Jump to content

Talk:Paul Ryan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.173.176.125 (talk) at 20:24, 2 January 2019 (→Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineePaul Ryan was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
July 1, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Conservatism Collab

Why Jr?

Sources seem to indicate that Ryan's father was named Paul Murray Ryan, not Paul Davis Ryan like his son. Thus, the Jr. should be taken out and his father's name fixed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/25/nation/la-na-ryan-assets-20120826

And his father's page on an ancestry site

https://www.geni.com/people/Paul-Ryan/6000000017432726076 PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Leadership Fund

I just removed the section on the Congressional Leadership Fund. It doesn't belong here. The first problem is that the majority of the material in the section did not even mention Paul Ryan. The second problem is that the section did not describe the CLF in an unbiased, comprehensive, encyclopedic manner; rather, it simply took a few potshots at the CLF (including one dubious one). Perhaps there should be a separate page on the CLF, but if one is created, its content should be even-handed. SunCrow (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, the RS clearly and explicitly link the CLF and its actions to Ryan (see our discussion on the Rick Scott page where made arguments along similarly erroneous lines). Second, if the language fails to adhere to RS or somehow omits RS, then fix the language or add those RS (see the Mitch McConnell page where you made arguments along similarly erroneous lines about a lack of balance). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans The information in question has been removed for BLP concerns. Per policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.. The material has not changed significantly, and there is not consensus to restore. As a reminder, this article is twice under discretionary sanctions. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that the text in question was WP:COATRACK and that "The sources link CLF with Ryan. Fine. But they don't link these particular ads with Ryan, and there is no evidence ryan had any involvement with them". This is false. Every single cited source links the CLF and its actions to Ryan, and in fact opt to do so in the very first line about the CLF. Here is the WaPo fact-checker in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), has been running a series of negative ads about Democratic candidates in close races across the country." Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "In repeated ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan". Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its mishandling of classified info about Abigail Spanberger: "A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application". The content should be restored immediately, because rationales for keeping this content out of the article are baseless and the content in question in no way touches on WP:BLP. The content is all sourced to high quality RS and the RS all clearly and explicitly tie the CLF and its actions to Ryan. The requirement that Ryan had to personally sit in front of a computer and put together these ads is ludicrous and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I left in text which discusses Ryan's relationship with the CLF. But there is no evidence that Ryan had anything to do with those ads, and therefore including detailed content about those ads is a WP:COATRACK. Nobody is saying the standard is "personally sat in front of a computer", nice strawman. It is absolutely a strawman. Person A has a relationship with entity B. Entity B has done X. X is not relevant to A's biography. You disagree. Great. Find consensus. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how every single RS finds it important to note that this is Paul Ryan's super PAC and to do so in the context of the actions of the super PAC, even though Paul Ryan supposedly has nothing to do with the super PAC and its actions. Who among us hasn't accidentally headed an organization with a reputation for pushing falsehoods and racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. therefore you are either accusing paul ryan of a crime (without sourcing, blp violation much?) or the actions of the super pac WERE NOT COORDINATED WITH THE CANDIDATE. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RS has identified this verbatim as "Paul Ryan's super PAC", with the PAC itself saying Ryan "remains personally committed to ensuring CLF continues to succeed". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your sarcastic statement that he "headed" the org is a BLP violation. But more realistically, the content of a particular ad, its production, its scripting, its approval, its budget would all be coordination, which would be illegal. A crime is certainly a BLP concern, and as there is no allegation that he did any of the actions that would make it a crime, including such information in this article is against policy. Again, I do not object to the content saying that he is linked to the pac. I do object most strenuously to the specific actions of the pac which he had no control or influence over, nor has anyone alleged he had any control or influence over. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right on, ResultingConstant. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan's would-be successor as House speaker.

We should show TBD in the successor's slot under Speaker of the House, as Paul Ryan will be leaving office on January 3, 2019. Leaving nothing there, suggests he'll continue as Speaker of the House in the 116th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Paul Ryan and the Congressional Leadership Fund

Should the text in bold be added to this paragraph?:

  • The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan.[1][2][3] Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF.[4] The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads.[5] In The Guardian's ranking of the five most bigoted ads during the 2018 election campaign, four of the five were ads by the CLF.[5] In 2018, the CLF was described as "the highest-spending super PAC seeking to sway House races in the upcoming midterms."[6] During the 2018 mid-term elections. CLF produced a number of false ads, including two that falsely linked two Democratic candidates with terrorists. In one ad, the CLF depicted an African-American Rhodes scholar with a Harvard Law degree as a foul-mouthed and "disturbingly radical" rapper, and misrepresented lyrics from his rap career.[7][8] CLF obtained the unredacted security clearance application of Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer and Democratic congressional candidate, and then used it for political purposes. CLF also sent the highly sensitive document to at least one media outlet.[9] CLF then ran ads trying to link Spanberger to terrorist activity.[9]

References

  1. ^ "Attack Ads Against Some Democrats Try to Portray Them as Terrorists". Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  2. ^ Epstein, Reid J. (2018-09-28). "Paul Ryan's Super PAC Cancels Ads Backing Some Incumbent House Republicans". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  3. ^ "This Republican Super PAC Raised $51 Million to Try and Save the Party's House Majority". Time. Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  4. ^ "GOP super PAC enters five new House races after adding $1.5 million to hold Ryan's seat". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-10-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ a b Wolfson, Sam (2018-10-25). "Five of the most bigoted and divisive political ads from the 2018 midterms". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-10-28.
  6. ^ "Fact check: Campaign ads from leading GOP PAC misleading". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  7. ^ "Analysis | Fact-checking Republican attack ads in tight House races". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  8. ^ "The Most Inflammatory Ads of the Midterms". Retrieved 2018-10-24.
  9. ^ a b "C.I.A. Officer-Turned-Candidate Says PAC Obtained Her Security Application". Retrieved 2018-10-24.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it does not belong. Unless you can tie with reliable sources that Paul Ryan in some way was responsible for the ads, the information does not belong in the article. Just because it is a Super PAC aligned with Paul Ryan and he has directed donors to the Super PAC that does not mean he had anything to do with those ads. By including the information we would be insinuating he had something to do with those ads without any reliable source. ~ GB fan 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Coordination between candidates and the PAC is a crime, and there is not even a suggestion that Ryan had anything to do with these particular ads. This is a clear WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP violation. Additionally, there is a significant amount of POV in the proposed text which would need to be changed to comply with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This content would be fine in an article about the CLF. It does not belong on an individuals BLP that had nothing to do with the production of these ads. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed material belongs in an article about the CLF. Here, it is just a "guilt by association" attack on Ryan. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I have added the non-repetive material to CFL in this edit, as seen in the last paragraph.--Saranoon (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The material in bold is not the only part of the paragraph that is objectionable. Everything after the first two sentences of the paragraph is objectionable, and the first two sentences on their own are of dubious significance. As I stated in a previous discussion above, "The first problem is that the majority of the material in the section did not even mention Paul Ryan. The second problem is that the section did not describe the CLF in an unbiased, comprehensive, encyclopedic manner; rather, it simply took a few potshots at the CLF (including one dubious one). Perhaps there should be a separate page on the CLF, but if one is created, its content should be even-handed." I also concur with the well-reasoned comments made by ResultingConstant and Saranoon. SunCrow (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The text seem reasonable given the close ties between Ryan and the CLF. ImTheIP (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The text is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia; however it belongs in Congressional Leadership Fund, not Paul Ryan. This level of detail is inappropriate for a section that should be written in summary style. In this article we should say that the PAC ran a number of false ads during the 2018 midterms and leave it at that. R2 (bleep) 06:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Every single cited source links the CLF and its actions to Ryan, and in fact opt to do so in the very first line about the CLF. Here is the WaPo fact-checker in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), has been running a series of negative ads about Democratic candidates in close races across the country." Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "In repeated ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan". Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its mishandling of classified info about Abigail Spanberger: "A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application". The content is all sourced to high quality RS and the RS all clearly and explicitly tie the CLF and its actions to Ryan. In fact, multiple sources simply refer to the CLF as "Paul Ryan's Super PAC"[1] The sole reason why the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races is because House Speaker Paul Ryan directs donors (per every reliable source) to the PAC. Ryan could kill the PAC or the change behavior of the PAC by outright condemning the cancerous racist ads that it puts it or by very simply directing donors to a PAC which does not put out racist ads. This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC." That Wikipedia editors are deciding, contrary to what all RS report, that what's important here is whether Ryan himself is legally listed as the chairman of the PAC or as the producer who creates these ads is absurd, demonstrates a failure to understand the role of PACs in American politics and the nature of politicians' relationships with them, and is a perfect demonstration of why WP:OR is a prohibited here. The notion that the chairman of the PAC or a board member has more influence on the PAC than Ryan is absurd - and to those who believe that to be the case, ask yourself why no RS mention these individuals when they run piece after piece about the CLF and its activities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Just because a reliable source reports that a super PAC has aligned itself with a politican, doesn't mean that politician then supports and endorses misleading and/or false ads that the super PAC has produced for broadcast, or should have it mentioned in their biography. That's horribly biased against the subject of the biography and undue, and yes, it's a potential BLP problem as it's contentious material. And also agree everything after the first two sentences of the paragraph is objectionable and contentious and needs to be removed. Again, just because a reliable source reports the CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads, doesn't mean that politician has a reputation for endorsing and/or supporting racist ads, which those sentences clearly imply. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose' except for the first 2 lines, the place for this material is the article on the CLF. "aligned with" is a deliberately vague term,, and the reader must (and undoubtedly will) draw their own conclusions about whether the views are similar. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This RFC was mentioned at WP:BLPN#RfC: "Paul Ryan's Super Pac" runs racist ads. ~ GB fan 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the number of high quality sources that link Ryan with the PAC, it can't be argued that the sourcing is poor. It might be a different story if Ryan disavowed the PAC and the ads (he didn't as far as I can tell), but even the disavowal would be significant enough to mention in the bio. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The only thing that should remain are the first 2 lines, as noted by multiple other editors. As was noted previously, Paul Ryan cannot legally coordinate with the PAC, and the PAC's activities should be described on the PAC's page. Clear WP:BLP violation. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This belongs in the article about the CLF. Its inclusion on Ryan's page would be a WP:BLP violation and a blatant attempt at guilt by association. Snooganssnoogans has tried this out at least once before, and knows better. DoubleCross (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my remarks in both RfCs. Also, all reliable news outlets are now apparently guilty of guilt by association. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is overly detailed for an article on Ryan, and a not-so-subtle attempt to make him guilty by association. Calidum 04:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Widely covered and relevant to his biography; no immediate BLP concerns (he was assaulted once but apparently not because of politics [2]) and WP:recentism would allow for a compromise by having a relatively short paragraph until we can cite retrospective analysis to determine the exact weight we need. Ryan is a public figure and his spokesperson issued a response; this makes the "guilt by association", BLP vio and WP:AVOIDVICTIM arguments moot. There are POV issues in the paragraph, and they aren't fixed by removing the content but by maintaining a NPOV adhering to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, i.e. not calling something "race-baiting" in wiki-voice when the sources attribute it to the politician's critics. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written - this proposed paragraph really overdoes it. That said: there's a fair amount of coverage linking Ryan to the PAC, so it might be reasonable to include a brief discussion of the CLF, followed by a brief mention that the CLF was criticized for some of its ads in the 2018 midterms. @Marquis de Faux: I'm not sure that's correct. Super PACs can't legally coordinate with candidates because of campaign finance laws, but Paul Ryan isn't running for office. Regardless, this point seems like WP:OR. Nblund talk 18:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose currently proposed text This seems like an attempt to add a laundry list of only negative things about the CLF to Ryan's article and imply he is guilty of the same things. Why not list other things about the CLF if it is so relevant to this article, beyond these politically charged critiques? In other words, why aren't the things that appear most prominently in news articles about the CLF also mentioned (how much money it raises, what races it enters, etc.) First two sentences are ok. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of Speaker tenure

Why is the WP article by editorial writer Erica Werner cited as a valid/reliable source? Snit333 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Washington Post article (i.e. not op-ed) by congressional reporter (i.e. not editorial writer) Erica Warner?[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Ordinal numbers

This would affect multiple pages but since Ryan is the current speaker I thought this might be a better place to start. In short: should Paul Ryan be counted as the 54th Speaker or the 62nd? News sources seem to disagree: [4] [5][6][7] say 62nd, [8] [9] say 54th. Ryan is the 54th person to be Speaker, but several speakers served two or more non-consecutive terms (Frederick Muhlenberg, Henry Clay, John W. Taylor (politician), Sam Rayburn and Joseph W. Martin Jr.), including the next likely Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, so there have been 62 distinct terms of the Speakership.

In short, should Paul Ryan be counted as the 54th or 62nd Speaker? Nevermore27 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be 62nd Nevermore27 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've no preference either way, as long as we go by the most reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we describe those speakers with two or more non-consecutive terms? There should be consistency. If there is none, there is at least a precedent with another office - Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Caveat: I have seen books that describe him only as the 22nd President, reducing by one all those from William McKinley onwards; in those books, George H. W. Bush was 40th President, not Ronald Reagan. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Within the US, there's no numbering consistency across the board. One need only look at the state governors. In Alabama, George Wallace is counted as the 45th governor, though he served 1963-67, 1971-79 & 1983-87. Meanwhile in Arkansas, Bill Clinton is counted as the 40th and 42nd governor, having served 1979-81 & 1983-92. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of these offices are federal though, as salient as your point may be. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is disagreement among the sources, and the respective perspectives seem roughly equivalently backed by high-quality sources overall, I think we have to use and mention both, explaining the distinction (as briefly as possible, since it's trivia, but I don't think we can get around covering it.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: Seems like a workable compromise, having a column each for Speakership terms and Speakers overall Nevermore27 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

For non-consecutive terms, that makes sense. But for consecutive terms it doesn’t make sense. Ryan is the 54th speaker, not the 62nd. Corky 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: If you read the RfC introduction, you'd have seen that 4 speakers have served non-consecutive terms. So while Paul Ryan is the 54th person to be speaker, there have been 62 (so far) speakership terms. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read the RFC intro thank you very much. You won't change my mind, now, because of the tone of voice you are using with your responses. No need to comment further on my response. Corky 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: well when you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We better make sure it does apply to all the speakers. The next speaker is likely former speaker Nancy Pelosi. Which will create another discussion on what 'her' numbering will be. Will she be still the 52nd speaker 'or' will she be the 60th & 63rd speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if we chose 62nd in this case or 54th/62nd, then it creates more numberings for those who've had non-consecutive tenures as speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

There is an extra period at the end of the first sentence of this article (it reads "January 2019..") Someone needs to correct the typo. Thanks! 98.173.176.125 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Ryan&oldid=876517263"