Talk:Paul Ryan

Marathon deletions

Extended content

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) I realize that I've made this suggestion before, but I think the best thing to do would be to RFC on a a short mention along the lines of "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours." I think it's equally unreasonable that we would omit something which continues to receive so much coverage or that we would include anything which suggests that he intentionally lied. a13ean (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree. If we're going to have a Ryan rebuttal, it should be what he actually said: he quoted that time because he “thought that was an ordinary time”.[1] —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq: One of the things some people do is they take all the subjects of an article and they do a google search for each. Then then use the google search results to weigh the appropriate percentage of article that each section should have. It's not fool proof and not 100% accurate; but it gives you a good idea.--v/r - TP 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC) On that basis, "Paul Ryan" gives 51,000,000 results, while "Paul Ryan" marathon gives 3,580,000. So about 7% of the pages mentioning "Paul Ryan" mention "marathon". Say that those pages spend 5-10% of their attention on the marathon issue on average; that would suggest that about 0.5% of this article should be about the marathon issue. In an article with around 70 paragraphs, that's almost half a paragraph. I'd say that's in the right ballpark. Homunq (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) With all due respect to TP, while that method is used by some editors to claim justification for inclusion of material, it is not, in general, a good way to write an encyclopedic article, and would result in a strange article where his one breif mention of a marathon over 20 years ago would be more important than his views on many social issues and just as important as many other policy issues. Interestingly, one of the most talked about issues regarding Ryan (over 40,000 of the ~370,000 news articles) is regarding energy, and energy is hardly even mentioned in the article. Additionally, because he was just named the VP candidate, he is getting a lot more attention. Such an approach would create WP:RECENT problems because anything that happens now will greatly outweigh anything in the past simply because he is in the news now more than in the past. Also, such an approach is also prey to recent events which get a lot of attention over a short period of time but end up not having any long lasting historical value. Arzel (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You're right that this method has numerous problems, especially if it were to be used strictly to determine how much of the article to devote to each subtopic. However, as an argument for inclusion in the first place, it's pretty strong. If 7% of pages on Paul Ryan mention the marathon, that is not an issue this article should ignore entirely. A one-sentence mention, such as a13ean suggested as modified by Kerfuffler's comment, is the kind of thing that's called for. Homunq (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) GoogleNews shows 579,000 results for "Paul Ryan" (initial page figure), and 7.940 fot "Paul Ryan" "Marathon" or a tad under 1.4% as a ratio. I rather think the ratio is fairly substantial. Thanks for suggesting the exercise. Collect (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC) So you agree that 1.4% of 70 paragraphs (i.e. one paragraph) should mention this? Interesting. Hal peridol (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I said nothing of the sort, so your post is not very useful here. If 100% of the content of the 1.4% of articles were on the "marathon issue", then you might have some sort of point - but that is not likely the case, nor do we even know what percentage viewed the word "marathon" as controversial in their own context. So you have what is termed in mathematical an "upper bound" but that dpes not mean Wikipedia should go the the maximum when the likely percentage of words written about Ryan and the marathon is likely well less than 1/5 of 1% (positing that every article with the word "marathon" devotes a full 15% of its total size to the issue) of all the words written in news articles. The remarkably small number of articles found by GoogleNews (which includes opinion sites etc.) indicates that any coverage here should be well under the upper bound for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Ah, must be because I forgot <g> - cheers. Hal peridol (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) All of this to try to game in somebody's spin comments on an error he made. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Woah woah woah, let just stick to discussing whether or not to include it. There is no reason to label anything gaming. Let's not stray into people's intentions here.--v/r - TP 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Why are we talking about Google hits in this talk page? The article is a BLP not a news story nor an article on Ryan's Google rankings. Google hits are completely irrelevant when determining weight. What matters is what will be important in the long term. I think we should reduce the section on Ryan's VP race to just the facts around when/how he was nominated and when the election is going to occur. We do not need to nor should we report on the race in realtime, blow-by-blow, nor on whether he sucks or rules. We should update the section when the election is over to summarize the events and the result, since they will form an important part of his bio either way. All this chatter about his speech and his marathon race are a huge waste of time as neither really will matter over the long-haul. And recent events, especially during silly season, will disproportionally show up in Google searches and are not necessarily important from the life-long perspective that this article should have. Further, limiting the VP Race section to just the bare facts until the race is over will reduce the noise and the POV-pushing.Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I have previously stated, I think it's evident that everyone will have more perspective on the degree and significance of Ryan's (dis)honesty after he election. However on a purely logical point, if the question of significance is to be investigated by Googling, I suggest that the useful search term is not "marathon" but something broader and more to the point such as "dishonest," "lie," or "misrepresentation." Otherwise, after having ascertained the ratio for "marathon" there will be endless additional searches on "body fat" "mountain climb" "medicare voucher" and so on until the sum of all the double-counted searches exceeds 100%.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arb Break

Extended content

As I said above, I don't think we're going to ever get agreement on the deeper significance of this event. Some obviously see it as just a minor sporting event from many years ago; others agree with Paul Krugman here that this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers. I give that link NOT to claim that it is a WP:RS in this matter; it isn't. I'm merely showing that there are arguments for the broader significance of this matter out there, and that these arguments come from sources that are clearly going to seem more credible to some of the editors here than to others. Given that we can't agree, what should we do? I think things like the google searches, flawed as they are, are the best option in this circumstance. I also think that given the kind of data we're seeing in those searches, it would take a stronger argument than "maybe in the long run this will blow over" to justify censoring this info. Homunq (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq, acknowledging for the time being your point about pressing forward with this, how do the Google ratios compare when you search on something like ""Paul Ryan" dishonest" or something else that gets to the underlying question as to whether these arguably insignificant misrepresentations add up to a broader perceived character issue.Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Demonstrating the weakness in this method, from www.google.com: "paul ryan": 1,860,000 "paul ryan" dishonest: 698,000 "paul ryan" misleading: 2,840,000 "paul ryan" lies: 7,980,000 Trying news.google.com instead: "paul ryan": 574,000 "paul ryan" dishonest: 3,180 "paul ryan" misleading: 5,440 "paul ryan" lies: 43,800 And just for comparison, also from news.google.com: "paul ryan" asshole: 3,060 "paul ryan" stupid: 12,800 "paul ryan" truth: 24,100 "paul ryan" smart: 26,000 Interpretation is left to the reader. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I said, Google will give you an idea. Not fool proof. It's a tool to start from.--v/r - TP 22:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Google did give me an idea. When I searched for “"paul ryan lies” on news.google.com, the number of articles that turned up was astonishing, and they continue this week, across at least three continents; e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]. By contrast, Obama has been president for 4 years, and <.5% of articles with his name match “lies”—and many of those aren't actually about him. That's particularly surprising given that Palin used “Obama lies” as part of a campaign slogan. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  22:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) As I stated previously the Google numbers are worthless as this is not an article about Google. It is not even an article about Ryan's VP campaign. As someone way up there (Humonq?) said, "this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers". Notice the big bold "if" (emphasis mine). We simply don't know if this will influence enough voters to be weighty and we might as well wait to find out. The election is soon; the wisest course of action is to stop this endless bickering and let the election play itself out, and then update our encyclopedia with ACTUAL FACTS (remember those?) once we have them. Trying to predict the election or what the impact on voters will be each time a candidate farts is not our job. If that's what you want to do then Wikipedia is not the place for you, at least not right now. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The question was asked how important this is. I'm simply providing evidence. Indeed, if you compare with other politicians, it does seem that, strictly by the numbers, Paul Ryan is quite a bit more noted by the media for telling lies/misstatements/euphemism, than any other current office holder that seemed worth checking. Assuming bad faith on the part of other editors will get you nowhere. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) And BTW, if this was all about actual facts, we would not have had an insipid argument about whether GM announced they were closing a plant or actually finished closing it by X date. The facts are that they announced it on X date, reduced the staffing on Y date, and finished closing it on Z date; “both sides” have attempted to tell it differently in order to put spin on it. (I'm just picking one example here, but that's the BS that goes on here.) —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) It is a somewhat unusual situation in that Ryan is running for VP without any record of real legislative accomplishment. His career to date has been principally about self-promotion and bluster. It's therefore not surprising that, like Sarah Palin before him, he attracts what may appear to be an undue degree of skepticism and scrutiny from the press and the electorate. All this grappling with character issues could well be temporary and we do not yet know how history will look back at Ryan's time in the spotlight. That said, it's clear there's been controversy that should be noted without enumerating in text the details of each of Ryan's misstatements. Perhaps they can be aggregated into one or two well-crafted and well-annotated sentences rather than presented with the specifics of each alleged fib.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I seem to remember a president without any legislative accomplishment who's only real accomplishment was a self-promoting book who recieved almost no broad criticism or scrutiny...hmmmm...wonder why that was. Arzel (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) You can't count Decision Points as an accomplishment; it came out after his presidency. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I don't care and neither should you. This is not a forum and SPECIFICO is entirely correct: there is plenty of notable criticism of Ryan from reliable sources. It's our job to report it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC) And that's precisely where I disagree. It is not our job to report anything. We are not reporters, nor do we have any responsibilities with regards to the upcoming US presidential elections. This article is a biography of a living person and not an article on the election. The mention of his speech should be neutral and no more than one sentence; at this point there is no reason to include the statement about his marathon at all. Arguments to the contrary are clearly pushing a POV. Arguments that it reflects on his character are in my view extremely quite very silly and obviously driven by a POV. If at some point it looks like that comment influenced other events then we can revisit the question then. I do not advocate keeping this page up-to-date with the latest drama of the campaign. It is not encyclopedic and it's very boring. I would like to reiterate that we should reduce the section on his campaign way down and expand upon it when the campaign is finished and the dust has settled. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and it is not our job to mention every news story about someone who is destined to be in the news a lot in the next couple of months. (Ironically, I noticed that in the article on the election there is very little updating going on, despite the fact that details such as this would be more appropriate there.) Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Dusty, you wrote "Arguments that it reflects on his character are in my view extremely quite very silly and obviously driven by a POV" -- The 'arguments' are those of the writers at the cited news media. To read your note, one might think you are asserting that they are the opinions of the editors here. Some of the cited media commentators may have a point of view, I don't know, but to read your comment one could easily think you are saying that some Wikipedia editors are driven by a point of view. If that's what you intend to say, I see no basis for it nor do I feel that ad hominem is a constructive mode of discussion.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC) In reply to Homunq's top level comment "this event, while trivial in itself, has broader importance if it convinces people not to be so credulous of Ryan's claims about his budget numbers" is an invalid argument. If this event is trivial, then there is no need to include it. If it can be used to reach another political end (ie. it convinces people not to be so credulous) that is the very essence of POV. There are valid arguments for inclusion, but this is not one of them. Slowtalk (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, wrong tense. I meant "if it has convinced", not "if it convinces". WP has plenty of entire articles about political ads and slogans, or about propaganda films; inherently POV material that is significant for its impact. Homunq (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Marathon time

What is the most appropriate way to treat Ryan's comments on this marathon time? Please choose one closest to what you feel is most appropriate, assuming reasonable sourcing:

1) No mention in this article.

2) "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours."

3) 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.

4) Some more detailed and/or more strongly worded mention.

• 2 -- Support as nominator. a13ean (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think that this RFC should have been done with specific wording; the question of how much space to give the issue and the question of wording should be separate. However, I think one sentence should be sufficient, and that as argued above, given the level of coverage of this issue, the presumption of wikipedia policy should be on the side of inclusion unless there's a broad consensus against. Homunq (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and I otherwise have not been following the page. I think that either 2 or 3 would be fine, and I see no good reason for 1 or 4. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed -- It is extremely unlikely that, once Ryan is dead and gone, that this will be one of the issues that he is remembered for. It is just not likely to have that kind of staying power. We should wait until the media frenzy has died down and then with cool and encyclopedic heads assess it with respect to WP:WEIGHT and act accordingly. Right now it is too WP:RECENT to consider. Dusty|💬|You can help! 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll file that under 1 if that's OK. a13ean (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• 1 (no mention) Wikilawyering aside, we should be here to build a good, informative, germane article, not crap nor an attack article via gamed-in trivia. My guess is that he just screwed up when he said that. After all, he was talking about clearly recorded numbers, was a mile off, and had nothing to gain by misleading. (people don't chose politicians by marathon times) And we have the usual opponents trying to give it negative spin / characterizations, some of which folks might wiki-lawyer to mislabel as "sources". So we not only have folks trying to game in the trivia of his error, they are trying to game in the non-germane double trivia of swipe-mis-characterizations of it by his opponents. Lets build an article, not crap. Leave it out totally. And the same answer for the next similar case that will come along. North8000 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• No Mention because this article is about Paul Ryan has a whole. In 10 years, will Paul Ryan's marathon record be important to have in this article? No. Perhaps at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 but not here. If it must be included, I would include something as brief as 2 in the "Personal Life" section. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1 If it belongs anywhere it is withing the sub article because it is only an issue because of his vice-presidential run, and it is still a minor aspect there as well. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 3 - I can't endorse 4 because it's unspecified, and 2 is a step in the right direction, but too misleading; it makes it sound as if he can run a marathon in 3.5 hours when the truth is that it's over 4. We absolutely positively cannot go with 1 because that would be whitewashing. I cannot help but to notice that the supporters of 1 are, entirely by coincidence, conservatives who don't want Ryan to look bad for lying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Calling other editors conservatives who are whitewashing is assuming bad faith. I suggest you retract that.--v/r - TP 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe you would "suggest" TParis but I would use stronger words, as I am one of the 1's and I am absolutely NOT a conservative and I absolutely DO NOT APPRECIATE being called one. Not even a little bit. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, calm down. It's been stricken and there's no need to drag it up again.--v/r - TP 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, some people on this talk page said:

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.

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.

So I guess making it up as you go doesn't constitute lying in the conservative dictionary?

They complained about conservative whitewashing in as many words, but they didn't get threatened by you, so I guess it was different when other editors say it.

I've redacted my statement, but I'm noticing that your special mistreatment of me has not ended despite calls for objectivity from other admins. I formally ask that you recuse yourself due to your obvious bias against me and I strongly suggest that you honor my request immediately. If you refuse to, I will most certainly bring it up if you should decide to single me out for sanctions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I will continue to treat you exactly like I treat every other editor here. If you have a concern, you are welcome to invite any admin of your choosing to help me patrol this topic area. However, if I had any concern at all about my role here being brought up after issuing a sanction, I wouldn't be here. If you wish to avoid warnings or sanctions, then avoid the behaviors. Pointing out other people's behaviors that I have not seen doesn't negate your own.--v/r - TP 12:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not negating my own: I redacted the comment that you pointed out. However, it is not neutral for you to single me out while ignoring substantively identical comments by others. You can talk about your neutrality all day long, but your actions belie your words. And this is not the first time by any means.

I have asked you to recuse yourself due to your demonstrated pattern of partiality. In my view, a truly impartial admin would agree to this because they're truly impartial and therefore have no motivation to continue on despite the clear appearance of impropriety. As such, your refusal is itself a confirmation of the reasons I requested it in the first place.

For that matter, if we need to bring in other admins to monitor you, then we might as well keep them and get rid of you entirely. I am asking a second time for you to recuse yourself and urging you to do the right thing here. If you refuse to, then I will have to view all of your future actions here as tainted by your bias and therefore illegitimate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, I've acted in accordance with policy. If you have a concern, as I already suggested, you are welcome to invite another admin to help patrol these articles. My recusal is not necessary. If you wish to address it to WP:ANI or seek a wider opinion, I welcome it as you seem to misunderstand my purpose and responsibility here.--v/r - TP 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

People: if you can't take it somewhere else, then maybe this is a fight not worth having. As far as I'm concerned, you're both right that each other aren't blameless, but neither of you have anything to gain by continuing to try to have the last word. Homunq (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• • SS is just going to take that gentle reminder as more evidence that he is being unjustly persecuted by you and the vast right-wing conspiracy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • And that's also inappropriate. It's not a good idea to return like with like.--v/r - TP 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1 It's a wildly undue example of WP:RECENTISM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4: With the actual quote from Ryan himself, as I mentioned in another thread. I was actually going to vote “1”, but then I noticed there are 33 times as many hits for “"paul ryan" marathon” as for “dishonorable disclosures”, and so it's obviously worth mentioning. In fact, by any metric presented, the marathon thing should have its own page! There's plenty of available material; e.g. how it was actually discovered is described in several articles. —Kerfuffler  harass
  stalk  03:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4 The current significance of this event is that Ryan said this, that it fits into an ongoing narrative about his workouts, fitness, mountain climbing, bow-hunting, deer-skinning, etc etc and that he only retracted it when the running geeks called him out. As I've said, 6 months from now it can be revised. Future editors may no longer feel it's significant or alternatively may believe that it was one of the prime factors in an Obama 2012 landslide -- we don't know what weight future editors may rightfully assign to it. However for today, my opinion is as stated above.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 3 It's clearly notable and the article would be incomplete without it. If it turns out to be an example of [[WP:RECENTISM] it can be removed after the passage of time. Our standard should be would a naive reader be better informed with the inclusion. 04:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC) unsigned by Ucanlookitup
• 1) No mention in this article. Because it's not relevant or encyclopedic. It's just partisan cruft that has no place here. Belchfire-TALK 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 4 (or 3). Notable, Verified, and relevant on an active politician's biography. After all, we already discuss his exercise habits. The marathon time has, better or worse, become part of the national discourse. --22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 This seems to be as good a compromise between weight and NPOV as we're ever going to find. Slowtalk (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 (or 3). Notable. Goes to his proclaimed attitude on health and fitness re: family history of less than optimal health and fitness. Relevant. goes to character one way or the other regardless of any percieved meme in the campaign of the moment or his politics in general. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm late, but I'm voting for #2. One sentence seems about right. I think it's gotta be either #1 (the mode) or #2 (the mean and median) pbp 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the mean and median have no meaning in an nominal scale. Only the mode has any value. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a nominal scale, it's an ordinal one. Therefore the median is appropriate, though you are correct that the mean isn't. Homunq (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not an ordinal scale because their is no clear delimination between each group on an order scale. And ordinal scale is (Rate your satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10) or some aspect like that, this is a categorical scale, which is nominal. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time for you to disengage Arzel. You're really in the wrong here too. Homunq (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You know just saying that does not make you correct. I gave you a clear example of an ordinal scale, this is not one of them regardless of condenscending you try to be. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So ordering the options 3,1,4,2 would make just as much sense as 1,2,3,4? It's pretty strange, then, that there were examples of 1/2 votes, 2/3 votes, and 3/4 votes but no 1/3 or 2/4 votes. (This comment was originally more sarcastic. That was poor form of me; sorry, Arzel. Also, the "you're in the wrong" comment above wasn't helpful. I mean, you are absolutely wrong about the level of measurement here but I should patiently explain that or walk away.) Homunq (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You assume that those 4 involve all possible solutions and that they are equally different. This is really a dichotomous choice (something or nothing) On a side note, why the HELL did you do this? This is really poor form. Arzel (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2 or 3 - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Both 1 and 4 are extremes; 2 or 3 are most encyclopedic. Since this is a major politician, allegations of untruthfulness are important, so totally omitting it (1) is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 Honestly I think we're sweating the details. He's human, so what?--RandomLittleHelpertalk 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• 1 No mention. This is WP:RECENT and frankly not relevant to the biography. This factoid won't stand up to the test of time, it provides no useful information to the reader. Running marathons are not relevant to the biographee (at this time). If that were to change (say he becomes a pro runner) then this could be added later. Do we report every malapropism someone makes, no matter how well sourced? Of course not. What sourcing there is about this issue is all related to the election. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs there, not here.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Approximately 2 but include all relevant references. It's not a major issue; the text just has to be enough to clue the reader to what the references are about. The key is that they are available so that anyone interested can research further. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2 but with more references, per Wnt. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• 3 with 2 as second best William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2, 3 or 4 - Why not? Its notable, its verifiable, it should be included. Fabulinus 07:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• 2 seems like a good compromise. It's a fair thing to add, so long as there isn't undue weight. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary proposal to close RfC

Speculation about close of the RFC and discussion of a controversial early attempt to include the material.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Six days since anybody has chimed in. Keep in mind that a couple of users indicated they were good with a couple of the listed options and my count reflects some users choosing multiple options. Option 1, six votes. Option 2 Homunq (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC), five votes. Option 3, four votes. Option 4, three votes. The article as of the current revision omits all mention of the marathon incident. Obviously, no strong consensus for any option, but a slight majority favor little or no mention of the incident. Synthesizing the general sentiment, probably a one line blurb in the article would be appropriate (Option 2). There is clearly no consensus for any broader mention, but not a strong enough consensus for no mention. I am not going to close this discussion yet, in case anybody objects to this proposal to close. Safiel (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC) That sounds reasonable, so long as that one line gets the gist across. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Added the underlined "or one sentence" nitpick, otherwise I agree that this is fair. Homunq (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Perhaps the bigger issue is that noone has chimed in in six days, becuase no one really cares anymore. It was a simple blip without any longstanding historical value, hense option 1 is the clear correct close. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree. The existing votes still stand. "Bold, revert, bog it down in process, and then declare victory for status quo because it took too long" is absolutely not a valid procedure, even if it was taken in good faith, as I must assume it was. This goes for more than just this one issue; the entire "too much speech" section on this page also concerns such a reversion. Homunq (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Safiel, you actually can read a consensus from the above and you've accurately read it. 66% of commentators favor some mention (Options 2, 3, and 4). 61% support little or no mention (Options 1 and 2) and 38% support a detailed mention (Options 3 and 4). You are correct that that can lead us to believe consensus favors a minor mention. However, we often leave these open for a month even if they are inactive for a week or more.--v/r - TP 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 15 opined. 7 for 1, 2.5 for 2, 3 for 3 and 2.5 for 4 by my count. The median is clearly within the range of "2" as Homunq noted. I suppose my reading of positions differs from yours, but I trust my maths background here. Collect (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC) TP, Since 66% voted for mention, doesn't it make sense that the way to get closure would be to have a runoff between 2,3,and 4? One of those who voted for 4 might propose specific language to help converge on the result.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 53% voted for mention, not 66%, not sure where you are getting 66%. Arzel (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Per TP above.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) You could, but RFCs generally stay open for 30 days. You have a group of about 15 people whom have had active participation in this article (for the most part). In 30 more days, the folks with casual interest may have an opinion. After ec/re Arzel and Collect: I am using Safiel's numbers.--v/r - TP 18:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC) These are my numbers: Option 1 - 6 - North9000, RedSoxFan2434, Dusty|n, TheTimesAreAChanging, Belchfire, Arzel Option 2 - 3.5 - a13ean, .5 Tryptofish, Homunq, Slowtalk Option 3 - 3 - StillStanding24-7, Ucanloopitup, .5 Tryptofish, .5 HectorMoffet Option 4 - 2.5 - Kerfuffler, SPECIFICO, .5 HectorMoffet 15 Total !votes 40% in favor of Option 1 23% in favor of Option 2 20% in favor of Option 3 16.6% in favor of option 4 63% in favor of options 1 and 2 which I take as 'minimal inclusion' 36.6% in favor of options 3 and 4 which I take as 'detailed inclusion' 60% in favor of inclusion --v/r - TP 18:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Just a minor point, I think the 4 (or 3) vote was User:HectorMoffet rather than NickCT. Hal peridol (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC) RedSoxFan2434 is a 1 not a 1 or a 2. They clearly said no, but if it is included it would be a breif mention, this is a conditional response. I think it can be reasonably assumed that anyone that voted 1 would have the same conditional response. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Does it really matter at this point? An RFC would not be closed after a week of discussion and the result would be the same.--v/r - TP 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I added 1, with references, to the page. This is NOT intended to imply that the RFC is closed; it is merely a tentative, in-the-meantime edit. However, to revert it would be to go against 60% of the !vote here, by TP's count. Homunq (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) And I removed it as a highly inappropriate violation of the RfC process. I suggest you not go down this path again. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I consider your reversion to be edit warring in violation of article probation, and I think you should get a short-term (24h?) ban on this article for it. The RFC process is not a freeze on one version of an article; it is a way to arrive at a conclusion without edit-warring. As tentative conclusions emerge, they should be added to the article. Otherwise, simply starting an RFC would be like locking a section of an article for a month. Homunq (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I've just reviewed the policies on WP:RFC, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:CONSENSUS, and in none of them is editing during an RFC discouraged. Thus I feel that Arzel's reading of policy, as evidenced by his reversion, is clearly wrong. However, on second thought, I can see how his understanding of policy could have been good-faith. Arzel: if you show that you have read the above policies, and either self-revert your reversion or state its clear basis in policy (that is, clear enough to override the fact that it is a crystal-clear example of edit warring), I will withdraw my suggestion that you should get a short term slap-on-the-wrist article ban. Homunq (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC) You know this is a contentious issue and as a primary participant are in no position to assume what concensus is or will be. You have needlessly agrevated the situation in a manner you absolutely must have known would have been viewed as contentious. Additionally, RfC are not !votes, so the number for or against are ultimately pointless, the decision is supposed to be made on the merits of the arguments. I will not revert my removal of your contentious edit. Generally speaking (and to my knowledge) sections regarding RfC are rarely (if ever) edited during the RfC, and I see no reason to reason to change that becuase you think that 60% - 40% is somehow a huge concensus. Even when changes are made they are first discussed within the talk page to avoid contentious issues. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC) My reading of consensus was not my own, as I agree that as a participant I am unqualified (though this is the first time I've edited the article on this issue, and to my memory only the second time I've commented on the issue here). My reading of consensus was thus based on explicit statements above by Safiel and TP ("Safiel, you actually can read a consensus from the above and you've accurately read it."). And the very existence of this section refutes your claim that I did this without discussion. I realize that this issue is contentious but fail to see how my edit makes it any more contentious; it only switches the WP:WRONGVERSION to one that, from the perspective of over 60% of !voters, was better. You have not given any justification in policy for your edit warring, and a "generally speaking" usage argument is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption against edit warring on probationary articles. This is also not your first time edit warring on this article. My request that you get a short term, slap-on-the-wrist ban therefore stands. If article probation is to mean anything, it must be enforced eventually. In fact, although I only think that I am in the right here, I know that you are in the wrong. Therefore, though I of course don't want to be banned myself, I'd rather we both got a short-term article ban, than that neither of us do. Homunq (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Gents, we are not even close to a close so let's not pretend there is a consensus yet especially when the numbers are this close. If it closed today, that's what it'd look like. How it closes in 3 weeks from now, we'll have to see. Homunq, I think you should be able to agree with me that it's a misunderstanding on Arzel's part that editing is not allowed. Would you support a topic ban over a misunderstanding? Arzel, Homunq has checked the relevant policies and determined there is no freeze on editing the article right now and in the future on an article with probation, defer contentious reverts to an uninvolved sysop. As to the rest of this conversation, this is entirely premature.--v/r - TP 21:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Would I support a topic ban over a first-time misunderstanding? Definitely not. However, this isn't Arzel's first time edit warring on this article or even on this very point, and I feel that a short-term (24-hour) single-article ban is appropriate at this time. 1 day is essentially nothing, but it would make the point clear. Obviously, though, I'm not the admin here, so that's just my opinion. Also, I won't change the article again myself, as that would only be escalating. However, I will reiterate that I believe that a change is appropriate and would support anyone else (involved or uninvolved) making it. The RFC process is a way to eventually reach a final consensus, but there's nothing wrong with the article tracking the tentative consensus in the meantime, as long as that appears stable (>1 week). Also, if Arzel is not given even a 1-hour ban and the article remains on his favorite WP:WRONGVERSION, we are essentially rewarding his misbehavior. Homunq (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'd like to extend Arzel this last grace period being that I can understand how this mistake was made with the understanding the future mistakes will be regarded as being reckless and blockable.--v/r - TP 22:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) OK, I'm satisfied with that, now that you've stated it clearly. Homunq (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I refuse to be baited into this. TP, I will grant that you have been quite even-handed, but show me where it is the norm to make contentious edits during a RfC. Arzel (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC) You continue to focus on my edits, which you argue contradict common usage although you can't point to any policy (and I can). That may be a debatable issue, as I've already admitted by saying I only "think" that I'm in the right. But you still fail to face the fact that your edit was wrong, by two separate policies: WP:CONSENSUS and the combination of WP:EDITWAR and WP:PROBATION. You should still remedy this by reverting your edit. Homunq (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Consensus is not a majority. Until you understand that you will continue to fail to understand how RfC's work. I made one edit of a clear attempt to cause a heated situation, that is not an edit war, which I think you also fail to understand. I will not restore your attempt to hijack the RfC process. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC) It's time for you to disengage Arzel. You're really in the wrong here.--v/r - TP 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC) I would prefer you acknowledge that consensus is not a vote. Per the policy. Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Of course it's not a vote, but we're not even at the part of determining consensus yet. For me it was an idle curiosity of whether Safiel read it correctly. When it is time to close, I or some other uninvolved editor, will be happy to fully read and comprehend all of the opinions. If you have concerns about my ability to read consensus, I can point you to quite a few contentious RfCs and AfDs that I've closed.--v/r - TP 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Homunq is under the impression that it is a vote and that you can edit based off the current counts, to me this is in the wrong. You would also have to realize how such an approach to an RfC would undermine the process completely. You telling me I an "really in the wrong" does not improve on the process. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Arzel, it would be helpful if you would confine your comments here to the article under discussion and not accuse or speculate about the motivations of other editors or TP.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Arzel, that is not what he is doing at all. He has taken a tentative consensus and felt it was appropriate to work on that piece of the article. There is nothing that says he cannot. You are wrong to assume that there is any sort of freeze on the topic under discussion and that it is an exception to the edit warring policy. Homunq made an edit that is discouraged and not in good taste during an RFC but not disallowed by policy. I strongly recommend that you take my advice and disengage and come back when your not charged up about this issue.--v/r - TP 15:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC) RfCs nominally last for 30 days. I just received a notice about this RfC from the RfC bot today, 30 Sept, so things are still moving along. Closing now would be premature. --Noleander (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I agree; a close at this point is far too premature. RfC's speed up and slow down at their own pace (pun intended) and to close now (especially with the uncertain data provided above) misses out on valuable opinions from Feedback Request Service members like ourselves and any others that may be directed here by the RfC bot. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Related statement in current version

For better or for worse, the article currently reflects the 2nd choice from the RfC above, but rather than stating that he mispoke it now says "he later stated that he forgot his actual time and was just trying to state what he thought was a normal time".

I'm concerned about this for two reasons (plus the fact that it hasn't been discussed at all here). The first one is that, at least in my mind, it characterizes this situation significantly more negatively that what people seem to support above: namely it implies that he knowingly gave false information by making up a time, rather than unknowingly giving false information of what his time was. In addition, it doesn't seem to be well sourced to the cited article. In that article a direct quote attributed to him is "I literally thought that was my time. It was 22 years ago. You forget sorta these things," which seems to support the less harsh statement that he mispoke. Secondly, I think it's good practice to always source things with the most neutral article available, which IMHO is not the huffington post one in this case. If possible I would like to generate a consensus to restore the statement in the article to the number 2 choice above temporarily, pending the outcome of the RfC rather than let it sit as a statement that hasn't been well discusses here. a13ean (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to bump, but I'm intrigued -- am I really the only one concerned about this addition?

Debate

Should we put in a sentence or two about last night's debate? pbp 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

At least. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at this time. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Let the pundits sort it out first. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  17:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)