Talk:Paul Ryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 are 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

RfC: Paul Ryan and the Congressional Leadership Fund[edit]

Nine (9) editors oppose inclusion of the "the text in bold" (listed to the left), two (2) editors oppose the text as currently written but are open to including something, and four (4) support inclusion. Arguments in support did not generally cite policy-based rationale, however, in one case an editor said failure to include content would be WP:OR, which was unconvincing since the absence of an action generally can't be a policy violation, only an action itself. Several policy-based rationale were invoked in opposition and these were unrebutted. Therefore, I believe that: first, there is no consensus to include the proposed text; second, it is unclear if there is a consensus against including any mention of this subject at all and this question would need to be decided separately. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.
  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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support The text seem reasonable given the close ties between Ryan and the CLF. ImTheIP (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • '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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment of Speaker tenure[edit]

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

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)

RFC: Ordinal numbers[edit]

There is no consensus on the ordinal number representing Paul Ryan's term as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Among the four options suggested in the discussion (54th, 62nd, both, and no numbering), none of the options were supported by over one-third of the editors who expressed an opinion. Since there is no consensus, we return to the previous longstanding state of the article (which uses 54th) without prejudice. — Newslinger talk 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

My preference would be 62nd Nevermore27 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I've no preference either way, as long as we go by the most reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Only two of these offices are federal though, as salient as your point may be. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with Nevermore27. The Speaker of the House is a federal office, second-in-line to the Presidency. With the President and Vice President both numbered based on terms, not the person, then logically, Paul Ryan should be the 62nd Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi should be the 60th and 63rd Speaker of the House. This will take some work on editors' part going through and fixing the numbering of many, many Speakers, but I think it is more accurate and consistent. I do not have enough reputation to edit some of the protected pages, it will need to be senior editors who take this on. Gibbsness (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
@Aquillion: Seems like a workable compromise, having a column each for Speakership terms and Speakers overall Nevermore27 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 54th. While I vastly prefer 62nd (much more consistent way to count non-consecutive terms), it seems that most sources are using 54th (maybe due to house control->speaker flip-flops that have (almost) nothing to do with the incumbent other than flipping him by default). Going by the gNewsHits - there's simply too big of a gap between the two. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 62nd. The List of Presidents of the United States are the nth in the office so Grover Cleveland is 22nd and 24th. It would seem confusing here if the 61st is followed by the 54th. I do note the other counting exists, as shown at List of Governors of New York, and that numbering is not done in other cases such as List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom... But here I think the Presidential numbering makes the most sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Both, briefly per Aquillion, choosing one or other will lead to confusion, whereas explaining the distinction (which isn't THAT self-evident)- will clarify. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 54th – it aligns with the presidents and other offices. Corky 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC) No numbering – I’m now !voting for no numbering at all. Corky 06:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Corkythehornetfan: That's...not true though? Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is almost universally referred to as the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@Corkythehornetfan: well when you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 62nd to be consistent with the counting of Presidents. The higher number arises from separately counting earlier non-consecutive terms held by Henry Clay and others, who are this office's equivalent of Grover Cleveland. This counting ignores consecutive terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No numbering - is my suggestion. For example: We don't bother numbering the presidents pro tempore of the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No numbering unlike presidents, nobody particularly cares about the numbering of Speakers of the House. We don't number popes or English monarchs in their articles, why do it here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Power~enwiki: "Who cares" is a particularly weak argument, since obviously people care enough to make and comment on an RfC of the issue. By that logic, what does the numbering matter for Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense or even the President? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) First, you can't have an RfC in the talk page of one article and say that it applies to multiple articles. Secondly, as an encyclopedia we can clarify the 54/62 thing without having to choose one or the other. Needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • None. First I liked the 'both' idea, then I liked the 'neither' idea even more. Why complicate things?Happy monsoon day 22:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019[edit]

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)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this page describe the CLF in any way?[edit]

There was a recent RfC about whether we should describe the specific cancerous racist ads that the CLF put out in the 2018 campaign. There was a consensus not to mention those specific ads in the context of Ryan. However, 6 votes were in favor of describing the CLF whereas only 4 votes opposed any description whatsoever of the CLF. In addition, there are two editors who did not vote in the RfC who say the description of the CLF clearly belong.[10] So, of the editors who have commented on this issue, 8 favor including descriptions of the CLF whereas only 4 oppose it. The editor SunCrow insists on the basis of this that there is no consensus to include content that describes (1) the CLF as the most powerful PAC in the House and (2) a PAC with a reputation for running racist ads. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You literally tried to re-insert content the RFC specifically rejected [11]. This is a pretty obvious attempt to game the system and ram through your preferred text no matter what. Calidum 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Please read the closure of the RfC. It's not long and it's not complicated. You should then immediately strike your comment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is clear. The bolded content does not belong, the question about whether anything about what the CLF does still needs to be answered. Not a single source has shown that Ryan has anything to do with the racist ads.The sources tie Ryan to the CLF and the CLF to the racist ads. That does not mean Ryan has anything to do with the ads. ~ GB fan 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I think what Snooganssnoogans added is appropriate if the CLF is going to be mentioned. However, the list of complaints against them that are proudly displayed on their user page does not give me a good feeling about this style of editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an article about Ryan not the CLF.
  1. What does "The CLF has a reputation for running racist ads." say about Ryan?
  2. What does "In 2018, the CLF was described as "the highest-spending super PAC seeking to sway House races in the upcoming midterms." say about Ryan?
I understand what they say about the CLF but what does either of those sentences have to do with Ryan? Then, what are the reliable sources that we are going to use to verify what we are saying about Ryan? The CLF article is where we talk about and describe the CLF, this article is all supposed to be about Ryan. ~ GB fan 22:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I am not going to help Snooganssnoogans refine that edit if they are persistently being accused of bias in political articles. I feel dirty touching a political article at all, just saw this on a noticeboard. However, it was not difficult to find sources that characterize the CLF has having run racist ads. I guess we need to analyze exactly what portion of coverage of the CLF is about racism and what is about other things. If we said "So-and-so was a member of the Ku Klux Klan" I think we might as well say "So-and-so was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization." Not a direct analogy but similar. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There are sources that says that the CLF runs racist ads and it is appropriate to discuss that on their article. For us to include that on this page we need reliable sources that tie those ads to Ryan, not just tie the organization to Ryan and tie the ads to the organization. When we add them here we are implying he had something to do with them without any sources that says he did. ~ GB fan 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like maybe it should go to WP:BLP/N for feedback on how policy affects that. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You tried this again, and again it didn't work. Between reflection and obstinacy, I'd choose reflection. - DoubleCross (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, in the interest of time, I will put aside your mischaracterization of my concern and will simply restate it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the following sentences:
The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan.] Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF.
I object to all of the language that you wish to include after that because it is POV coatracking that lacks encyclopedic tone.SunCrow (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Congressional Leadership Fund should definitely be mentioned: we can say for a fact that the PAC is closely aligned with Ryan, and that it raised record amounts of money and made a lot of noise in 2018. This seems like a major part of his bio. The question of whether or not Ryan is directly culpable for the ads is not really something we need to answer: he was criticized for his role in the CLF in opinion pieces by Dana Milbank, The DCCC, and in Mother Jones, and NBC News. I think a brief mention of those criticisms (maybe just attributing to the DCCC) might be reasonable: "Ryan's involvement in the Super PAC was criticized after CLF released a number of negative ads that were characterized as racist or misleading in the months leading up to the 2018 election" Nblund talk 20:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)