answer my own final question. What I meant to say was: the arguments of whether or not he is a liar, or whether the allegation that he is is a trivial matter, are arguments based on personal opinions, and thus appropriate to a WP:FORUM and not to wikipedia. The question at hand is, is this matter covered by enough WP:RSs that to cover it in a neutral tone is not WP:UNDUE? Homunq (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to TP: I feel that a discussion of whether Ryan is a liar, or whether that's trivial, will quickly devolve into "is not"/"is too". I feel that the only way to avoid that is to focus on the facts we can agree on: what sources cover the matter and how. Homunq (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why we have the WP:RFC process, the WP:3O process (which doesn't apply here because there are already more than 3 people), WP:DRN, and WP:MedCab. All of them can be used to solve this dispute using impartial or uninvolved editors as the tie breakers.--v/r - TP 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, all of those are options. Why is it not also an option to ask another editor to desist from a line of conversation which is impossible to resolve within WP policy, and too politically-charged to resolve through mere good-will? It's my contention that such irresolvable questions are covered by WP:FORUM. Why am I wrong?

It's also my (perhaps naive) belief that, if we weren't distracted by such questions, we could actually settle this issue without RFC/DRN/mediation. I realize I could be wrong there but I'm willing to try. Homunq (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We should be reporting on the actual material, not be trying to game in slam words from opponents. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree; "liar" is inappropriate, because it's not the word any WP:RSs are using to describe this. However, they do cover the issue, and so should we. Homunq (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Homunq: Because who gets to tell others to desist and who doesn't? It's certainly not me. All I can do is enforce community policies. Coming from you, Arzel isn't going to care. Would you care if he told you to drop it? That's why we have so many dispute resolution processes. The only thing I can do is sit here with a stick and poke and say "Hey, don't forget WP:WHATEVER" and then block/ban if my warnings arn't heeded. But I can't step in and say, "This topic cannot be discussed" or "this is how this article is going to look." It's beyond my authority as an administrator and it's beyond your authority as an editor. All any of us can do is try to find consensus and use the tools (dispute resolution processes) that are afforded to us to get there. The thing that helps me the most is, I look at my opponents and I say "That guy is trying to do the right thing and improve Wikipedia." If you cannot say that about someone, then it's time you start an WP:RFC/U about that person because they've consistently proven otherwise and it's time for the community to discuss. But an RFC/U takes an abundance of evidence about a person's intentions. You can't infer someone's intentions over a small (large in scale, small in scope) issue like this. So discuss, try dispute resolution, seek consensus. If there are behavior issues, WP:RFC/U. If all else fails, book a cruise to Jamaica and relax.--v/r - TP 00:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, rules like WP:FORUM are made for exactly this situation: comments that have the effect of derailing a resolvable question (What are the relevant sources? Are there enough of them to pass WP:UNDUE for a few sentences?) to an irresolvable one (Is Ryan a liar? How important is the controversy about Ryan's marathon time in a fundamental sense?).

As for authority: we're all equally authorities when it comes to insisting on policy here. I can't say "my interpretation of WP:BLP is right and yours is wrong so shut up", because the whole point of the talk page is to discuss such issues. But I can, and should, remind other participants that unless they're grounding their arguments (right or wrong) in policies such as (in this case) WP:RS, they are effectively using this talk page as a WP:FORUM. And others have equal right to say that to me, if I should make arguments that aren't grounded in policy.

(speaking of derailing: much of this side-discussion is off-topic, and if you were to move it somewhere like another subhead or even my talk page, I'd consider that a favor. Or put a collapse/show template around it. I won't do so, because I don't want to give offense.)

So. Back on track. I proposed a standard for WP:UNDUE that I think could apply in this case: an issue should be included if:

• it gets significant coverage
• by a spectrum of sources
• which agree the issue (in this case, that Ryan misstated his marathon time) is not a complete fabrication

These are not necessary criteria, but I believe they are sufficient, and I believe that the marathon time issue meets them. For those who disagree, do you disagree on the standard, or on the fact of whether this meets the standard? Homunq (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Homunq: You don't get to write policy. Your comment to Arzel was inappropriate. The issue of what to include is "resolvable"; indeed, it must be resolved here. Arzel does not need a "reliable source" to declare something undue; your shifting arguments and strawmen don't change the fact that Arzel was not starting a debate over Ryan's integrity. You previously accused your opponents of making "naked assertions that this is UNDUE", only to throw unrelated policies at them without elaboration. As was the case when you tried to insert your own personal commentary about Ryan being "unusually dishonest" into the article, you are acting in good faith but do not seem to fully grasp Wikipedia policy. News coverage does not equal notability, period.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange, other editors have claimed to me that notability only applies to whether an article should exist, not to its contents. That aside, the media is still talking about this episode, and both “blatant lies” (Fox News) and “unusually dishonest” (MSNBC) are quotes from actual media that's been cited in this edit-war. Other direct quotes were also tried and objected to, despite being properly sourced. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Homunq: Your understanding of WP:FORUM is way off. Your suggestions for WP:UNDUE would be proposed at WT:NOT.--v/r - TP 02:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Sorry, but Homunq cannot rewrite the definition of undue. Nobody ever mentioned such a quote from MSNBC, although that phrase was added without quotation marks, as though it was a neutral summary. Fox News defended Ryan, so you must be thinking of the editorial by an unpaid contributor. Editorials are "not reliable for statements of fact" according to WP:RS. Note that in the current revision, there is a negative quote ("litany of falsehoods")--but none of the positive sources are quoted. Homunq essentially said that news coverage should equal Wikipedia coverage, and I think you must agree that this interpretation of Wikipedia policy is not accurate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging(edit conflict, responding to "You don't get to...". My response to the UNDUE comment is further down, these edit conflicts are heavy): I am not attempting to write policy, only to summarize it as it applies to this case. If you feel I haven't done so faithfully, please, tell me why. As to Arzel, the comment I was responding to said, "Calling Ryan a "liar" is not a trivial matter." I have yet to hear anyone give a plausible grounding for that in policy. Certainly, your intepretation that "not a trivial matter" means that something IS undue seems illogical to me.

Regarding your charge that my initial response to Arzel lacked sufficient elaboration, I suppose you are right. I hope the discussion since then has remedied that.

Now, can we return to an actual policy-based discussion of whether or not this is undue? I claim it isn't, and gave my arguments. Responses (grounded in policy)? Homunq (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TP, regarding WP:FORUM: your talk page or mine? I'm watching yours so you can reply on either; here is not the place.

Regarding WP:UNDUE: it wasn't a proposal, but an attempt to interpret and apply the existing standard to this article, intended to spur productive discussion. How would you interpret/apply the standard here? I don't mean, what verdict would you reach; I mean, what standards would you use in reaching that verdict? Homunq (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TTAAC: Since this is specifically stated to be the opinion of fact-checkers and/or editorials, your WP:RS argument is completely wrong; we are stating a fact about opinions, which is legitimate. The WP:UNDUE argument comes down to a personal decision. I claim that, given the media is still both actively mentioning it and making more oblique references 3 weeks later, that it's certainly worth a mention if we're going to mention the speech. What I do disagree with is cherry-picking a “zinger” quote from the speech, which the article still does. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:UNDUE with reference to current events is that we shouldn't be updating our encyclopedia, and especially not BLP's, with every little item that catches the media's attention. We need to step back and use editorial judgement to decide which factors have the potential to be important after the "L" in BLP no longer applies. And, because it is a BLP (and not an article on the 2012 election, where this issue might find a permanent relevance) we need to err on the side of conservatism (no pun intended). WRT the marathon issue, it's clearly just a media tempest in a teapot that won't be remembered once the election is behind us. Therefore, we should not include this in the article. If we are wrong and it turns out to be the defining issue of this election then we will have all the time in the world to revise this article later. Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me; I know very well that facts about opinions can be reported (see my comments to Rtmcrrctr below). I was focusing on specific edits made by Homunq; for example, using editorials to casually state that Ryan is "unusually dishonest" without quotation marks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: I was clearly using indirect quotation; none of my versions ever had the article itself making that charge. Homunq (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When you combine several sources that don't use the phrase, and write that they criticized the speech "for being exceptionally/unusually dishonest", that's pretty iffy. You should have said that a source called it "unusually dishonest", or "several sources criticized it as dishonest".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Djkernen: As I've pointed out before on this page, your longevity argument makes an argument for removing the entire discussion of the speech. Since these speeches are written for public response, mentioning the speech—and even including quotes from it—without mentioning the reaction is itself WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TTAAC: Thanks for bringing this back to policy, and sorry we got tangled in edit conflicts (I shouldn't have tried to put my comment above yours even if it was written three edit conflicts earlier).

My contention here is:

• in the phrase "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports", the "isolated" modifies all three nouns. That is, it means "isolated events, [isolated] criticisms, or [isolated] news reports". With many sources covering the matter of the marathon, and with the campaign itself having retracted the original statement (that is, addressing the matter on at least two occasions - the original claim and the retraction) this is technically none of those three.
• Assuming it were an isolated event, a single sentence of coverage would not per se be disproportionate for an article of this size. That is, there are certainly sentences in this article which refer to events or statements which are just as isolated.
• There is legitimate debate over the "significance" of this incident. Some of that debate is clearly ideological. That doesn't make the debate illegitimate; but it does make it probably irresolvable by arguments purely on the merits. People's perspectives are just too disparate.
• When a debate like this is never going to be resolved through ungrounded debate, we have to search for a solution based in policy.
• In my opinion, the most promising policy is WP:RS. That is, if we can't agree on what is "significant" enough for bare inclusion, we must rely on the judgment of multiple sources as to what is significant enough to cover.
• On that basis, the matter deserves inclusion.

Homunq (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

edit request

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

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

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

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

unrelated additional request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit request

((request edit}}

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

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

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

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

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

edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the text from the article:

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

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

But if you read it from start to finish:

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

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

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

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

edit request

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

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