Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Campaign material

Material that basically constitutes campaign or promotional information has been included in this biography.

diff, diff

the sources quotes are not independent from Ryan's campaign or office and the material presented does not conform to WP:NOT. When the campaign in question receives coverage from reliable, independent sources, then material consistent with that sourcing may be returned. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Kexel

Is 1% of the vote enough to meet notability requirements for inclusion? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Private Sector?

The article says he worked in the private sector.

It looks like he graduated college in 1992. Then began working for politicians until he was elected to congress.

So, when was he employed in the private sector?

If this can't be documented, it should be be removed from the article.--12.2.10.242 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


I found it: http://www.ryanforcongress.com/Biography.aspx

"Prior to his election to Congress, Paul worked at Ryan Inc., Central – a construction firm that was founded by Ryan’s great-grandfather in 1884.".

So he drew a salary from the family business while in college and when working for other politicians prior to being elected to college.

His private sector "work" should be removed from the article.

Here is another bio: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=r000570

Here is the timeline extracted from that Bio: 1970 Born 1992 Graduates college 1992 Staffer to Sen. Robert Kasten 1993-1995 Empower America staffer 1995-1997 Legislative Director Sen. Sam Brownback 1998 Back to WI and running for congress? 1999-2010+ US Representative

It is pretty clear that he has only worked in politics. --12.2.10.242 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Both bios say he worked for a short time in the construction business. Your claim about about just drawing a salary from the family business is not in any way substantiated in ether bio you posted, and sure sounds a lot like synthesis. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading the link...yep it is "Synthesis".

--12.2.10.242 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The construction business is his parents. The problem is there no place on the timeline for him to have worked the in that business except maybe summers in college...and that doesn't really count.

I suspect he "worked" aka drew a salary from the family business in 1998 when he would have moved back to Wisconsin. During that year he prepared to run for congress, ran for congress, and then prepared for setting up his office/staff/etc until taking office in 1/1999. There is no room on this timeline for him to have really worked in private sector.--12.2.10.242 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what your point, but the source says he worked in the private sector, so that's what the article says. Speculation, of any kind, is not allowed, especially in a BLP. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


The article says:

"He has worked in the private sector as an economic analyst [2]..."

But that citation...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/44616232.html

...doesn't really say that:

"Kemp, who died of cancer May 2, hired Ryan at the age of 23 as his economic analyst at the think tank Empower America."

So he worked for the private political organization of a politician. That's is not what is considered the "Private Sector" (see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector ). I am going to edit the article to say it differently. --12.2.10.242 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That source sinks of propaganda, and the text attributed to it is defiantly not neutral point of view. I am not going to sit here and play the revert game, but I think the wording needs a toning down. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So find a source everyone would consider neutral. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Krugman

Krugman's analysis from the NYTimes is heavily cited here. However, the article in question is an opinion column, not a news item. I really don't think it's appropriate to cite opinion pieces at all here, especially the way it's been done here (referring to his nobel prize is a clear call to authority). Sccampion (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions, if the opinion comes from a prominent spokesperson, which Krugman surely is. The reference to his Nobel prize can indeed be removed, however; that's what wikilinks are for. It's enough to identify him as an economist.
A bigger problem with the section, however, is that Krugman's criticism is presented as opinion -- even using the belittling "claims", contrary to WP:WTA -- while the right-wing spin is presented as fact. I'll take a stab at trying to bring this section into compliance with NPOV. JamesMLane t c 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: As I start to get into this, I find that it will be less work than I expected. The paragraph in our article beginning "Krugman alleges fraud..." is one big copyvio, being taken almost verbatim from the cited source, a piece by "Guest blogger" Ted Gayer (presumably Ted Gayer the economist). It's almost verbatim because there's at least one interesting little difference: Where the cited source says, of one of Krugman's contentions, "This is correct...", user Endecast changed it to "This is incorrect...." In general, the supposed refutation agrees with Krugman's fundamental point that Ryan's plan would balloon the deficit. Specifically, Gayer says the plan "amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario." His basic disagreement with Krugman is that he doesn't consider this "fraud" because Ryan has said he's willing to consider changes. Nevertheless, unless and until Ryan puts forth revised numbers, showing exactly which rates he would raise and by how much, this is his plan and it would balloon the deficit. That point should not be obfuscated. JamesMLane t c 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Paul Ryan (politician)Paul Ryan — The politician is clearly the primary topic. Traffic statistics show it gets at least an order of magnitude more visits than any of the other pages linked at Paul Ryan. CWenger (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support - Others may feel the singers or the comic artist are notable enough. However, on the face of it the nominator's assertion is correct and the politician is primary.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The link provided by the nominator just gives the traffic statistics for only December 2010. Those statistics are skewed because of recent events and current news spikes in favour of the politician during that month. I would prefer a larger sample size to convince me otherwise.Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: A fair point. I looked instead at all of 2009, which was an off-election year and therefore should not be skewed in favor of a politician. The politician still has nearly an order of magnitude more traffic: 59625 views for Paul Ryan (politician), 209 for Paul Ryan (agent), 3241 for Paul Ryan (comics), 6946 for Paul Ryan (guitarist), 7827 for Paul Ryan (singer), and 4883 for Paul Ryan (As the World Turns). –CWenger (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
      The problem is that he was also an active politician and also in the news in 2009. For example, as the article clearly points out in one paragraph, Ryan was a key person that year to offer an alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget, which "would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009", among others. Therefore, the stats from 2009 may still well be skewed to recent events too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So... basically you're saying until the politician retires he can't be the primary topic because he will be in the news and therefore we can't establish whether or not he is the primary topic? –CWenger (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Right—it's is a self-defeating argument. "He's not the primary topic, he's just the one readers are most likely to be searching for because he's the most important and notable." —Designate (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support., clearly Paul Ryan as a politician holds notoriety as a public official in Congress, as shown by statistics and as explained above.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Impossible to tell whether there is a primary meaning, and unlikely for such a common name, so far better to leave the DAB at plain Paul Ryan. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Traffic data speaks for it self, the article about the politician is and has been for a while about 10 times more visited than any of the 5 alternatives. Pretty clear that it is primary topic then.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support--the traffic data, and U.S. national news hits, provide all the data needed to support the ordinary Wikipedia policy to take an identifier like this to the most prevalent article, with a hatnote to the disambig page for alternate uses. N2e (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: The notability of this Paul Ryan far exceeds those of the other Paul Ryans. Most people will be looking up "Paul Ryan" looking up the Chairman of the House Budget Committee who's been in the House for over 10 years. Scott Brown is another politician article that became the primary topic after Brown became a US Senator. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Otherwise, the preferred alternative would be: 'Paul Ryan (Wisconsin politician)' Flatterworld (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The primary topic has nothing to do with the subject's long-term notability. This article has received an order of magnitude more traffic for well over a year now, so it is by definition the primary topic. If that changes three years from now, then we'll move the pages three years from now. Right now our readers are interested in Paul Ryan the congressman and not Paul Ryan the guitarist, so the pages should be arranged accordingly. —Designate (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; the politician appears to have been getting more hits than all the other pages put together for some time, so this would imply that the politician is the primary topic. I am assuming that the dab page is a complete list of notable people with this name or similar names on the wiki. I do not see how WP:RECENTISM would affect this opinion on the primary topic here. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • He is likely less notable to people outside the USA. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, but still far more notable than an agent, comic artist, guitarist, singer, and soap opera character, none of which are particularly well known. It is also important to note that he is a very prominent congressman as chairman of the House Budget Committee, among other things, and not simply one of a few hundred representatives. I think the analogy with Scott Brown is an appropriate one. –CWenger (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as original nominator. The politician is more notable than any of the other Paul Ryans and his article is and has been significantly more popular for the past few years. –CWenger (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


College

This material was deleted on account of it not being "relevant". I thought it was a relevant and interesting detail in a biography. That the young man had the forethought and restraint to save the money for college is admirable. It's routine to report that a subject worked his or her way through college or received a special scholarship, so it's not an unusual to include this kind of information in a biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But is it relevant? It's a bit like saying= "He brushed his teeth this morning. He started creative writing at age 10. He owns a silver Lexus". A great deal of current politicians have deceased parents.
P.S. I'm under the impression that no user here has stepped over the 3RR for this dispute. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
All of those are relevant. However they are trivial and uninteresting. It's doubtful that they would be reported in secondary sources. It's not unusual for a biography to note the premature death of a parent. Is there a 3RR concern?  Will Beback  talk  21:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That his father died when he was 16 is probably notable. However, that he saved the SS from his fathers death is not. In fact, the primary editor adding the information clearly was doing so for political reasons in order to try and make Ryan out to be a hypocrite. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As the Chairman, his hypocrisy is relevant. He would have denied himself the means to get the education he received. 64.198.88.50 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's focus on the content, not the contributor. The assertion is notable enough to be mentioned in the secondary source. We're not giving it excess weight, or drawing any conclusions from it. It's a simple, relevant, and interesting fact of the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty hard to focus on the content when the initial editor makes comments like this. (If you can't see the connection between collecting social security as a child and then trying to change the system to deny people who need help when their families are hit by tragedy, then... It is biographical fact related to his current political) The initial includer is clearly trying to turn this into a political issue, furthermore, just because you think it is interesting doesn't make it interesting. I see it as an attempt to promote a POV, which is a much stonger WP policy to address. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The editor seems to have originally added this as a POV comment. But I agree with Will, it is interesting and relevant, and as currently stated does not appear biased. I think very few people will take it that way. My first thought when I read it was not of hypocracy but discipline from him a 16 year old. I think it is fine as is. And I say this as a huge Paul Ryan fan. –CWenger (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a 3RR concern? - I'm loathe to talk about that further since I don't want a productive discussion to be bogged down. Let's just drop that. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so incredibly notable that he saved his fathers SS security benefits for college other than the author to advance some political agenda he/she has with Paul Ryan's budget cuts? You are not fooling anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Social Security benefits for widows and widowers are paid to the parent of orphans until they reach the age of 18 OR complete college. Ryan did not save his father's SS payments, because they went to his mother as part of a family benefit which SHE administered. In fact, he received benefits for college until he completed school and thus was on SS until he was 22. Look up the law and then removed this "legend" from a campaign staffer. Freddonaldson (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see verifiability, not truth. This material is reliable sourced and should not be removed. Your concerns are original research. –CWenger (^@) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no Social Security benefits for children in college who are not disabled. Children of deceased, retired or disabled parents do receive Social Security benefits. However, they end after age 18, or at the end of the 12th grade, whichever occurs first. This has been the case since 1981 when Congress passed the 1981 Reconciliation Act Repeal of Social Security. That was the beginning of the end of what had come to be thought of as "college student benefits." Beginning in 1982, it took until 1985 to phase out all these payments. If you were not enrolled in a post-secondary school by May 1982, you could no longer receive benefits. Ryan was born in 1970 and was therefor a victim of Social Security "reform", which otherwise would have provided a stipend until age 22. Freddonaldson (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's terrific. But without a reliable source this is all irrelevant. –CWenger (^@) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ is that a reliable source? 64.198.88.50 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Start a Political Positions section?

Maybe it is time to start a "political positions" section? (It is a common section title in Wikipedia pages on US politicians.) Here is a possible reference to get started:

Does anyone have a thought about what would be in this section, and how to say it? M.boli (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. One general comment based on my observations of many "positions" or "views" sections: we should rely mainly on secondary sources, and use primary sources only for illustrative quotes or details. That is, we shouldn't simply look through his writings or speeches to find what we think are his most interesting or prominent positions. Instead we should summarize those views or positions which have already been highlighted by mainstream, independent sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer that articles focus on actual things they've done, rather than just a long list of positions they claim to hold (since politicians can easily claim to support a position without actually doing anything to advance it). What's more important, for example: Barack Obama's "position" in favor of single-payer health care, or the very different bill he actually signed into law? Most politicians favor "tightening the border", but how many have actually done anything about it?
Imagine if the article were written thirty years from now. Someone reading about Paul Ryan isn't interested in a long list of generic conservative positions, since they're virtually identical to the Republican mainstream and most of his "positions" will never become reality. Readers are interested in his biography and his career. You can certainly include a political views section, but regard it as a summary (with secondary sources, as Will Beback said; don't just paraphrase his website). —Designate (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Having started this topic, I now confess to being stalled. I haven't had many cycles to give it. But when I do, I get only as far as saying a) his legislative focus is on fiscal policy, where his agenda is informed by b) the teachings of Ayn Rand and c) otherwise normative Republican views on the topic. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article can be cited for all three, I think. There certainly ought to be other cites easily findable.

I would not be inclined to include this quote (from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) in support of b) Ayn Rand: "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." The reason being that he said it at a convention of Rand-followers, where I guess that many speakers might be inclined toward hyperbolic praise. However in support of b) I might cite the NPR ATC capsule biography broadcast April 8, which says that he requires all staffers to read Atlas Shrugged.

But fundamentally, and this shows the lack of opportunity to research the topic I think, I have only points a)-c) above, and this seems kind of thin gruel. M.boli (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the new cite I mentioned above M.boli (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC):

verifiable: Paul Ryan worked in the private sector as an Oscar Mayer Wienermobile driver

Early life, education and career

The youngest child of Betty and Paul Ryan Sr., a lawyer, Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin.[1][2]

Paul Ryan worked in the private sector as a Oscar Meyer Wienermobile driver[3].

Ryan has a sister, Janet, and two brothers, Tobin and Stan.[2] He is a fifth-generation Wisconsin and Janesville native and a great-grandson of Patrick W. Ryan, who founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884.[4]

Ryan attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville and was sixteen years old when his father died of a heart attack at age 55. Ryan began collecting his Social Security survivor's benefits until age eighteen, which he saved for college tuition and expenses.[5]

Ryan briefly worked during college for the Oscar Meyer meat and cold cut production company as a Wienermobile driver.[6] He went on to graduate from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio with a B.A. in economics and political science in 1992. Ryan was a member of the Miami University Delta Tau Delta social fraternity.

The Ryan congressional campaign also claimed that Ryan had worked within the private sector as a marketing consultant for the family business during the 1990s.[7]

Ryan also reportedly worked as a volunteer economic analyst for FreedomWorks d.b.a. Empower America .[8]

This verifiable reference to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan should be included within the early career section of his biography because this occupation of Ryan's appears to be his only independently verifiable work experience within the public sector.

NPR - All Things Considered. April 8, 2011. Paul Ryan: Father, Fitness Buff, Zeppelin Fan http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247470/paul-ryan-father-fitness-buff-zeppelin-fan

Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The text was left in this section. But having a picture of a Wienermobile and putting it in his infobox as an occupation is a bit excessive. –CWenger (^@) 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - CWenger is making the assumption that readers outside of the United States will actually be familiar with an Oscar Mayer Wienermobile.

I reverted back the referenced source material pertaining to the non-partisan CREW public interest group investigating Paul Ryan and other Members of Congress, and I also re-listed "Wienermobile driver" as an occupation within the Ryan infobox as Ryan worked as an Oscar Mayer Wienermobile driver for one year before he graduated from Miami University (Oscar Mayer, according to the Wikipedia Wienermobile article, only hired college seniors as Wienermobile drivers for a term of one year and it was undoubtedly Ryan's Wienermobile experience that later influenced his own decision as a newly elected congressman to convert a truck into a rolling district office that he used to visited localities across the Wisconsin First U.S. House District; the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile is an iconic symbol of the American meat packing and cold cut industry). Both of these significant items of the Ryan biography were deleted by the self-described, "huge" Paul Ryan fanatic (also from Wisconsin as is Ryan himself), CWegnerBee Cliff River Slob (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I left "Wienermobile driver" in the infobox (albeit moved to the bottom) but removed some of the material related to Ryan sleeping in his congressional office. There is another user that opposes extensive discussion of this issue in the article so you'll have to get consensus before adding it back. Also, just FYI, you can use a colon (:) to indent your comments on the talk page and don't need to sign (~~~~) your edit summaries. –CWenger (^@) 16:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Bee: this Talk page is to be used specifically and exclusively for discussing the Paul Ryan article. Discussing another editor's motivations for editing is a personal attack. Your comments not directly related to this article will be deleted without futher comment. If you feel another editor is not editing in good faith you should report them to WP:ANI. Lionel (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
From WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." (Ital mine) I see no scenario where the Weinermobile passes this requirement. Full disclosure: I love the weinermobile, and weiners, esp. chili cheese dogs. Had a 'bile when I was a kid. While I personally think it neat that he drove one, it is completely inappropriate for this article.Lionel (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Liionel from NPA, Note that ... pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack...Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Congressman Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan Wisconsin - WhoRunsGov.com/TheWashingtonPost". Whorunsgov.com. Retrieved 2011-04-09. 
  2. ^ a b "That Hair, Those Eyes, That Plan - Features". Milwaukee Magazine. 2005-01-07. Retrieved 2011-04-09. 
  3. ^ http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247470/paul-ryan-father-fitness-buff-zeppelin-fan "Paul Ryan: Father, Fitness Buff, Zeppelin Fan". All Things Considered, PBS. April 8, 2011
  4. ^ "Ryan Incorporated Central - History". Ryancentral.com. Retrieved 2011-04-09. 
  5. ^ Christian Schneider (July 2010). "Rebel Without a Pause: Our reporter spends 48 hectic hours with rising GOP star Paul Ryan. Just how far can his reform plans take him?". WI Magazine: The Wisconsin Interest. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Retrieved April 12, 2011. 
  6. ^ http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247470/paul-ryan-father-fitness-buff-zeppelin-fan "Paul Ryan: Father, Fitness Buff, Zeppelin Fan". All Things Considered, PBS. April 8, 2011
  7. ^ "Biography". Ryanforcongress.com. Retrieved 2011-04-09. 
  8. ^ "Ryan, Kasten pay tribute to Kemp", The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. May 9, 2009 Accessed April 1, 2010

Infobox

According to the Person infobox, the Occupation field is for the current occupation. Weinermobile driver is inappropriate here. Lionel (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the congressman infobox, it is pretty obvious what their current occupation is, so I think it is alright to list their previous occupations. But certainly only notable positions, not what they did for a summer in high school / college, e.g. Wienermobile driver. –CWenger (^@) 01:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Pelosi's infobox has no Occupation, Boehner's has "Profession... Business Consultant." Since Occupation is obvious, and he doesn't seem to have a profession, let's deal with this the same way as on the Pelosi article..." Lionel (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. No point in listing a lot of former occupations in a prominent location like the infobox if they aren't notable. –CWenger (^@) 02:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The infobox is not a database file for cataloguing. It's a quick guide for the reader to get an understanding of his most notable aspects. He's not notable as a driver, obviously. Remove it. —Designate (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile drivers (such as U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan) all signed on for a one-year hitch before their senior years in college, and undoubtedly, it was U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan's own experience of driving across America with both of his hands gripped tightly at ten and two o'clock around the steering wheel of the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile that later inspired Ryan's own political career, whether as the genesis of Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future or even Rep. Ryan's own Mobile District Office (Ryan's "Mobile Constituent Services Office" is essentially a Wienermobile sans the hotdog exterior shaping of the vehicle body) - unless you can provide some verification that Ryan washed out as a Wienermobile driver or for some other reason did not fulfill his one-year Wienermobile service obligiation.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of including it or not. The text was left in the main article. However, consensus was against putting it in the infobox, which is reserved for summarizing the most vital data. What he did part-time for a year in high school or college does not rise to that level. –CWenger (^@) 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. —Designate (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is labelled as liberal by reliable sources. It is a poor source for a BLP. Paul Ryan is a notable politician and is regularly covered by mainstream sources such as the NY Times, Wash Post, etc. Anything worth including in the article will have been covered by a high quality source. Please do not re-add CREW as a source without consensus. Lionel (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and also I think it's pretty obvious undue weight to devote as much text to this minimally notable issue as his vote for TARP, ranking as one of the most influential conservatives, response to the State of the Union address, etc. –CWenger (^@) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Noticeably absent from your comments, Lionel, are the lack of your own verified references "by reliable sources" (and please by all means, use your own refereneces cited from your sources such as the New York Times or the Washington Post) supporting your claim that identify the non-partisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as "liberal".Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Just go look at the CREW article. Politico, Time magazine, the Washington Post, Roll Call, and USA Today have all referred to it as liberal. What more do you want? –CWenger (^@) 01:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, I am wanting you to cite referenced sources supporting your above listed claims pertaining to CREW and not merely restate your own opinions.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington#Politics. –CWenger (^@) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection to the CREW addition, lol. – Lionel (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about sources

Two questions:

(1) A passage in the current version of the article appears to convey information from a knowledgeable third party:

Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, endorsed Ryan's plan as the best way to save Medicare from going bankrupt: "I would say that the Roadmap has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I'm a little less confident about that."[41]

The footnote, however, goes to Ryan's own website. This gives us no assurance that the named source has been quoted accurately and fairly, not taken out of context, etc.

I'm the one who put that up, and I welcome your concern. However, the source cited is not the same as Ryan's official website (http://paulryan.house.gov/). Instead, it is a selection of "Hearing Highlights" put up by the House Committee on the Budget. Mr. Ryan, of course, is the Chairman of that Committee. But the site does include several videos of Mr. Foster speaking and explaining his views on the subject, and in context I don't believe his remarks carry any different meaning. Further, I don't usually read through "Hearing Highlights"--I was made aware of these comments by a couple of magazines. I chose this source because I believed it was the most neutral, despite Ryan's role on the Committee. Needless to say, if you are aware of any reliable source that challenges the quotation or otherwise contradicts the source in question, feel free to add it to the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(2) The article now has nothing about Ryan's legislative accomplishments (in the sense of bills he instigated that actually became law). This source, apparently a blog, says he's gotten two bills passed. Can we find good enough sourcing to describe his record? JamesMLane t c 05:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference in the Early Life and Education subsection regarding being voted prom king and "brown noser." I went to the Huffington Post source, but it is somewhat slanted and includes no citation to verify. More importantly, it is unnecessary to this section. There have been many members of the prom court and "most likely" candidates from high school, but these are not included. In this case, it is both unsubstantiated (except in this one questionable source) and reeks of slant.Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not some Huffington Post blogger; it's a reprint of a Brian Bakst article for the Associated Press, which is definitely a reliable source. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Roadmap for America's Future

This section is getting a little broad in time scope.

Every year Ryan comes up with a new name for his plan to rationalize social services so do we go with a single title that covers all of this or a yearly section with his current title? Hcobb (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

would it work if we just hadded a main heading called, Paul Ryan welfare services reform proposals (or something like that!!) and had each name described in the lead to that section? I feel like using the proper name that he gives it would have been a good idea if it was teh same every year, but it is misleading if he chances the name each year but we keep it the same. Alicb (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012

Paul was a member of Delta Tau Delta in college. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Tau_Delta)

Somebody changed it to Delta Tau Chi (the fraternity from the movie Animal House).

Ssamanta1 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll change it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Done by TheTimesAreAChanging FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Be Prepared 11 August 2012

It is very likely that Ryan will be the VP candidate. National Review and public flight plan websites put Romney's private plane in Janesville, WI and tomorrow's running mate announcement event is scheduled in Norfolk VA at the USS Wisconsin. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Paul Ryan has been confirmed as the vice presidential pick of 2012 republican nominee, Mitt Romney, according to NBC. Leapin2912 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment NBC only has a breaking news headline, not an article to cite.--Jprg1966 (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done NBC has finally posted an article confirming their earlier reports. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

7:02am romneyryan.com leads to Mitt Romney's campaign website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.52.169 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The text of the article still say, "the presumptive Republican Party nominee for Vice President...". It's not presumptive. It's official. Please make the change. Thank you. 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive is correct. Both Romney and Ryan are presumptive nominees until the Republican National Convention takes place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Correct. Be sure to follow Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 and join in. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom of putting gossip in the introduction

Preface: I am not too interested in American politics and have no interest to insert positive or negative facts into this article.

Potential problem: This is in the introduction: Ryan has long been considered a possible running mate for the 2012 presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney,[4] with reports surfacing on August 10, 2012, that Romney had selected him.[5][6]

Wikipedia should take great pains to be an encyclopedia. Having this sentence is clearly not a permanent sentence. If chosen, this will be removed. If not chosen, Wikipedia has egg on its face.

Wikipedia is not a gossip sheet or a newspaper. A better solution might to be include speculation of the Vice Presidential candidate choice in the biography later on, but that, at this point, it should not be included in the introduction since the fact is a fleeting fact that will not stand the test of time, even 48 hours.

Because of my lack of interest in American politics, I do not plan to debate. I do not plan to make follow-up comments to this comment. Auchansa (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This "gossip" is being reported by numerous reliable sources. As long as it is properly explained, I see no reason to keep it out of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It is an excellent point. However, not reporting initial credible news stories can also be viewed as a problem, as Wikipedia is viewed as an adaptive encyclopedia, with up to date information, especially about a topic so potentially impactful. There is a template at the top which reads that this is a current event. The wording seems adequate to convey that, at this time, reliable news sources are reporting that Paul Ryan is the likely pick. This can be changed later, along with an explanation that the news service jumped the gun. In the meantime, I suppose, consensus should be generated. However, by the time that happens, the official announcement will already go out, and the point will then be moot. Also, USA Today is running with the story, without the hesitancy. [1].OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
They are not reporting he is the likely pick; they are reporting he is the pick. Be cautious of euphemisms. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As it turns out, the information was correct, however it could easily have gone the other way. Your information is well taken. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Change heading on budget proposal.

In reading through this article, I was surprised to see the title of Ryan's legislation as the heading name on his proposed budget section. Though in popular discourse it is perennially referred to as "The Ryan budget," the article makes the heading "Roadmap for America's Future."

I request the section on this legislation be re-titled "The Ryan Budget Proposal" as that is (a) what it is commonly termed popularly and in the media, and (b) the current title gives undue legitimacy to the politically saturated language of the bill. Titling of legislation has long been a politically charged practice of salesmanship, with bills given names intended to shape their public perception.

Wikipedia should not reproduce this political language in its own organizational structure, but rather reflect on it from a critical distance. As such, the section should label the legislation what it verifiably is: a budget proposal. The title of the proposal should be noted within the body of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakoBitz (talkcontribs) 15:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: here is the section link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_ryan#Roadmap_for_America.27s_Future — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakoBitz (talkcontribs) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the title should be simply "The Ryan Budget" but I do agree that it should be added, which I did. I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly one way or the other so if someone else feels strongly that it should be changed exclusively to "The Ryan Budget" feel free to do so.Jasonnewyork (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your edit to the article is a step in the right direction. But I think the critical issue is clearly identifying that the title of the legislation is in fact a title, so readers understand it is political and not neutral language. If you want to keep it in the section header, I propose putting it in quotes, so that the heading reads: The Ryan Budget: "Roadmap for America's Future"

Maybe it is an actual roadmap for America's future, maybe it isn't, the point is that all we can definitively say is that it's the title of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakoBitz (talkcontribs) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC) --BakoBitz (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it, and I think "The Ryan Budget" is the most apt title. That's what the section covers. If anyone else disagrees, chime in.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It could be noted that on the day of VP-announcement, Democrats started calling it the Romney-Ryan plan. Romney can modify it, as can Congress, if Romney is elected president. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Please change ,"The 2012 presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney,[5] confirmed on August 10, 2012 that Ryan had been selected as his vice presidential running mate." to correct the announcement date to August 11th. 174.252.122.170 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Changed to the 11th. Gobōnobo + c 16:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It still says "the presumptive Republican Party nominee for Vice President..." It's not presumptive. It's official. Please make the change. Thank you. 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.105.166 (talk)
Both Romney and Ryan are considered presumptive nominees until it's made official at the upcoming convention. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Paul Ryan on Ayn Rand

Paul Ryan told National Review that he rejects her philosophy:

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29490


64.134.27.87 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source that can be cited. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"On September 18, 2008 ... "

"On September 18, 2008, Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the ongoing banking crisis. That same day Ryan sold shares in various troubled banks and invested in Goldman Sachs."[1]

  1. ^ "Paul Ryan 2008 Financial Disclosure Statement" (PDF). Open Secrets. Retrieved August 11, 2012. 

This was removed - I believe properly - because it is WP:OR, the ref being a primary document, Ryan's financial disclosure for 2008. On the other hand, it certainly seems to show what was stated (I have some concern over the abbreviation RHIP however). If this did happen as stated I'm sure there must have been some smart reporter who picked this up - are there any news sources on it? Smallbones (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I could find no reliable news sources for this information only conspiratorial blogs which cannot be cited on Wikipedia. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Prom King

At the high school Ryan attended, there is no election for prom king. Ryan was elected president of his junior class, and one of the duties of the junior class president is to serve as prom king. Mesconsing (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an issue with a re-wording to clarify this, thanks. Regards, — Moe ε 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More Info Personal Life

Can't we find out any info about Paul Ryan? This area seems really thin for the next VP of the US. Did he grow up rich, poor? MrBrenton (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What is his belief on marriage and abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.222.213 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Women's Issues

The reference to an Obama campaign ad is not sufficient to put in a misleading statement about Ryan's stance on women's issues.

99.113.64.133 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) enas h wilson 99.113.64.133 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Expand on issues

The section on his Congressional career really needs to be expanded beyond his budgetary work. What are his stands on other issues? (e.g., civil rights, energy and the environment (global warming), immigration, drug enforcement, education, family and children's issues, foreign policy, trade, privacy, and much more). Looking for some help to expand this. Mesconsing (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is link with info/details regarding Ryan on various issues: Paul Ryan On the Issues LeahBethM (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Often, a politician's bio has a section on his or her political positions. Generally, when a politician attains national prominence, enough information is generated (detailed expounding of positions) that it would swamp the main bio article; therefore, we create the daughter article "Political positions of ___" and put the detail there with a summary in the bio article. For example, Political positions of Sarah Palin was created in August 2008.
With Ryan, the "Tenure" section now mixes votes (which illustrate positions) with other events of his tenure as a Congressmember, such as his leadership role. Positions not embodied in specific Congressional votes are generally omitted.
I've started Political positions of Paul Ryan with the voting information from this article. It can be augmented with more votes and with position statements not embodied in votes. Along with adding more material in the "Positions" article, we should have a "Positions" section in the bio article, with the most important points per WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Page Could Use some Extrapolation on Paul Ryan's Family and Personal Life

-For example, did you know Paul Ryan is a strong advocate for the Boy Scout and Eagle Scout programs, and was a Boy Scout himself?

-He is also a devoted and faithful Christian who has helped chair youth group programs for his church (John Vianney).

-His wife volunteers at various programs at John Vianney to help the poor.

We should find sources for these and add them as soon as possible. Good deeds by good men should be recognized. ClodSquad (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I could not locate any reliable sources for these points. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
We do not extrapolate at Wikipedia. We research the subject and find the most notable relaible sources. I see your point however and suggest a good amount of research on the figure may produce further sources for more infortion with encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

- Is it not relevant to readers of Paul Ryan's profile that his brother, Tobin, is a former executive of Mitt Romney's Bain & Co., the company playing a prominent role in the debate surrounding the 2012 election?

- Also, I think it is relevant to Ryan's personal profile that his family founded, owns and operates a thriving, private company, Ryan Incorporated Central (http://www.ryancentral.com/history.html).

- Lastly, if it is relevant that he lives in a "six-bedroom, seven-bathroom, 2.5 story, brick home built in the Georgian revival" house, it is also relevant that the house itself was once owned by the once great American establishment (now owned and operated out of New Haven, East Sussex, England), Parker Pen Company, founder George Safford Parker. Hinckley51 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Although Ryan Incorporated Central was founded by Paul Ryan's great-grandfather, no one in Paul Ryan's branch of the family has ever been involved with the company (except for the brief year that Ryan worked there). Paul Ryan's father and grandfather were both attorneys in private practice. The company is owned and operated by Ryan's second- and third-cousins. Is that noteworthy?   2. The house that Ryan now owns was previously owned by George S. Parker II, the grandson of the founder of Parker Pen. Is that noteworthy? Mesconsing (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the Ryan budget plan be a separate article?

The plan is notable (the Democratic campaign has already said they plan to highlight and oppose it); it has enough details (any US budget plan has to); and there is wide secondary source coverage. It would be easier to include both supporting and opposing views in some detail, instead of trying to squish it all in and balance at the same time here. (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looks like there already is an article Path to Prosperity. Not sure why we need so many details here then. Churn and change (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


First and foremost - we need to stop co-mingling the terms "budget" and "budget plan". A budget is always for the coming fiscal year (an example of the next coming fiscal year would be from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013) and not a second more nor a second less.

A minute beyond one fiscal year & its no longer a "budget" we are talking about but a "plan" (or a "budget plan"). A "budget plan" is synonymous with the Budget Reconciliation process first outlined in the Budget Control and Impoundments Act of 1973/74. It is basically 10 watered-down single fiscal-year budget outlines typically based on OMB submissions and, by law, CBO scoring. When a plan is done "right", worst-case & best-case triggers for automatic action(s) are included in the wording to account for deviations in CBO's predictions 10 years out as time passes. In other words, when CBO's initial 10 year scoring is substantially deviated from for whatever economic reasons or changes, the legislation should automatically adjust for the change or automatically impose action upon Congress to make the appropriate changes in a timely manner.

This is why one never heard about the Reagan tax-cuts or the Clinton tax-increases ever being in danger of expiring - their 10 year "budget plan" had these triggers built in. By the time the 10 years were up, the CBO's 10 year scoring and actual economics of the day were brought well-enough into harmonized alignment by Congress passing subsequent legislation (as needed) so that the initial cuts/increases easily passed into permanent law. This, however, was not the case for the last 10 year plan under the previous administration during the 110th Congress and we all know the results of this "decider, stay-the-course" approach. The Ryan approach leans more towards that last flawed attempt at Budget Reconciliation & scoring than it does the Reagan, Bush1 or Clinton models in the sense that, yes, it is beyond just fairly- well detailed, has the aforementioned eye towards sound scoring & methodology but lacks the needed triggers to account for reality as it unfolds rather than as hoped for (admittedly its not exactly full-throated legislation yet either so there is still hope imho). This lack of triggers is troubling (for me) in that during the execution of the last "budget plan" we should have first paid down the national debt with any surpluses before offering up tax-cuts and when things changed, the 2 wars, the tax-cuts should have been at least tweaked if not fully repealed to pay for them - I see no signs in this latest plan for such flexibilty; only idealogy.

Regardless, the point here is that "Budget" (one fiscal year and one fiscal year only) is not the same thing as "plan" or "budget-plan" (10 single fiscal year estimates based on CBO scoring bundled into a single piece of legislation, usually under the Budget Reconciliation. process) and one should not be confused for the other. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)George Orwell III (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Other than distinguishing between these terms, are there any specific suggestions (backed by specific citations) for how to change this article? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee

In the United States, the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured – barring unforeseen events – of the eventual nomination at the convention.[1]

The term is applicable to the candidate's running mate as well. The term is applied widely on the national level, notably in regard to the U.S. presidential nominating conventions, as well as at the statewide level.[2]
Presumptive nominee

  1. ^ Sabato, Larry; Ernst, Howard R. Encyclopedia of American political parties and elections. Infobase Publishing. 2006. p. 216. ISBN 0-8160-5875-X, 9780816058754 Check |isbn= value (help). 
  2. ^ Wiessler, David (March 4, 2008) "FACTBOX: Presidential political terms", Reuters.com. Retrieved December 1, 2009.

--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I added some hidden text explaining why he should not be called the nominee/candidate, and why this page should not be added to the "2012 Vice Presidential Candidates" category. Churn and change (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well he is the nominee as even the RNP Chairman talks about in this official RNP statement.[[5]].TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Where does that statement say he is the nominee? Likely nominee, yes. Churn and change (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Neither Romney, nor Ryan have been choosen by the Republican party. The convention is just around the corner and this may be changed when the official triggers have been made. To be the nominee...they have to be nominated. That happens at the convention. What outside political pundits and politicians may say is not what makes the claim accurate. Being actually nominated...does.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I reversed myself and put Ryan in the "US vice-presidential candidates, 2012" category since Romney is in the corresponding presidential category. Looks like it holds whoever says they want to be president/vice-president in 2012. Churn and change (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe being "Presumptive" allows that categories use.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Rick Perry is in there, and he is presumptive nothing. Churn and change (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You do realise that is not an argument for this. Just remove the category from Perry. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be imposing your definition for the category. In the media the word "candidate" is used for everybody who runs, even if they drop out well before the election or nomination. That seems to be the definition used by the category too. Churn and change (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the category has traditionally included all notable persons who declare themselves candidates, as reported in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing?

This article should not be locked -- it needs editing. Grammatical errors abound.

Since it is locked, perhaps you could point out some of the grammatical errors so that they can be fixed. - MrX 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The bias in this article is mindblowing! how many "editors" just started editing wiki a month or so ago, reading this article gives me a headacheGreatpumkin (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please point out the bias so a position from a NPOV can be reached. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ezra's statements on budget proposal

Why is it relevant? He is no notable expert. What he has to say as a reporter is citable here, but not his opinions per-se. Churn and change (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert on what? He is a journalist.GoThere2000 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We can't include every journalist's "opinion" here. We include only facts that journalists "report". Churn and change (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We can report facts about opinions. His opinion is fine, unless you feel it is a fringe source or is being given undue weight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, he was aleady being cited for this factual claim: "Ryan's budget seeks to reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050." That suggests he is a relevant and reliable source, even for criticism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
But that part is there in other citations too. The spending percentage is not Ezra's opinion or original research. The statement in question is Ezra's original research, and he seems not a notable-enough economist, politician or official for us to include his OR. Churn and change (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Ezra Klein's notability (from Wikipedia): In 2011, Klein's blog was the most-read blog at The Washington Post.[14] In 2011, he was named one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington by GQ.[15] In 2010, he was named Blogger of the Year by The Week magazine and the Sidney Hillman Foundation.[16][17] His blog was also named one of the 25 best financial blogs by Time Magazine in 2011.18 I'm not sure I see a valid argument against a sourced citation from Ezra Klein. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in Ezra's notability as an economist, since we are quoting original research from him. The above just show he is a notable journalist. Don't we have enough Nobel laureates, Wall street honchos, what not who have commented on the Ryan plan, without our having to quote a journalist's synthesis? Churn and change (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no valid argument against Ezra Klein as an expert on economics or as a journalist. Get over it people, his bio at MSNBC is clear he focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system. He is a notable figure and journalist and "Blogger" in this case does not mean someone who writes recipes in their spare time. He does have credentials.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think we can include the responses of everyone with as much economic credentials as Ezra, or more, in this article? How many such people do you think there are who have commented on the Ryan plan? Shouldn't we start with the top and work down (yes, Krugman is notable). Churn and change (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We may add or include as many responses as we wish as long as they follow policy and guidelines and even then...if it improves the article..we can ignore that rule. Simply put, you cannot claim one is better than another unless you intend to exclude one or the other and we need not do that. There is room for both...DEPENDING on content and its relevence.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
He's one of the top financial bloggers and I believe that his work is popular among critics of Ryan. He was already deemed a reliable source for information. So little space is devoted to his criticism that it could not possibly be given undue weight. Why do you call him Ezra? Do you know him?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

His High School being better-off than many similar Wisconsin small towns

Seems to me to be relevant, indicating his background. At least relevant as a fact, leaving it to readers to judge where and how it is applicable. I don't see WP:BLP applies, so I guess notability is the concern? Churn and change (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is offtopic and is not discussing Ryan but his high school. The equivalent would be adding information to Ryan's BLP about his university such as it's college ranking. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Stylistic/word choice/potential bias

A few proposed changes:

1. Under, "Early Life and Education," there's the phrase "according to the Freepages website at Ancestry.com," followed by a citation. I'm not sure if Freepages is reliable, but the entire phrase seems superfluous, since the citation goes there.

2. Under "Early Life and Education," National Review is called a "Fortnightly." That word is a bit archaic -- I recommend replacing with 'publication,' since the interval of its publication is irrelevant here.

3. Under "Tenure", there's a mention of repealing "key provisions" of Glass-Steagel. Whether a provision is "Key," however, is a matter of opinion, and the citation doesn't provide support for the idea that the provisions were "key." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.85.17 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2012 Paul Ryan

The name of his parish is correct but the link is wrong. He attends St. John Vianney in Janesville part of the Diocese of Madison (www.sjv.org) not St. John Vianney in Brookfield. 99.119.125.14 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is corrected now.Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Apparently we need to open a dialogue here about how to structure the article, specifically about political positions. I think we need a separate "Political positions" section - as most similar articles have - as was created earlier today and moved to a better spot, with a request for help in expanding it beyond his votes to a broader description of his political positions (hence the "expand" tag). Moving that material back into "Voting record" in effect buries his political views, especially since the Table of contents doesn't go that deep, and makes it much harder for readers to find the information they may be looking for. See Eliot Engel, Steve King, and dozens of others. The section needs fleshing out, for sure, but we need a section that discusses his positions on the issues. His votes are a reasonable place to start, one would presume. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please Wlink McDonald's

Why no wlink for McDonald's? I am tired of battling all you Burger King fanatics. Stop pushing your Burger-King POV and stop minimizing and trivializing other fast-food joints. Enough I say.108.18.174.123 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Early life and education

Changed reference to father's death benefits which is used as liberal criticism and perception of Ryan's austere positions on federal entitlement programs. Cite reference from a neutral reference other than a progressive blog. Ryan or his mother cannot be cited as to this actually occurring.

If you question the source, add a [citation needed] or similar tag. Don't change the wording to "it is reported that . . ." which just makes things worse. Churn and change (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I tagged it. The New Yorker article actually says his mother went back to school to prepare for a new career to pay the bills. It doesn't mention social security. If a reliable source cannot be found in a day or two, feel free to take it out. Churn and change (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the 'college paid by Social Security benefits' which was mentioned in Roll Call referencing the mother. It is more plausible that the surviving spouse tends to the financial matters than a teenager. I changed to generally reference the mother instead of placing Ryan into the situation which the liberal media uses for their criticism.--Bf2002 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Removed duplicate '10 Facts' reference for 'benefits' meme which no one from the family has revealed.--Bf2002 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) It should be Miami University, not 'Miami University of Ohio.' I would write 'Miami University (located in Oxford, OH' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.31.160 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"social" fraternity

Delta Tau Delta "social" fraternity sounds awkward to me. When I hear fraternities mentioned it is just [greek name] fraternity. I propose to remove the word social. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are social fraternities and academic ones (e.g. Phi Beta Kappa)76.199.10.24 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Academic ones are referred to as societies not fraternities. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It does sound awkward, and an unnecessarily detailed distinction. I think we should drop "social", and trust that if the reader needs to understand the distinction, they can click on Delta Tau Delta. - MrX 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
From a purely rhetorical perspective, there may be perceived problems with this. Catholics generally assume (bear with me) that membership in a secret society is forbidden. There have been Papal editcs about membership in secret societies, most notably Freemasonry. However, when challenged, the official doctrine remained: membership in a secret society is not consistent with Catholic teachings. If you view the article on Fraternity, you might be surprised what you see, and so might some Catholic users. However, using the phrase "social fraternity" and using the wikilink for Fraternities and sororities in North America might bypass any potential issues levied by Catholic users. "Social fraternities" in college aren't really "secret" and get a pass from most Catholics, although not all, and no I don't have a source for that particular statement. It is only a personal observation. This is strictly rhetorical, mind you. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The current wikilink goes to Fraternities and sororities in North America. I've known Catholics extensively for my entire life and have never heard of any such concerns as many of them who went to college were in fraternities. I would argue that most Catholics (especially the ones I know) do not concern themselves with every nuance written down about their religion. If this was a problem I am sure someone would have raised it by now. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so we change things that sound "weird" but we dismiss Papal edicts. I'll leave this trivia for others to debate at this point. I was only adding some info to the conversation. I'm not sure you were actually disagreeing with my point anyway. Also, the wiki to Fraternities and sororities in North America would appear to be fairly new, because initially I clicked on it to view the article. Either way, moving on. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia page for Delta Tau Delta it is described as a "secret letter college fraternity". Now either that is true or that page is violating Papal edicts. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not strictly interested one way or another. I still consider this trivia. But, again rhetorically speaking, take a look at some questions which Catholics ask on forums for this exact point. Fraternities and sororities require "absolute commitment" "secrecy" and sometimes, some crazy other oaths. Here is one conversation, not reliable on Wiki and purely opinion, but interesting nonetheless, [6], where a young person asks the forum if it is okay to join a college fraternity. There is another one on the catholicforums website, but the URL is blocked on Wikipedia. There are 3 pages of results for a young woman asking the same question. While most agree, there are concerns by the seemingly devout. This next article attempts to address the concerns, but equivocates on the answer: [7]. AskACatholic.com has this to say about the difference between a service fraternity and a social fraternity [8]. The official edict in the Catholic Encyclopedia is “The Catholic Church has declared that she considers those societies illicit and forbidden which (1) unite their members for the purpose of conspiring against the State or Church; (2) demand the observance of secrecy to such an extent that it must be maintained even before the rightful ecclesiastical authority; (3) exact an oath from their members or a promise of blind and absolute obedience; (4) make use of a ritual and ceremonies that constitute them sects.” As I mentioned, and others agreed (even if arguing about other points) most Catholics in the US would give college fraternities a pass, and there is actually a Catholic fraternity, Phi Kappa Theta. However, that fraternity does not invoke a vow of silence regarding the fraternity, and members do not swear an oath to anyone or anything but the Christian God. My main point was my opinion that the correct wiki to use would be the more accurate NA F&S article, to avoid confusing social fraternities with other fraternities. Users from around the world may be viewing this article, and so a world view would seem to be important. Here is a wiki article on a fraternity in Germany: [9]. The rest was just an intellectual exercise. Now that the link is fixed, I think we can put this one to bed, if agreed. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible POV issue

GoThere2000, who seems to have made something of a habit of such behavior, removed a quote from the National Review cite without an edit summary. The quote was as follows: "The CBO’s actual projections for the Ryan plan show a debt level in 2021 that is $4.7 trillion lower than its projections for Obama’s budgets". There were originally two quotes from the NR piece, now there are zero. However, there is a one-sentence summary of the quote GoThere2000 removed. Such a summary may be more appropriate. However, it is hard not to notice that Krugman gets several quotes and a summary, in a paragraph that is five times the length of the paraphrased NR rebuttal. Most of his claims appear unchallenged, and his source is also mentioned--whereas NR's source is not, making it appear that their POV is a matter of ideology clashing with Krugman's "nonpartisan" facts. Gayer's quote isn't exactly a ringing endorsement comparable to Krugman's vociferous condemnations, and neither Walker nor MacGuineas are quoted. It would seem that the Krugman paragraph is rather lengthy, although one could argue that his Nobel Prize merits that more attention be paid to his views.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific. There are two sections for budget plans.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about The Ryan Budget.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I might recommend searching for more sources which discuss support of Paul Ryan's plans. Normally, you would visit the user's talk page and discuss the matter with them there. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I was only providing context, not making serious "accusations", as you previously intoned before revising your language. I have no doubt that all of GoThere2000's edits are well-intentioned. I explicitly stated that his "summarize" approach is quite possibly the best way to go--I just think it should go both ways. I used a comparison to demonstrate potential bias--my desire is to trim excessive editorial quotes, not to add more of them. The issue of condensing the paragraph in question, if neccessary, is relevant for discussion here. I could have also reminded GoThere2000 to use edit summaries on his TP--but I noticed that you already had, twice. I would appreciate if you addressed my concerns directly, even if you disagree with my conclusions. I'm sorry if my allusion to the poor practice of not providing edit summaries confused you as to my purpose.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me elaborate. If you try to contact them on their talk page, you could potentially have your question answered about why they might have removed the information. By doing so, you can also have it documented that you requested information and if/when it was not provided. Then, if the behavior continues, you or someone else can report it. If the user doesn't happen to check this talk page immediately, there will be no immediate results regarding your concerns on their editing pattern. If they are contacted via their talk page, they get a message banner when they log in, and some users get emails. As for the content, I agree completely that a balanced view is essential. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not upset that he paraphrased the quote. I'm asking if there are other spots we could trim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think we should go the other way on this; make the Ryan budget plan(s) a separate article. Clearly there are enough details. The plan is also one major focus of at least the Democratic campaign, and hence notable. We could then include both views in some detail. Churn and change (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, looks like there already is one: Path to Prosperity. Looks like we don't need such a lengthy section here. Churn and change (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please visit the user's talk page for more information. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
WP doesn't work by user-to-user talk. GT2000 should be discussing here; we shouldn't all have to separately go to GT'2 page and discuss things one-on-one. Churn and change (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Please show me that guideline. We appear to be reading a different set of guidelines and rules. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:TALK There are good reasons for having these discussions here. Think of an editor coming here for the first time; the talk page is supposed to archive the previous discussions on the article. If we go discussing contents in separate user talk pages, it would be impossible for anybody to track what the previous discussions were. In fact, it would be impossible for, say me, to track what discussions you had with GT, what conclusions you reached, and modify my edits accordingly. You can't impose a requirement that everybody go check GT's talk page before editing things here. And, no, GT2000 hasn't responded to requests for adding edit summaries. Churn and change (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn't see a specific guideline referenced. I don't disagree with how things should work for experienced users. In this case, it would appear to have degenerated into an edit war. Have you filed a grievance at the BLP Noticeboard about a topic on this article? Have you warned the user about their editing behavior? If not, with these edits, [10], [11] and [12], you have allowed yourself to become actively engaged in an edit war over this topic, and there is a guideline specifically for that too: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion BELONGS on the talkpage where other editors involved in contributing to the article in question can contribute to the consensus. Sorry OliverTwisted but that is the guideline and policy and you should not be directing other editors to discuss edits on this article off the article talk page INSTEAD of here. They may contact the editors talkpage if they wish to correspond privately, but issues involving a deletion on an article do belong on the article's talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, it is best to use the talk page of the 3RR if you have concerns about another editors behavior or just warn them or file a formal 3RR notification. This talk page should not be used to discuss the editor, but the edits. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the quote I was discussing: "GoThere2000, who seems to have made something of a habit of such behavior, removed a quote from the National Review cite without an edit summary." This is my comment: "Normally, you would visit the user's talk page and discuss the matter with them there". Amadscientist, this is your comment: "This talk page should not be used to discuss the editor, but the edits." I'm sorry, but we are actually agreeing here. The discussion of contents and specific edits should be discussed on the article talk page, accusing someone of a pattern of behavior should really go on the user's talk page. Right? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions of Paul Ryan

I noted that his political positions don´t have a section in this article, and that the article on the subject is very short. I hope interested editors will improve these areas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and have set up a structure for it. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Also please see #Structure of the article below. Tvoz/talk 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to find a source regarding the major donors to Ryan, which IIRC are financial institutions and especially insurance companies and accounting firms. 93.172.129.180 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this what you had in mind? [13], [14] Mesconsing (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Worthy of inclusion, although we should state just the facts not the opinion in he Bloomberg article. Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a Political views/positions section would be appropriate. See Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman and Newt Gingrich.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is what is a political position for show and what is a real political position or intended action? Who is to decide what gets included? Closure of Gitmo? Syria? U.S. military involvement in Uganda? Mexican relations? Farm subsidies?

It is possible that opponents will chose positions that they want to smear the man and supporters will chose positions that they want to highlight. How about chosing the positions listed in the guy's website? That would be pandering and making Wikipedia an advertising agency.

There is also the problem of political positions and show. What if a politician is for self determination of Palestinians but then whenever Israel build a settlement, they look the other way. In that case, saying the politician is for Palestine is a bunch of crap. For every political position listed, there is a danger that we're just doing the guy's advertising.

As for me, to assure neutrality, I will not support a specific position of the man's article. George Tupou VII (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is precedence for these sections during elections already so your point is sort of muted by that. I understand you position but the answer to your questions is "We" get to decide. The contributing editors. So if you see something you object to, please do bring it up for everyone to get a chance to discuss or improve.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2012

In the Awards and Honors section, please add: 2011- Named Conservative of the Year by Human Events, the nation's oldest conservative newspaper.[1]

50.79.0.113 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find any references to this award outside of humanevents.com website. To be notable, such an award needs to be cited in other sources than the primary source. Cwobeel (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability doesn't apply to article content. Human Events is a RS. Inclusion or exclusion of an item is purely a matter of editorial preference. My preference is to Include.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 02:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

USCCB

The 2012 Ryan budget was criticized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from faculty and administrators of Georgetown University as taking away benefits from the poor contrary to church teachings[citation needed][1]

  1. ^ "Georgetown University group letter to Rep. Paul Ryan". Docs.google.com. Retrieved 2012-08-11. 

There is currently no reference for this claim. Just a google document of a letter and that is not a published, reliable source. It is just illustrative of the letter IF it is mentioned in a reliable source. I have tagged for citation without removing the information for now, but it needs to be referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Cited the Associated Press. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Added a cite to the original letter at the USCCB website Mesconsing (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlas Society

In a 2005 speech at the Atlas Society, he said he grew up reading Rand, and that her books molded his identity, values and beliefs.[1]

and

The Atlas Society said, also in April 2012, that Ryan never indicated he was an Objectivist or embraced an Objectivist epistemology.[1]

  1. ^ a b "The Atlas Society Releases Audio of Rep. Paul Ryan Speech on Ayn Rand" (Press release). PRWeb. April 30, 2012.  Text "accessdate-2012-08-12" ignored (help)

Are referenced with a press release from a Public Relations website. This cannot be used as it is basicly self published information being recycled through a clearinghouse site with no editorial oversite or factchecking.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

OK...I could have waited a bit longer to delete, but this particular info and ref looked promotional. Thanks to User:Mesconsing for adding two reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

but it was often mistaken for "Petey", which Ryan disliked.[15]

Is this really needed? No? George Tupou VII (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us not forget this is a biography. These are little facts that are about the person and the article need not be all about only political or controversial subjects. I like these bits of referenced info in Wikipedia Bios.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ryan did not merely dislike the nickname "P.D." being mistaken for "Petey". He disliked the nickname entirely, because it was susceptible to being mistaken for "Petey". Read the cited source. If we're going to include meaningless trivia, let's at least be accurate. I'd just delete it. It only gives people a roadmap for how to refer to him in a disparaging way.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a huge leap to remove information that is cited with a reliable source just because you feel it feeds some negative name calling. That is absurd and hs no genuine basis in fact to be considered a true reasoning for exclusion of material. Is there some policy or guideline you are concerned with? Perhaps there is something about Petey that refers to something even worse than a cute take on Pete? Am I missing something?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, sure, it would also be cutesy for us to put in a sentence about his cute widow's peak. There are already entire articles in the media about it. What drivel. Not every reliably sourced fact has to go into this article. It's just a matter of good editorial style.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, and good editorial style is subjective. We are not a news source. This is an encyclopedia about a person, not a machine. More about the man and less about the politics would be nice, but the politics outweighs. There is nothing wrong with the information, it is referenced and appears to be accurate. It is a perfectly innocent peice of information. Is that the objection? I say keep it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In a BLP, I think it's bad form to talk about the old nicknames that the subject does not like and finds annoying. But whatever.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you provide a link or a quote to better understand this? I am not familiar with this guideline or policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As I already said: "It's just a matter of good editorial style." Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No need to be cryptic. There is no limitation to how much effort you may put into explaining something. In other words, you just don't prefer this information and feel its inclusion is an inferior style. See, I don't agree with that. I feel that the inclusion of the information adds to understanding the person. As I said, this is a biography of a person, not a machine.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exploration of the Character of Paul's Detractors

Since Paul Ryan's page has become a faucet of unfettered criticism of the man, I think it would be helpful to provide context as to the motives and belief systems of his (sourced) detractors. Many are Saul Alinsky disciples or operatives actively involved in Barack Obama's campaign. It is crucial that we present the loyalties of these individuals. ClodSquad (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to original research, synthesis and advocacy editing. Absolutlely not. If you have a problem with what you percieve as undue weight to criticism please point these out so that they may be addressed! But you are crossing a line on Wikipedia to "present the loyalties of these individuals" as this amounts to an attempt to slander based solely on being referenced on this page. I suggest you step back and reconsider your request.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn;t take long before Saul Alinsky was trotted out. Ludicrous. Tvoz/talk 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lead

I don't want to get much involved with this article, but would like to point out that there is a problem with the last paragraph of the lead, which starts like this: "As chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has focused on fiscal policy and has proposed privatizing Social Security and replacing Medicare with a voucher program for Americans under 55."

Now, I don't dispute that the cited New Yorker article fully supports this statement. But other reliable publications present this issue much less starkly. Take, for example, the Miami Herald:

This is from Caputo, Mark. Ryan could be a drag on Romney in Florida, Miami Herald (August 11, 2012). So, the Miami Herald is saying that Ryan's Medicare proposal was for direct subsidies to insurance companies (or keeping a more traditional Medicare program), and it's the Democrats who prefer the term "voucher". Us using the term "voucher" therefore does not seem neutral. As far as "privatizing" social security, the Miami Herald says that Obama has called Ryan’s plan “privatization” of Social Security, "which it isn’t". Again, we seem to be taking sides here. Can we at least try to be more neutral in the lead, and take sides later in the article? Thanks.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the article being presented here is rather partisan and makes some claims against the Democrats, but I have looked into this and the current line in the lede is accurate and nothing in that reference above really challenges the current info in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if your eight minutes of research leads you to those definite conclusions, then it's admirably efficient research. I was not aware that the Miami Herald publishes partisan pro-GOP news articles, whereas the New Yorker is entirely neutral. Anyway, cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that isn't exactly the point now is it. You claim that the lede is inaccurate yet don't exactly provide anything substantial to illustrate what the differences are. Yes there are vouchers and there is a claim that these are just options but this is the first reference to this I am seeing. The talk page is a perfect place to add these references but this one alone does not show that the lede is inaccurate yet. I didn't write that or reference it, but I see nothing pressing here yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions

Editors may need to form a consensus on what to include. I will invite the editor who has become very active in that section to discuss their changes here.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Hope nothing was lost in the recent changes. Neutralitytalk 06:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, nothing like that. I just didn't want to make any further changes to the work without discussing if you were just going to adapt it to something different. I thought we could discuss just a few things, but some have been corrected in your continued work. One thing I feel strongly about however is the seperation of the budget proposals from his political positions as this is a seperate subject and perhaps a part of his economic policy. What do you think of that to start?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Without having looked closely at each change yet, I applaud the reorganization and think it is just what was needed. May need to tweak here and there, but it's good work. Thanks for taking it on, Neutrality.Tvoz/talk 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I haven't been able to get a good look at the current version but what I looked at was very well done and pretty well worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Postiions and Policy are really different but his voting record is a part of that policy making so...may the section should be Political policies?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. Feel free to wade in; I'm sure there are typos, things to be clarified, grammar to fix, etc. Neutralitytalk 06:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request--please correct a quotation

Under the "Foreign Policy" section, a quote is given:

"Bush was a "reliable supporter of the [George W. Bush] administration's foreign policy priorities..."

I think this should read "Ryan was a reliable supporter..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.10.243 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Negative Portrayal of Ryan's Past and Policy

Ayn Rand influence

Greetings. I've noticed that this article does not cast Paul Ryan in an acceptably appropriate light, due to several pieces of misinformation about his policy and personal life. The paragraph regarding the atheist Ayn Rand is particularly troubling, because it misrepresents Ryan's position as if to claim he changed his position on the matter to suit politics. There is no evidence to indicate that Ayn Rand served any goal in Ryan's political life other than to motivate him into public service so that he could stand AGAINST the secular left's persistently waged war on Christianity and religion on the whole. Please consider removing this paragraph, or at least presenting the valid counterpoint. I see other problems with the article, but I find that one particularly disturbing and biased. ClodSquad (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and apparently someone has subsequently added information about his 2012 statement about Aquinas being an influence. This truly balances out the quote about Rand, in my opinion. I have also trimmed and paraphrased the long quotes to remove undue emphasis caused by lengthy discussion, and it now seems to cast Ryan in a more neutral light, as well as to portray his self stated views and philosophy. KeptSouth (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality. There has to be some standard of neutrality in these articles and discussions. Statements such as "so that he could stand AGAINST the secular left's persistently waged war on Christianity and religion on the whole" do not belong in an encyclopedic venue, when discussing reasons why material should be deleted from an article. This defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia being objective. It might be appropriate to take a moment to read WP:NPOV, to be familiar with the latest guidelines. If information fails to have a notable source, or is improperly rephrased from the source, or does not have extensive coverage, or suffers from a lack of anything that might fall under notability concerns WP:N, that would be a valid argument. The coverage on Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand is ubiquitous. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what an "acceptably appropriate light" might mean? Please clarify so that we can reach consensus. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi OT, it seems to me we should distinguish between statements on a talk page, and statements inserted in an article. The statement you are objecting to appears on a talk page, not an article. There is a difference, with more latitude being allowed on a talk page. Please see WP:TALK. It really does seem as though there's consensus here. Another policy WP:BLP rules here and perhaps sheds some light on what the the earlier comments re. what is appropriately included in a BLP.KeptSouth (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, and further ClodSquad, your statement contains unsubstantiated claims and biased language. You do not substantiate the existence of a "secular left", a "war on Christianity and religion on the whole", nor even substantiate Ryan having a belief (however delusional it might be) that such groups or actions exist. Yet you seem to suggest such language should be inserted into Ryan's entry as if it were a "valid counterpoint". Wikipedia articles are not required to paint political figures in "an acceptably appropriate light", whether or not one or more Wikipedians agree with their positions notwithstanding. Woodrobin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.WP:BLP --KeptSouth (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I wouldn't call it consensus just yet regarding the topic of Ayn Rand, especially at 7am on a Saturday morning. I think we should have time for more discussion. In answer to your pasted paragraph, I am curious how ABC news, American Values Network, the Roosevelt Institute, Fortune Magazine, Real Clear Markets, Forbes magazine and The Atlas Society fall under the tabloid category. A political candidate who makes a speech or takes a public position no longer can exercise claim to privacy over that public statement. Any change in a public political or philosophical viewpoint which is covered extensively in media sources which are reliable are, not only relevant, but necessary to a complete, global view of the subject. Would you be more specific about which exact point about Ayn Rand with which you are taking issue and wish to remove? With so much public scrutiny, it is in our best interest to be very specific. Also, my response above was to point out that the talk page is to be used for conversations about valid reasons for inclusion or exclusion of material, not as a general forum.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Ayn Rand comments by Ryan don't violate WP:BLP. Ryan's privacy isn't invoked by his discussion of political influences that have occurred several times - including remarks with audio and video recordings (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmW19uoyuO8&feature=youtu.be ). Ryan's influence from Ayn Rand is something that he chose to disseminate to the public. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum from thinks that would invoke privacy concerns. Policy mentions about sensationalism aren't license to repeated self-stated influence by/admiration for a figure on one's political philosophy merely because that figure may be viewed as controversial by some people. It is not our job to attempt to moderate the political view in a politician bio. We present the views of the political figure and the readers judges what he/she reads. I think there's a solid basis to mention Rand. Rather the key inquiry will probably be due versus undue weight - how much to include. --JamesAM (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant changes have been made in this section which affect the neutrality of the Ayn Rand point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&diff=506909015&oldid=506908872. --Caoiciao (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

These are actually two different concerns and are now addressed in the current revision as of 13 August 2012‎. 1. Ryan was influenced by Ayn Rand and some of her philosophies - this is verifiable. 2. Ryan was an Objectivist who embraced all of Rand's philosophies including her atheism - this is not verifiable. It is important to separate these claims in their proper context. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JS on this issue, and care should be taken to analyze all edits on this topic as even a one word edit makes a significant change, as JS illustrates. This article seems to swing back and forth from verifiable to crazy in a matter of minutes. With more than 4 users involved in alleged edit warring on this article, consensus would be very helpful. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice some little weasels have removed the highly relevant quote that once appeared in this article:

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person it would be Ayn Rand"

... but you know the one.

Keep up the good work depriving the public of the information they deserve to know. Without including the guy's EXACT WORDS on this, you make it too easy for Ryan supporters to create a gray area here and help distance him from philosophical viewpoints he espoused a mere three years ago.

Now ask yourself.. if this isn't so damning, why can't we simply let his exact words speak for themselves?

--174.44.124.123 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Congressman Jared Polis praises Atlas Shrugged as a "great book". Even Hilary Clinton has said that she was inspired by Rand's ideas, but then "outgrew" them (this is not mentioned in her Wikipedia article). Just as actual Socialists don't believe Obama deserves the label, actual Objectivists scoff at the notion Ryan is one of them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you actually intended to contradict 174.44.124.123, but if you did, I should point out that the quote from Ryan is from 2005, and is apparently something he was proud of at that time. Clinton, on the other hand, was repudiating her past interest in Rand, so that's a very different situation. Polis liked "Atlas Shrugged." So what? These are not arguments against using the 2005 quote. Surely you wouldn't argue that we shouldn't quote Clinton or Polis if what they said was relevant to an understanding of their political career? Abhayakara (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Voted as best brown noser

The section claiming he was a "brown-noser" is a partisan attack on Paul Ryan's character, and needs to be removed immediately! ClodSquad (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement is neutral and merely states that he was voted "brown noser" in high school, which he was, as cited by reliable sources. It does not claim he is a brown noser. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Its inclusion is based entirely on political motivation. Why is his being voted "brown noser" as a gag important information about him? Why not include what he ate at the school cafeteria or what teachers thought of his presentations in tenth grade? No -- this is yet another preemptive attempt by his opposition to assassinate Ryan's character by portraying him as a lackey or toady. It just doesn't wash. ClodSquad (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. From that page: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we prefer to discuss WP:NPOV or WP:TRIVIA rather than making assumptions on motivation. I'm not sure how this is different from the following entry on Mitt Romney's page: He won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels".[1] How is this any less trivial than being a brown nose? Neither are particularly unflattering, given the right audience. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's likely that the inclusion or removal of "brown noser" will be ginned up as an issue to lock down this article to all edits. We will then have to "brown nose" Wiki admins to allow any particular edits. In my view this is a completely unnecessary discussion. Brown nose is a pejorative; there are no two ways about it. A brown noser is someone who figuratively puts his or her nose you-know-where, in order to curry favor. In addition, what a high school editor chose to put in a yearbook 24 years ago is absolute trivia of the sort that is not included in Wiki bios of political figures. I'm removing it, and pasting it here for further discussion, which really should be unnecessary. KeptSouth (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
REMOVE "BROWN NOSE" CLAIM: Even the TALK section for this article is being edited so rapidly that it might need to be watched. My rationale for the removal of "brown noser" was removed by someone without explanation. There have been many articles where the featured individual was voted something in high school. Why would this be relevant in this case? Even if this claim was true (which doesn't pass muster needed for an article like this, why is it included?
The Wikipedia articles for other celebrities and politicians do not include some meaningless reflections from high school. We don't see any such things for the opposition candidate (Joe Biden). The person who originally posted it did so with obvious intent. This is evidenced by simply by looking at his previous Wikipedia edits.
I suggest that this statement is removed since it is so irrelevant to the section. If there was a more detailed account of his life, it might be worth inclusion. However, the theme of the section seems to indicate that this thing -- beyond his own control -- was a major part of Paul Ryan's background. I would think that his high school activities, GPA or even SAT/ACT scores would be more relevant than an unsupported claim -- even if it were true -- that might be nothing more than a prank played by fellow students. It should be removed. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following has been removed from the article for the reasons stated above:
Graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville in 1988, Ryan was voted prom king and "Biggest Brown-Noser" by his fellow classmates.[2][3]KeptSouth (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone on Greta Van Susteren just said that prom kings weren't voted on but given to class president.Robinrobin (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yes. Did you read the Prom King section above and the article as it's currently worded? Ryan was elected class president, which made him prom king Mesconsing (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me just utter that I agree with Wikipedical here. If it has a reliable source, we include it. --bender235 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just undone KeptSouth's edit. There's photographic evidence of Ryan's yearbook, so it's verifiable. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/the-paul-ryan-wikipedia-edits-begin-131718.html#.UCXtApXlYxg.twitter Kate Dee (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't even matter if it is substantiated. The question is whether or not it is at all relevant to this section of the article. We don't find such dubious or insignificant high school votes important enough to include in other articles. If someone tried to add a similar distinction to the Joe Biden entry, I suspect that they would be flagged for vandalism. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In response to the claims that it is pejorative, according to dictionary.com, the term "brown nose" means to "curry favor; behave obsequiously". While it isn't the most flattering term ever coined, I'm not sure that a 1988 high school yearbook would print anything too scandalous to include in Wikipedia. Please be more specific with your cause for concern. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what makes an old high school opinion survey notable? It doesn't matter if it's sourced, if it isn't notable enough to warrant a mention in a biographical article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What makes it notable now is the range of coverage. Besides the original Politico article, there is: Associated Press, Slate, The Daily Beast, MSN, the Politico story already referenced, as well as overseas coverage and local US news channels.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Notability is used in Wikipedia to decide whether a subject should have an article. What should be included in an article is subject to decision by consensus, in particular regarding its WP:Weight. If it has been mentioned in several reliable sources it's likely to meet the weight criterion, but is ultimately decided by discussion. What he did in high school and what his fellow students thought of him in a long article such as this should be included IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


If trivial information is deemed relevant because it's cited and there is a source for it, why not include Obama's ties to Bill Ayers on his Wikipedia page? The "Brown Noser" theory has already become a Daily Kos, left wing talking point, it should be removed only for the fact that liberals would like to make that a focus and distract from the real issue that Paul Ryan is at odds with the President regarding how exactly medical reform will be paid for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalej78 (talkcontribs) 13:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you also have an issue with citing the high school survey for Ryan being voted "Prom King"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written to serve a political purpose. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the prom king and brown-noser mentions should stay. They are relavant and well referenced. They demonstrate, positive or negatively (it's up to the reader) how this person was viewed by his peers going back to his time as a young man. This issue MUST be considered neutrally without political bias. IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT must be set aside.--RadioFan (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That kind of nonsense does not belong per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and because it does not belong in an encyclopedia. 72Dino (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Politico link showing the actual photo of the year book page in question is a much better source than Huffington Post which does not cite a verifiable source. The Politico link simplifies the issue by directly and visually citing the actual yearbook (assuming no photo shopping has been done). Kourtman (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To put things to put things in better perspective, consider these instances:
Sen. Rick Santorum: "he was nicknamed "Rooster", supposedly for both a cowlick strand of hair and an assertive nature" & "In his senior yearbook photo, Santorum is seen with bushy hair, a full beard, jeans, and pipe."
VP Joe Biden: "Academically, Biden was undistinguished"
Gov. Dan Malloy: "He did not learn to tie his shoes until the fifth grade" --Misha Atreides (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we should include this, neutrally and with proper citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia had a policy on trivia in bios? It seems like pointless information to me. Coolgamer (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The term "brown-noser" is vulgar and should not be included in an encyclopedic article period. This goes for anything related to juvenile high school yearbook titles. A.S. Williams (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth I think it is worth mentioning, unless the photograph is discredited. And Politico is a more neutral source than HuffPo, particularly if it is more clearly identified there. Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Insignificant - This is nothing more than trivia that has little to do with Paul Ryan's "early life." Why include this -- even if it was substantiated -- rather than his class rank, GPA, club affiliations or SAT scores? There is obvious bias and slant at play here and the inclusion amounts to vandalism. If someone were to include something negative that classmates felt about President Obama during high school, the inclusion would be insignificant and the person who repeatedly included it on his Wikipedia article would be flagged for vandalism by pushing trivia into an encyclopedia article.
This distinction is as insignificant to the article as the number of days that Paul Ryan may have gone to school without being tardy or how many friends sat with him in the cafeteria. It needs to be removed.Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's sufficient in the TALK page (to be archived). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Remove per WP:INFO -- "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." —Eustress talk 01:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Remove I support Eustress' argument here under WP:INFO ViriiK (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's as notable as "Rooster". To be frank, the only reason I can imagine that people want to remove it is that they're afraid it makes him look bad. If so, that's not an acceptable reason at all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Remove - Well also to be frank, if his high school class had voted him "Best Cocksucker" or "Ass Licker" do you think it should still be included? I don't see how insults from high school are appropriate in this sort of an article. Obama ate dog when he was a kid, is that in his wiki? This shouldn't be an article where subjective opinions on the figure are included just because some website has verifiable proof that it happened at some point. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove. The brown-noser designation, whether joking or serious, was not sufficiently artful and interesting to merit inclusion at Wikipedia, despite Mr. Ryan's witty response ("At least I didn’t have a mullet").108.18.174.123 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the brown noser reference for the reasons stated above as well as the fact that the sentence reads as a list of accomplishments, therefore making it illogical to insert a pejorative in the middle of the positive accomplishments. Also notice the other items mentioned are positions held and memberships in clubs, not descriptions of his character. With his announcement as VP nominee a lot more traffic will be coming here, let's try to keep it NPOV for everyone please. A.S. Williams (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The content was actually that he was "voted best brown noser", not that he was one. A pejorative statement would be that he is a brown noser, and would never stand on any Wikipedia page. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you care to address the other points I made? As it stands you are splitting hairs with the comment that "he was voted" versus "he actually is." Would it be appropriate for us to look for everyone's opinion on every political figure and include all those opinions on their pages? This is all on top of the foundational point that it is vulgar and does not have a place on this page. Maybe you don't consider the mental image obscene? Should we include quotes of protest signs from white supremacists on Barack Obama's page? After all we can surely find such images with a GIS so they are verifiable, right? A.S. Williams (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, not particularly. I haven't taken the information in question out, or replaced it, unless the edit summary does not contain a valid reason. I am arguing guidelines, encouraging specificity, and preventing steamrolling in the wee hours of the night. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral, verifiable, and balanced. Not everything is posted here, so you might not be aware, but other users are being considered for blocking of editing privileges which violate the WP:3RR (three revert rule) over this topic on this article, as we write this. If you fall into the trap of edit warring, you may lose your ability to make your case. You may lodge an official grievance about a BLP (bio of living person) violation here: [15]. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well firstly, I made one change with supported reasoning, not repeated reverts, so there is no need to threaten me with banning. Clearly a high school brown noser slur is crucial to an understanding of Paul Ryan. So I yield to your superior opinion. It's clearly extremely relevant information here and definitely something that we should let everyone know that comes to wikipedia to read about Ryan. Ryan is a congressman, a VP nominee oh and by the way, his high school classmates 20 years ago called him a brown noser. Another big win for NPOV. A.S. Williams (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As of now despite numerous MSM accounts, the short brown-noser reference has been deleted. Yet all of Ryan's seemingly meritorious h.s. accomplishments of his h.s. years remains. Why? This is very disappointing and speaks poorly of Wiki. I hope an admin will get on this ASAP. 66.65.94.202 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article indicates that the student council was pivotal to his following a career in politics. If it weren't, then that shouldn't be included either, but the article makes that connection. The brown-noser reference is just a silly high school item that is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia, even with references. 72Dino (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that whatever behavior earned him that nickname might be relevant to his success as well. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It would seem that a high school senior class would qualify as a tiny minority when compared to the entire American population. A.S. Williams (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it might be a little more difficult finding a neutral, reliable reference for that connection. But that Prom King trivia has to go. It keeps coming back. 72Dino (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If the information is being removed as trivial, how does the information that Paul Ryan makes his own bratwurst pass muster? What is the reason for it being removed, officially? Is it that it is viewed as violating the NPOV rules or the trivia rules? The entire article needs to be swept of irrelevant trivia, and the official reason for removal of sourced content needs to be stated, for the record, without equivocation.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about trivia, this is about NPOV and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines, so if you can address the point about "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I would love to read it. A.S. Williams (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That the "prom king" reference stays, while the "brown noser" reference does not, is an incredible bit of hypocrisy.Detmcphierson (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I support putting it back in, in about the same contextual way the LA Times mentions it. Churn and change (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have never seen "Brown noser" used in any form other than a perjoritive attack, thus WP:BLP applies. Unless someone can give a good reason why a personal attack on a living person should be included it must be removed via WP:BLP policies. There is probably additional trivia which could be removed, but this personal attack has no place. Arzel (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the cited sources - LA Times and New Yorker, to see why the usage is not pejorative. Here is the exact words from the New Yorker indicating Ryan's own response to this:
At the end of his senior year, he was elected Biggest Brown-Noser. (“At least I didn’t have a mullet,” he [Ryan] said.)
The word has passed the editorial checks of LA Times and New Yorker. Both are highly reliable sources. Ryan himself is aware of its reporting. Also check the dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brownnose): "To ingratiate oneself with : curry favor with" That's it. There is no WP:BLP issue. Churn and change (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz23Oe6ZF8p

To claim it is not pejorative is disingenuous. It doesn't matter that there is a dictionary entry for the term it and it doesn't matter that it is sourced. To compare it with the prom king issue is also disingenuous because being voted prom king is a traditional high school achievement whereas being called a brown-noser is not. Furthermore, the views of tiny minorities are not to be included per WP:BLP. So yes, there is, in fact, actually an issue with keeping "voted best Brown Noser" (a view of a small minority) in. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to not understand WP:BLP. It is seperate from WP:V and WP:RS. Please don't be coy, the definition of brownnose is to kiss someone's ass such that you get your nose covered with crap. There is simply no situation where it is used in anything but a perjoritive phrase. That Ryan himself is aware of it, it irrelevant. Regardless I have posted it to the [BLP Noticeboard]. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The "views of tiny minority" argument holds only if the issue were indeed put to a large group and a tiny minority of that group held the view. Otherwise the results of only world-wide elections (which don't exist) can be mentioned at all. As to the pejorative part, you are just stating it is pejorative even though two strong and reliable sources have actually used it, and the word is in the dictionary. Many words can be wielded in a pejorative sense; that doesn't make them all pejoratives. The policy part, as you mentioned, will be settled on the BLP noticeboard. Churn and change (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Cocksucker, motherfucker, asshole and douchebag are all in the dictionary, too. The simple fact that a word is in the dictionary is a ludicrous argument for claiming it is not a pejorative. It also doesn't help your point that the sources mentioned are widely considered biased in favor of the political adversaries of the person the article is about. Additionally, if you count the viewpoint of a few high school students as anything other than a tiny minority, I would like to know why. There are no world wide elections for anything so to use that as the bar for minorities versus majorities is invalid on its face. A.S. Williams (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This "tiny minority" is the same one that made him class president, which you would want us to include. Be consistent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Class president is an actual legitimate position in the student body in most primary and secondary schools so therefore it should be included. How many schools have you heard of with an annual Best Brown Noser award? A.S. Williams (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is the take of Random House (who should know) on the word (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990723) :
Despite the scatological inspiration of the term brown-nose, it is not considered to be
very vulgar or offensive. Some people, unaware or unsure of its origin, don't consider it
offensive at all, but at worst I would say that it is only mildly offensive. It is definitely
slang, though, so may not be appropriate in many circumstances.
As to appropriateness and notability, we take our lead on that from our reliable secondary sources. As to cocksucker and the like, they are marked as "usually obscene" in merriam-webster. Hmmm, am I really debating brown-noser . . . Churn and change (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What is not debatable is that the information is verifiable from reliable sources, what is disputed is the notability and appropriateness for a BLP. While it is true that something should not be excluded simply because it is negative, that is in reference to things like affairs. It is clear to me that the reference is meant to be insulting. The reference is literally referring to someone who is kissing someone else's ass so bad they have have feces on their nose. To include this would be the equivalent of including any derogatory comment from someone who went to school with Ryan. I concur that it is slang, said to be military slang originally, from brown + nose, "from the implication that servility is tantamount to having one's nose in the anus of the person from whom advancement is sought" [Webster, 1961]. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely with JS's excellent summary for BLP policy and rationale. Brown-noser should not be included. . KeptSouth (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As was pointed out above, the reference provides insight into how he was perceived by his peers. That's useful. There's nothing inherently insulting about it. If he was voted 'greatest humanitarian,' I'd want to know that too. Wikipedia hosts plenty of material that could be deemed far less relevant. Alexdi (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The reference simply shows how some of his peers wanted to insult him. I do find the fact that some people do not like Ryan as insightful. Should derogatory comments from anyone who dislikes Ryan also be included in his BLP? Being voted "Greatest humanitarian" is not derogatory. I would like to hear arguments about how Ryan should be proud to get this award if it is not considered insulting. --JournalScholar (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It was a description that was presumably the result of a general poll. Plenty of articles include polling results. Should we only list the ones that are positive? If his peers wanted to insult him, why might that have been? It's a topic that deserves exploration, not redaction. Alexdi (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That depends on the poll and whether the poll results were to have an derogatory label assigned to him or not. The argument is not that it was negative but that it was derogatory. There is no indication that this was a "general poll" as depending on how the polling was done (most likely a write in), how many participated in it, how many were nominated per category and his class size you could wind up with a handful of students who didn't like Ryan now defining him on Wikipedia with their insult. This in no way can be considered an accurate representation of how he was viewed by his peers. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reach consensus

The back and forth reverting and re-adding of the brown nosing reference is comical, and not at all helpful. I think there needs to be consensus for including such trivial and contentious information. Some points to consider (emphasis added), from WP:BLP:

  • Avoid repeating gossip...and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
  • If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
  • To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

There are very good arguments both for and against the inclusion of this material, but there is no consensus. As I interpret WP:BLP policy, the contentious content should be omitted until there is consensus to put it back in. If it can't be resolved here, it should be escalated to dispute resolution. - MrX 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

MrX, I apologize for adding it. Because I didn't know that it is under discussion here at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Ryan doesn't make me a mean person. Out it stays until that discussion is resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
SusanLesch no need to apologize and my comments were not directed at you. I was not aware that the issue had already been taken to the BLP noticeboard in the wee hours of this morning. - MrX 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The bio does contain other trivial information such as his nickname "petey" and makes reference to "His great-grandfather, Patrick William Ryan (1858–1917), founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884. ". as well as "Ryan's grandfather was appointed U.S. Attorney for Western Wisconsin by President Calvin Coolidge.[14]"What does this have to do with his early life? These events transpired YEARS before he was even born and thats ok in the early life/education? In the name of fairness i looked at Obamas page and found that the early life/education part made no reference to grandfather/greatgrandfathers business achievements. I am however 110% open to a very lengthy entry in the situations and histories of Ryans PARENTS. These influences describe the situations and history of his conception. If we start nit-picking we should take all irrelevant information out. He was voted class brown noser and "elected class president". Whats the difference, its not like people are making it up.News outlets such as Politico reporting it does not make it relevant?I believe this issue is more relevant to Ryan then the accomplishments of his grandfathers. The business accomplishments should be listed under his grandfathers wiki page. Take for a moment this from Mitts page "He won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels"".[20] "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for." This is the correct format,also in the early life and education. It provides the good with the bad. It should be placed in a format that is neutral and ties in with him being class president and prom king, as they are determined by the same group of people, his highschool peers. To be fair i think it should either all stay or all irrelevant information should be removed, such as his prom status and achievements of his distant relatives. My personal opinion is that it all should stay. If it is factual and not "distorted" beyond its original meaning it should be included, just as Obamas drug use was included. My first post as an unaffiliated Wikipedia user, these inconsistency just make me so mad. There exists an army of political workers ON THIS PAGE trying to spin in both directions Kubosu (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please post your views on this matter at [BLP Noticeboard]where your general point on trivia has been raised. A.S. Williams (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Caution: WP:3RR Three revert rule on Wikipedia

This WP:3RR guideline should most likely be posted here for reference for the next few months:

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

Exemptions: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

  • Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
  • Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
  • Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.
  • Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
  • Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC).
  • Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida (where Wikipedia's servers are located), such as child pornography and pirated software.
  • Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Even honestly believing something is a BLP violation does not guarantee protection against being treated as edit-warring. Trust me on this one. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of these issues can be avoided by not adding anything without first properly sourcing it. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Most, but certain editors commenting in this thread have been known to editwar to include irrelevancies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are you stalking me to harass me with false allegations? --JournalScholar (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm stalking Still-24-45-42-125, but the statement is still correct. You [any Wikipedia editor] can be blocked for edit-warring for removing sourced information, adding sourced irrelevant information, or making any changes at all, not required by policy, which are opposed by multiple editors. And, back to Still-24, the guideline was supposed to say that only clear violations of the WP:BLP policy are exempt. Apparently, WP:3RR hasn't been updated to reflect the actual policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you're familiar with WP:HOUND. Are you going to follow it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
@Arthur, don't be a jerk for its own sake. @Still-24-45-42-125, please try and disengage from Arthur. You're simply letting him get a rise out of you. @everyone.... let's stick to policy and content, and avoid personalizing this, OK? Back to our regularly scheduled program. -- Avanu (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I'll disengage while he continues to collect out-of-context diffs to use against me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of my following you is to remove your <redacted> edits which violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, mostly in the name of claiming to follow (usually different) policies and guidelines. Until you stop doing that, it is pretty much my duty to comment on your errors. I shouldn't have named you as an example here; I should have named JS, instead. A preliminary study suggests he has been edit warring to exclude sourced information on at least two articles, claiming the material is irrelevant. Before he is blocked for edit warring, he should be clearly informed that, contrary to his statement, one can be blocked for edit warring when one's edits do not violate any other policy or guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Arthur, I recommend disengaging. Wikipedia is full of editors who won't hesitate to correct any errors I make. On the other hand, you're obviously taking this too personally and it's getting creepy. Sit back; let others handle matters.

As for JournalScholar, I do agree that he's being tendentious and perhaps obstinate, but I didn't notice any edit-warring as such. It doesn't matter; I brought up these issues here and it looks like we're making progress on them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Michelle Bachmann allusion

What is the point of including Silver's conclusion that Ryan is as conservative as Michelle Bachmann? According to the data Silver cites, Ryan is as conservative as any number of other Representatives, including Yoder of Kansas, Ribble of Wisconsin, and Duncan of Tennessee. Silver chose to include Bachmann to make a point, to tar Ryan with an unflattering paintbrush. His is not a neutral conclusion and so doesn't belong in WP. The other info in that paragraph describing Ryan as '"the furthest from the center" of any vice presidential choice since the turn of the 20th century' is fine because it's factual and neutral. The Bachmann comment, although factual, is not neutral because it lends a particular slant to the information presented. Mesconsing (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a very subjective analysis by a known Obama supporter. Furthermore, the basic premise assumes that a liberal from the 1900's would be conservative today making any comparisons dubious at best. Regardless, this ceratainly is undue weight for the main article. Silver's opinion is not that notable. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yoder of Kansas is not a well-known political figure who ran for president. Ms. Bachmann is. That's the point of the comparison.
To Arzel - if you have some specific source that critique the statistical analysis in some way, feel free to include it. But Nate Silver is a very well-known statistician in the paper of record, DW-NOMINATE is a very well-known, accepted, empirical multidimensional scaling method. There's no way we're going to scrub it from the article just because Silver is a "known Obama supporter." Sorry. Neutralitytalk 17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
BS, Bachmann is a flash point for the left that is why she was chosen. Silver is a lefist, you don't cut your teeth on the Daily Kos by being neutral. Also, Ryan is not disimilar to a whole host of republicans, not even that much different that Cheney. Regardless, Silver's opinion is undue weight presenting a NPOV problem. Arzel (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How about we scrap it because Silver is misusing it. University of California political scientist Eric Schickler’s response to Silver’s characterization.
Mr. Ryan may well be the most conservative vice presidential nominee in decades, but the NOMINATE methodology is not suited to making claims about the relative liberalism or conservatism of politicians over the long time span invoked by Silver. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It would, however, be suited to making comparisons between Ryan and Michele Bachmann. And no source is "neutral" in your sense - any reliable source will have political opinions. john k (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality - I agree with you entirely about the soundness of Silver's statistical analysis. I take no issue with its reliability or with including the analysis and its results in the article. But I think that including the comparison to Bachmann is cherry-picking, designed to put Ryan in the same light as someone who is, shall we say, somewhat notorious. I think that the results showing his degree of conservatism are really sufficient to make the point. Mesconsing (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I tend to see such comments as negative personal attacks and not a relevant criticism of the figure. As such I believe BLP states that we shouldn't use the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether we should mention the Bachmann comparison, but I do want to point out that the choice of Bachmann is hardly arbitrary; she was a presidential candidate, and Ryan would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. As for the idea that being compared to Bachmann is insulting, that's just weird. Sure, the left hates Bachmann for being so right-wing, but by that token, the right loves her for the same reason. So, really, let's decide on the basis of relevance, notability and so on, not conspiracy theories. And, with that, I'll be putting my tin-foil hat back on and hiding in my bunker! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no conspiracy, just a very ambiguous statement concerning a third party on another figures biography that is contentious. I believe this is not an appropriate statement to cover for an encyclopedia article. If used, it needs far more context.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If it's contentious, who's contending it? Seriously, is there anyone notable (meaning not just an editor here) who contends that it's false or inaccurate or misleading or whatever? If there is, I'm fine with giving them equal billing, but not find with self-censoring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading this again, I think the claim about Ryan being the most extreme VP candidate needs to be removed. We have one expert saying he's extreme compared to other VP candidates, and another saying the comparison is nonsense. Surely including this spat in his biography gives it undue weight. Why don't we say he has a DW-NOMINATE score of X, which makes him more conservative than however many Congressional Republicans.Mforg (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is contentious in that there are multiple editors concerned with the comparison being given weight here. That it is an insult and ment to disparage the figure and thus has no real place in a Wikipedia biography. How is is notable? There are many criticisms of Ryan of note here. What makes this of note?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan sought funds while decrying stimulus

July 2009 - http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-district-supported-energy-funds-while-decrying-stimulus-program/qkXIN2eHgyt4yyBSH81WEJ/story.html - we ought to add something from this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talkcontribs) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just breaking (though it isn't exactly new, the Globe's extensive coverage is). I think it will probably loom large in the next few months but it's difficult to tell just yet. --TS 19:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Another source, this from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587594113012250.html Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For such things, the WSJ is generally reliable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Private briefing connected to transactions?

"Vice-presidential candidate denies he profited from a 2008 meeting with Fed chairman in which officials outlined fears for financial crisis"

I remember this was here since Ryan became a candidate. Who took it out? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Better question: other than the obvious motive of whitewashing, why?
The edit summary will explain the editor's reasoning. It wasn't hard to find. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Good work. Looks like it needed secondary sources. Fortunately, those exist [16][17][18]
I think that, with these sources, we should restore the paragraph. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. I'm leaving for the day. If you are careful it might stick this time. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to let this sit, so as to test the consensus. If nobody comes up with any reasonable basis for disagreement, I'll make the change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ryan did nothing wrong. If anything I guess Kevin Roose and David Herszenhorn reinforce (by giving us the timing of the meetings) that he is a good and very lucky stock trader. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wienermobile trivial

If we're removing 'brown-noser' for triviality, why leave in the fact that he drove the Wienermobile once? If anything, this detail is even more trivial. The one describes his personality in high school, the one involves something he did one time with no bearing on his career or character, that amounts to mere trivia. 99.1.96.209 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's be frank: the only reason brown-noser is gone and Weinermobile remains is that his fans are trying to whitewash the article. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it. Probably because Wikipedia frowns on such negative personal attack like references in the articles about living persons. Neutrality would not exclude the mention but remember that if you want something re-added...it doesn't really help to accuse editors of removing it for such reasons. Discuss a version that you feel is encyclopedic and we can determine if it should be returned without the need to assume either bad faith or that fans are controling the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's precisely as encyclopedic as class president, prom king and wiener-driver. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But, unlike the above, it's controversial, so it requires impecable sources, and sources for relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There's absolutely no controversy about its truth and the only possible reason for excluding it while keeping wiener-trivia is whitewashing. As for sources for relevance, that's not particularly hard.[19][20][21][22] Note that last one, which is about what we're doing here right now. Even this debate is notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Haven't seen the reference but what Arthur Rubin states is true. I see Encyclopedic value as a very different standard when you are speaking about a public figure's biography. I, for one, do object to these bits of information being removed as trivial or unencyclopedic when referenced properly and written without it being too random. Look, we are not writng about a historic figure from 200 years ago, but even then I know we mention the small, less important events, but when I say less important, I mean less than more historic or well known. I get the feeling sometimes people don't realise how important it is to have broad coverage. I don't think these mentions lose focus because this is about his early life.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I find it ridiculous that we're even debating this. I say, leave it in and move on to more interesting topics. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to recommend letting this sit a little while longer to see if anyone has any policy-based objections. If not, we'll make the change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Are any of the four sources above reliable for living persons? I'm not sure. The Atlantic seems to be the best one, but it's not clear to me whether it's an article (usable) or commentary (probably not usable). For the other three, I don't see indicia of reliability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, reliability for what? The fact of the matter or the notability? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Atlantic Article is actually about Wikipedia's removal and reverting of the brown nose information. It does not estblish the information. The Daily Beast is partisan and is merely showing the tweets the information came out of from Twitter. The first two look OK at first glance. The Brown Nose mention was published in what appears to be a year book, so according to the policy as I understand it, that is the originating source and would in some form need attribution. I would say some further reserch is required on this one before inclusion of the Brown noser stuff. What about the Weiner thing? Stay or go?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we'd definitely attribute the brown-noser thing to the yearbook so there's full context. It's pretty obvious that this is intended at least partially in jest, and definitely not as a genuine insult. We should not transform it into an insult by hiding its origins.
In terms of sourcing, I'm not sure what's missing? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd really have to take a closer look at the first two references to know for sure, but other than losing those two mentioned the only other reasoning is consensus. Try looking through the discussion and the edit summaries to see where that left off before returning the information and then if there was no clear consensus to remove it or the consensus was for inclusion then go ahead. But i might still leave a note about why you made the edit to allow discussion and avoid any scuff if possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Consensus is us here right now. WP:CCC Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The brownnoser aspect was brought to the BLP messageboard and the concensus is that it is unacceptable, please do not start that aspect again. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Arzel, but that doesn't appear to be resolved yet. The discussion may still be ongoing so it shouldn't be re-added until consensus is determined. Maybe the discussion just needs an uninvolved editor to read through and determine if the time period is sufficient and if a consensus has been formed.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, all it actually says is that, since we've trimmed out a lot of high school trivia, there's no place for it. If we beef up that section, then that will change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly Trivia

Please limit the silly season trivia. Yes Romney accidentally introduced Ryan as the next president. Obama did the same thing in 2008. Arzel (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The main difference, is that Romney made that mistake on his first introduction of Ryan as his running mate. The first. Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And that means what exactly? That Obama is an idiot who gets confused after getting it right, or that Romney is an idiot for getting confused and then getting it right? Arzel (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey man (or woman), take it easy... the issue is if this is notable for inclusion or not. Nothing about being an idiot. Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your point fails to establish notability.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2012

Please add link for David Stockman 109.215.15.123 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More material?

There is a great index of materials on Ryan here: http://www.propublica.org/article/paul-ryan-reading-guide-the-best-reporting-on-the-vp-candidate

May be a good idea to scrub some of that and see if we can improve this article. Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting resource, Cwobeel; thank you for pointing it out. I sincerely hope that propublica's reporting does in fact measure up to the high ideals stated on their "About Us" page. No-spin investigative reporting would be very welcome on the current American scene. Thanks again. --Kenatipo speak! 00:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Please demonstrate how HuffPo is not a reliable source

Removing a source by claiming it is unreliable is acceptable on Wikipedia. However, I can't find anything on Wikipedia where consensus was reached that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. Like the Associated Press, it is an aggregate of news stories from other sources. As such, it should be treated the same way. Each story should be evaluated according to its origin and authorship. Nowhere in the guide for reliable sources on Wikipedia WP:RS does it exclude the Huffington Post by name. When discussing the avoidance of tabloid journalism in the guide here, the Huffington Post is not mentioned. For future editing reference, please provide a link to official information on Wikipedia which disallows the use of the Huffington Post, or it shouldn't be used as the single exclusionary evidence for the removal of content.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 03:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your assessment is correct OliverTwisted. Huffington Post is sometimes considered a non-reliable source because of perceived bias and because they generate a fairly large volume of opinion pieces, commentary and blog articles. - MrX 04:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC
For future reference, if news agencies have been determined as unreliable by consensus, they would appear here:[23].OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 04:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
In cases where HP is a reliable source, the news item appears in an established news outlet as well. In this case, LA Times did have the story; using that as the ref. instead of HP would have avoided the issue. Using LA Times also automatically establishes notability; what they, a reliable and reputed secondary source, found notable is notable for WP too. But having that in with just HP as the sole source was not acceptable. Note that WP:BLP standards are high, and are not necessarily driven by consensus or even discussion. Churn and change (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please include a link to that guideline on Wikipedia, specifically. WP:RS and the [24]are the established venues on Wikipedia for determining reliability. The LA times has blogs, and thus not all information would be considered reliable, as is stated clearly in the Wikipedia guidelines, as expressed here: WP:RS. For future reference, the exact quote in theWP:BLP guideline is expressed this way:

  • Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

As I stated above, each article should be evaluated on its own merit, by the authorship, origination of story, and relevancy. The Huffington Post is not classified as a tabloid journalism organization. But, here's a tip: when I have questions, I like to read the articles for the subjects in questions to see if they might contain helpful information. When visiting the article for the Huffington Post, I ran across this in the intro: "In 2012, The Huffington Post was the first commercially run, United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."[4] If you still have a need to pursue the subject of the Huffington Post being an unreliable source, please open a new case, here:[25]. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check WP's "Featured Articles" or "Good Articles" and see how many of them use Huffington Post as a source, as opposed to New York Times, LA Times, and the various local newspapers. That is one indication of how reliable a source is. Churn and change (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've provided you with a venue for your grievance. Each news story should be evaluated individually, regardless of what aggregate news source from which it came. Removal of content with the explanation being "the Huffington Post is not a reliable source" is not backed by any guideline, any consensus, and will be contested. However, please don't misunderstand my argument to be a political defense of any description of the organization. I am asking for compliance to guidelines, regarding the evaluation for verification WP:V and the reliability WP:RSof the source of the story, whether on Huffington or LA times, or the Daily Mail in the UK. It still has to meet the guidelines for inclusion, as you rightfully pointed out in the WP:BLP guidelines. Also, you might want to refresh your browser cache, your signatures are having to be added by bots. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 06:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it is the consensus of the general community that the Huffington post is not a relaible source for facts. Any use as a reference should be used as opinion and attributed to both the author and publication. This was determined through discussion on several different talk pages in regards to the Huffington Post. If you need links i can probably dig them up, or you can do a quick search. We discussed this over on the talk page of Occupy Wall Street several times.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me. It is my understanding that when using aggregate news sources such as the Associated Press and The Huffington Post, the source of the information published needs to be evaluated for notabilityWP:RS, rather than strictly deleting all edits just because they were published in The Huffington Post. If the information is an opinion piece by a not notable Huffington Post employee, or by Smokey Bear[26], it should be treated as any other potentially not notable source. If the article is written, for example, by Howard Fineman[27], or Robert Reich[28], or Norman Lear[29], or Greta Van Susteren[30], are we to dismiss it as unreliable and not notable strictly because the publisher started as a blog 4 years ago? OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Your understanding is not correct (edited) I believe what was being stated at the notice board was that the originator of the information was not The HP, but was the AP. That was the actual source and they are who should be referenced ...but the community decides through consensus what is or is not a reliable publication for use on Wikipedia. I will provide the links. Give me a moment please.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Also..The Huffington Post is still a "Blog", a political blog. It's main function is biased political ideology in the form of opinion pieces. You may be a notable celebrity...but if it is an opinion piece it should probably not be used on a BLP unless it is their own.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus, people say there is no consensus, and the organization has changed significantly since the last official discussion. The organization was apparently purchased by AOL, has new editors, and won a Pulitzer prize. Now that a reliable source case is open again, I think it might be a good practice to await feedback from a variety of editors, over a time period longer than 24 hours. In the meantime, I will proceed with what is actually stated, and that is that each individual source, not publisher, should be evaluated for being reliable. Simply stating that "the Huffington Post" is not reliable", and deleting an otherwise notable, and verifiable piece of information strictly because it was published in the Huffington Post is not actually supported by any clear consensus readily available. Even if it were, notable authors who publish on Huffington Post would still be eligible for an exemption from the SPS rule, if that is what is being invoked as the cause for concern. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The links to some of the discussions where... yes, a consensus has formed over years are provided below. Whether or not the HP "has changed" is not the issue. New ownership and new editors? These are things that I would consider myself in the discussion, but whether the site has stopped using member contributors with no creditials to post opinion pieces and mixing editorial with news coverage. Look, you seem like a reasonable editor trying to push back for what you believe is right...but you provide nothing to establish your comments as accurate. There is an archive sir. The information is there whether it is readily accessable or not. that has no bearing on the consensus existing. Now I ask for you to be clear about "information" you refer to as being an opinion or a fact. Their uses will be different. Also, consensus can change....but not from a single filing over a single issue. You are using a rather broad brush and ignoring years of discussion. That is not an acceptable way to be respectful to the contributions of the editors envolved in these deiscussions and their input. Being able to cite The Huffington Post so someone can reference Ryan being Prom king doesn't seem like a reasobale reason to break from the current consensus on the HP.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are extrapolating intent where none is indicated. We need to lighten up. This has been a rough weekend. I feel like Mini Me pushed into a shark pool. The issue that preceded this has been dealt with by finding an alternative source. The further topic is being discussed on the noticeboard, to which you have already been contributing your welcomed opinion. I have not, either implictly or explicity denigrated anyone's years of work on Wikipedia. I have not seen a resolution. You are not providing one yet, and instead are just stating "just take my word for it, it's there and will never change." That argument isn't sufficient. I have spent hours looking over the noticeboard archives. 4 years have passed since the last discussion which seemed to have any semblance of consensus, and even then it was 4 people who seemed to have an opinion. The 2010 conversation barely got started. Please don't escalate this past what has been said. If Joe Biden writes a story for this publication, which he has, there is no argument I have seen which convinces me that it would be rejected, solely on the basis of appearing on HP. That is my point, nothing broader. If you are referencing my comments on the board, which aren't here, that isn't exactly skippy. Also, how do you know I'm a man? Why are you calling me sir? Are we going to duel. ;0) OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 10:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem far too experianced to be taken seruiously for the large amount of erros in statements of fact here. I have provided several of the consensus discussions from the Reliable Sources Notice board archives below. I have left a respectful suggestion on your talk page discussing how consensus can change and ways to best do that with a community wide consensus. I encourage you to edit and continue to contribute, but I also warn against anything that would contribute to edit wars such as your reverting removal of content based on such community wide consensus. If Joe Biden writes an article at The Huffington Post it would be an Op-Ed and if you don't understand that much then you are correct...there would be nothing to convince you it would be rejected to reference a fact and the consensus at Reliable Sorces notice Board has been that such Op-Eds are suitable for opinion from that author on themselves but not others if sourced from The HP. If you want to be difficult by questioning sir as a gender fight...have at it. You seem to want to be purposely difficult and i find that to be discouraging to other editors. I'd ask you to tone it down a bit "sir" as you are being very direspectful and boarderline yncivil. Enough that I fear it may be chasing away editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was closed and hidden as per *your* instructions. Re-opening it to get in a parting shot is fairly childish.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I collapsed this portion myself and titled it to let others know of the discussion at RS/N. You only placed the mark up I sent you without making the needed changes. I made those changes and did not undo them. Please check the history to see who removed the mark up...it was not me and I would ask that you look into the history here and then strike out the accusation please. Thanks.--Amadscientist(talk) 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful with deletions

I see over the past few hours a large number of deletions, all properly sourced. If you believe these inclusions are incorrect, pls discuss here, or attempt to correct without deleting. I have restored a number of passages. Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing Krugman above, why not join us instead of simply adding to the edit war. Arzel (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do not start whole sale reverting.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me folks, but if you want to revert the Krugger bit, be my guest, but please do not delete properly sourced material without discussing. Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, why deleting this? Cwobeel (talk)

    • Ryan, who has little foreign policy experience,[5] has been described by Larry Sabato as, "just a generic Republican on foreign policy."[6][7] Critics noted this, with former Democratic congressman and former ambassador to India Timothy J. Roemer telling Reuters: "I think his experience as a vice presidential candidate is thin; or for a future president and commander-in-chief, it's virtually absent."[7] Senior Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom defended Ryan, stating that his position as House Budget Committee chairman has given him intimate knowledge of defense spending and initiatives and adding that Ryan has been in Congress for 14 years, "longer than Barack Obama when he decided to run for president."[8] During his tenure in the Congress, Ryan has participated in seven trips abroad as a member of a congressional delegation.[9] Reviewing the history of past presidential tickets, Jonathan Bernstein concluded that "depending on how one scores these things," Romney/Ryan is "certainly the ticket with the least foreign policy and national security experience since at least 1948, and perhaps as far back as 1912."[10]


Or this: Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Ryan's budget "envisions continued increases in Pentagon spending" and "significant cuts to the much smaller appropriations for the State Department and foreign aid," with diplomacy and development spending being reduced sharply.[11] In 2009, Ryan termed the Obama administrations' "reset" of relations with Russia as "appeasement."[11] Daniel Larison of the The American Conservative wrote that Ryan "seems to conceive of U.S. power abroad mostly in terms of military strength" and "truly is a product of the era of George W. Bush."[11]

I would also like to hear some explanation for both the mass deletion and the edit-warring to keep it out. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The deletions above were made in error by me with a reversion to remove edits that were returned before consensus had been formed. That was a mistake and Cwobeel returned them and made this thread. I have not, nor has anyone else, edit warred to keep it out since it was returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I consider that to be a sufficient answer. Looks like there's no problem here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Krugman is not a reliable source. He's a hyper-partisan editorial columnist with a long string of fact-checking problems to his credit. Nothing he says should be taken at face value without corroboration. Belchfire-TALK 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but you just said it...editorial, hence the attribution to him as opinion. But that does not make Krugman an unreliable source. As one criteria for relaible sources the author must be an expert or have a known and accepted background and credintials. He has them and passes that criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think these were not re-added. I believe another editor has returned some and i don't have any objection if this editor returns the rest.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman is a reliable source for the opinion of Paul Krugman, and nothing else. Anything he writes that is used here must be attributed to him and can't be present as fact. Just so that's clear. Belchfire-TALK 08:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Only when citing him from his Op -ed. He does have some other writings and he is an economic expert so there are some cases that he might well be cited as a published author as a reliable source for facts...just not in this instance.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, if you really doubt that Krugman is a reliable source and are not willing to accept the apparent consensus here, you are free to escalate to WP:RSN or perhaps even WP:BLPN. I think you've exhausted your options here, though. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no...there are many more options. Seriously. One can request a third opinion, or even post an inquiry at one of the Wikiprojects listed above. If that is not an option the Dispute resoltuion process offers further routes located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and list relevent notice boards after the two mentioned including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but one does not have to have done the first two to work up to a noticeboard. Anyway...content disputes are one thing...this is about the use of an author that I have seen used on a great many articles. Doubtful that the complaint as begun here will get far but options are always opened to those that wish to raise a legitimate dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is over the reliability of a source, RSN is the best place. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, if they wish to question the reliablity of the source sure, but one can always dispute content of any kind through the dispute resolution process...how far one gets is determined by many factors. I doubt this would get far, but editors always have otions if their disputes are real. I just don't think this is real. Just a partisan opinion vented onto the page, but why not use it to tell the editor what their options are so others who read it and need the info can see what the proper steps are.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More mass deletions: [31], [32]. Wouldn't it be nice if editors didn't take such controversial actions unilaterally? Mesconsing (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

I took some time today to read the entire article and must say that I am amazed at the "power of the crowd" in creating a neutral article, despite the many differences of opinion espoused by people here. After reading it, I think that it would be best if the Philosophy section is brought up a little earlier on the article, maybe after "Early life and education" (or as a sub-heading of it), as it provides a very good context for what follows. What do you think? Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you must be joking. --Kenatipo speak! 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's rude and counterproductive. Cwobeel was making a constructive suggestion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See Algore section following, which gives a good idea how "neutral" the article is. --Kenatipo speak! 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His name is Al Gore. Two words. He's a pretty darned reliable source, even for quotes from his opposition. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My comment relates to the article's "Neutrality", not to Cwobeel's suggestion that a section be moved up. --Kenatipo speak! 22:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, when the world looks tilted to you, it just means you have to straighten your head. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Al Gore's blog is absolutely not a reliable source for "quotes" from his opponents or matters of fact, and a paragraph of his should never be inserted into an article as the only source. He is a reliable source for his opinion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that the Nobel automatically confers expertise and infallibility on the recipient. Obama, Gore, Krugman! What a crew! LOL. --Kenatipo speak! 22:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Kenatipo: this page is not a discussion forum .... so let's stay focused on constructive discussions rather than offer our opinions on Ryan, Obama, Kruger, Al Gore, or any other actor. Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The topic we're discussing, Cowbell, is "Why isn't this article neutral?". My suggestion on improving that problem with the article is to minimize quoting leftie hacks like Paul Krugman and Algore. Is that constructive enough for you? --Kenatipo speak! 00:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Again, denigrating people like Krugman and Gore just makes you look partisan. Is that your goal? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Gore's opinion blog

Am I hallucinating, or is the entire paragraph on Ryan's positions on "global warming" sourced to Algore's blog? --Kenatipo speak! 21:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This should probably be sourced better or removed.192.41.81.68 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Some sources: an editorial he wrote on the subject general environmental policy Klein column at the Post a13ean (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there's no question of reliable sources here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but how do we make up for the deficit in editorial judgment? --Kenatipo speak! 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The text was taken directly from the blog which we can probably agree is not reputable. This section should be removed, then it should be rewritten with acceptable sources.Slowtalk (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material from the page, we can work on a sourced rewrite here before reinserting:

Ryan does not believe in climate science or global warming, has "accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to 'intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.' Ryan has voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate White House climate advisers, to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state, and to eliminate the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E)." [12]

Slowtalk (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


From the horse's mouth: http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=193671 - that info is a primary source, so we need to find secondary sources referring to these statements. Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/do-paul-ryan-and-mitt-romney-disagree-on-energy-policy/ Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And http://business.financialpost.com/2012/08/14/what-is-paul-ryans-view-on-u-s-energy-strategy/ Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The above article, starts with this, which could be summarized: "Representative Paul Ryan is skeptical that humans are changing the earth’s climate and supports tax breaks for oil producers, positions that will ease concerns among conservatives over Mitt Romney’s record on energy and the environment, according to a Republican energy analyst. Ryan, whom Romney picked to be his vice presidential running mate, is “in the mainstream” of Republican thinking on energy and environmental issues, said Mike McKenna, an oil industry lobbyist and president of MWR Strategies Inc. in Washington." Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Anyone object? Slowtalk (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We can't use that summary, as it is a direct copy/paste from that article. We need to create one. Would you want to give it a go? Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If I were to summarize it I would go with one sentence: "Ryan supports mainstream republican views on climate change and energy policy."Slowtalk (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's OK under WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB to use an direct quote from an editorial to illustrate the author's views. The previous version is a decent start (with the sources fixed). a13ean (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User feedback change from V4 to V5

Users from the general public will now be able to provide feedback on whether they found the information they were looking for, as well as other general comments. The new V5 version of User Feedback is being rolled out gradually to articles for testing. As an example of the extreme pressures placed on articles during fast-moving current events, this article will make an excellent test for the new feedback system. This version replaces the old V4 system of feedback, where users were only able to rate the page. Periodically, one of the page stewards should view the feedback provided, and take appropriate action. The talk page now has a "View User Feedback" link for those who have selected this option. More information can be found here: WP:AFT5. "Featured" feedback should be actionable feedback, rather than praise. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Poorly Explained Removal

It's this edit by Mesconsing that "fails verification". The cited source features this exact quote: "According to the watchdog Web site GovTrack.us, Ryan has signed on as a co-sponsor for 975 bills. Of those, 22 percent were sponsored by Democrats. By this measure, he is slightly more bipartisan than the average Republican, with a figure of 19 percent." In this case, perhaps the editor did not make it to the second page?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I looked through the article by doing a search on key words and didn't find anything that seemed to support the statement. Thanks for making the correction. I'm just trying to make sure that a BLP, and a high profile one at that, is up to snuff. Thanks again for alerting me to the problem, but in the future please assume good faith. Mesconsing (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweak to Romney selection text

On August 11, 2012, Mitt Romney chose Ryan to be his running mate, making him...

should be:

On August 11, 2012, Mitt Romney announced Ryan as his running mate, making Ryan... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvandivo (talkcontribs) 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits without references

I have reverted a recent edit that used Rassmusen polls only that was undue weight to that polling site and not written in prose, but bullet pointed giving too much emphasis to the information. It also had an external link in the body of the article. On top of that...no references. If you add anything that may be disputed to a Wikipedia article it must be verifiable and to do that you must add a reliable source in the form of an inline citation next to the claim! Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some Components of the Article are not Encyclopedic

Ex: "His father’s death provided Ryan with Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday, which he saved to pay for his education at Miami University of Ohio." This appears to be relatively trivial information. What is its importance in the context of the article? Just because it is sourced does not make it notable information. It doesn't help that one of the sources is a "10 Things You Didn't Know" list, which reads a bit like a list of random trivia. ClodSquad (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What does the title have to do with the reference's credibilty or reliablity? All three references are good. It has encyclopedic value as information pertaining to his younger years. It was an income that pertained to his father's death as reasonable to mention as an inheritance.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the Objectivism issue, it would be POV for us to omit this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Even without it, the fact that the income paid for college because he saved it, etc. is also as worthy a mention as a scholarship.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant biographical information, so I see no reason to exclude it. Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was added to contrast Ryan's stance on SS with his own use of it when he was a child, rather POVish IMO. Read up on the archives, it is discussed there. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I've found that what's POVish in your opinion tends to be quite neutral, while what's neutral is, in your opinion, POVish. In other words, calibrating for past experience, I read this as an endorsement. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not suprised you would make a statement like that. Here is one of the edits during the initial insertion with the edit summary (If you can't see the connection between collecting social security as a child and then trying to change the system to deny people who need help when their families are hit by tragedy, then... It is biographical fact related to his current political) Arzel (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the claim false? Is it undue? Or do you just dislike it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I simply stated why it was originally included, you appparently just want to be an ass about it. Arzel (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You're going to have to be more civil than that if you don't want your arguments dismissed outright on the basis of your poor behavior. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not making insinuations about the motives of the subject's inclusion. Rather, I am questioning whether the information passes the notability test. It seems like arbitrary trivia, much along the lines of what his favorite food might be or what his preferred cartoon program was when he was young. ClodSquad (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think it that notable, however it is/was a political inclusion. Ryan is certainly not unique (I have a relative that had the same circumstance), but the wording makes it sound like his experience was unusual, when the only unusual aspect is that Ryan is a politician who wishes to make changes to SS. Arzel (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As healthy as Ryan is known to be and how much he is supposed to take care of himself, in his biography, his favorite food may be of interest. If his favorite cartoon had stronger context in his life then just being something that amused him as a child for a short period...yes, we would include it. I suggest you look at some GA or FA rated biographies to see how much of this information is included. This isn't a pamplet to impress his base or upset his opposition...it's his Wikipedia article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with you on this matter. It seems very relevant just how he paid for college, regardless of whether some editor mentioned it in some pathetic partisan attempt to score points. Arzel, besides being uncivil, is engaging in the genetic fallacy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have anything valuable to add or simply juvinile personal attacks? Arzel (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments continue to be uncivil and counterproductive. I sense a pattern here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Also Arzel, it is "unusual" to find ones father dead in bed when you're 16. This had to be an important part of this figures life and the details of how this effected him are important.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean that was unusual, only that recieving SS benefits is not unusual. Arzel (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not call each other "asses". We are here to Collaborate not to Debilitate. We are here to edit, not attack. If we all respect each other as fellow editors we can prevent alot of wasted time. Collaborators have always disagreed throughout the history of collaboration....but they didn't attack each other. The Campaigns have just begun. Let's be an example to the Real World and show them what Wikipedia Editors are really capable of. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Krugman

Two editors have tried to remove any mention of Paul Krugman's Nobel prize.[33][34][35]

One of them has a history of over-the-top POV[36], while the other freely admitted that he considered Krugman a "clown with a column"[37]. Not coincidentally, the context is Krugman expressing disagreement with Ryan. On the whole, I think this firmly establishes that the reason for these edits is to make Krugman's disagreement seem less significant. As such, it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No idea why they are removing that info. People reading need to know who is making these comments. Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have an idea of why, but it's not related to Wikipedia policy or what's good for the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't include honnorifics outside the intitial mention in the BLP of the person. It is clearly being used here to puff up the claim made by Krugman, and it doesn't help that Krugman has turned from economist to partisan commentator over the past few years. Furthermore, once you start including the honorrific titles of some you have include them for all. After your contentious discussion regarding "Conservative" above I would have thought you had come to some rational level of thought. Why should we not label Krugman a Liberal since he calls himself that and it is a dominant aspect of his opinion? Arzel (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment. "Nobel prize winner" is not an honorific. Examples of honorifics are given in the article that you linked - see also honorific. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is. They're called Nobel Laureate which wasn't the term used but it was close enough. ViriiK (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See laureate and throughout Nobel Prize. The word is a noun and is not capitalized. You don't call a Nobel winner "Laureate" when you are being respectful to them (which is what an honorific is). Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree (it is an honorific). The information would be reasonable on the Krugman article, but seems to be undue weight for the Krugman mention here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't add up. We're talking about a couple of words, not a page, and it's due precisely because it saves the reader from having to click just to answer the obvious question on their minds: "Who is this Krugman clown and why should I care what he thinks about economics?". Take away the answer to that and you're left with "clown", and that's not WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Strawman arguments do not improve your argument. No one is arguing that he should be labeled a clown. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
However, you call them a "Nobel Laureate", not just "Laureate" to give a reader the knowledge of what kind of Laureate they're referring to. The Nobel Prize is very well known out there which the people named are more known than say Congressional Medal of Honor winners. Here's the top ones that people know [38] [39] [40] [41] and the list goes on. The term is an honorific one. Especially it's being described as so here [42] ViriiK (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────At this moment, the article calls him an "economist and columnist". This is underwhelming to the point of inaccuracy. The relevance of being a columnist is not clear, and while he is indeed an economist, I find it strange that certain parties are edit-warring to remove mention of the fact that he's a Nobel laureate in economics, which would properly calibrate his level of expertise. The version I'm supporting would be no longer than the current one, but more focused and comprehensive. Unless you really just want him to look like a clown (as one editor does), I can't see why you would oppose this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, a policy based reasoning has been given and repeated. We don't discussthe honorifics of a critic of the subject. It is percieved as puffing up the author with undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not an honorific, it's a qualification. We're not calling him Lord Right Reverend His Holiness, are we? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to purge Krugman's Nobel-prize winning status from the article as well. ClodSquad (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. Why? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(ViriiK) Note that your Google results bring up article titles, where capitalization is expected. I don't want to debate, and I'm not going to put it back in; I'm just pointing it out, and maybe it's a common enough mistake that it's now become common usage, thus no longer a mistake, etc. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it isn't just article titles. People have used that term to describe Paul Krugman or those other people as a method of honoring them for the works. Except maybe for Barack Obama? /sarc Anyways I can open up JSTOR and it'll reveal the same kind of result outside of Google. The point is it's being used in the same form as it is here which gives it UNDUE balance. ViriiK (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to check to see if a MOS exists for titles? In any case, how are honorifics used though out the rest of this article? That should give you some clues as how to treat Klugman. Little green rosetta (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was wrongly thinking of awards, but an "honorific" is a title. Yes the MOS for this says nothing about the use of the term Noble Laureate or laaureate alone when describing a third person, however i still see it as undue weight here. I am sure there is no need to qualify Krugman in prose. he is an established expert to crticize Ryan and there is no need to puff it up.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Reducing him to a "columnist" is not neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Nor is raising him up. Credit him simply as Paul Krugman, Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times. That is the description at the NYT. Krugman OP-Ed page--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "Nobel laureate" is a descriptor, just like "Pulitzer Prize-winning". It is not a title. So far all the examples presented are of titles used as forms of address, including the examples shown at MOS:HONORIFIC. "The Most Honorable" or "His Holiness" are forms of address, whereas "Nobel laureate" is a descriptor. To keep clear the distinction between a title and a descriptor, think about how you might address someone - as "The Most Honorable Soandso", but never as "Nobel laureate Soandso". Terms such as "Pulitzer-prize winning" and "Nobel laureate" are used all the time in professional writing. There are hundreds of examples to be found on WP, and not just in the articles of those achieving those distinctions. The reason those descriptors are used is to demonstrate the qualifications or credibility of the person, not because of peacockery. If you're going to remove "Nobel laureate", then you may as well remove all the other person descriptors in the article: columnist, journalist, economist, Democrat, Republican... If we don't allow Krugman to be described as a Nobel laureate, then why should we allow Roemer to be described as ambassador to India or Fehrnstrom to be described as a senior Romney adviser? Mesconsing (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is more than just a descripter. It is used here as a qualifier for Krugman that is undue weight to him. An Ambassador is a title as well, but more importantly it is the position held. Krugman is a columnist. the fact that he won an award is to random to mention in this context. It is attempting to over qualify the source. It isn't needed to identify the person and show how he is qualifyed to be used as an expert on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's a qualifier. So is ambassador to India. Both are needed to show their possessor's qualifications. How else would someone know of their distinguished credentials? And the Nobel Prize is hardly a random award! Mesconsing (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine, Amadscientist, when you win a Nobel Prize, you can pretend it's just some award. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Nobel Prize in random no matter how much importance or lack thereof you may percieve. It has no value here but to prop up a source to seem more important than needed. How does his winning the award have bearing on his credentials. He is the Nobel Prize winning author, but that does nothing to add to his qualifications unless they have direct bearing on what Krugman is saying. Is there direct context to the prize Krugman was awarded and his critcism of Ryan?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He won the Nobel Prize in economics, not literature, and he's critiquing Ryan's budget plan. I'd say there's a direct bearing between expertise in economics and federal fiscal policy. Mesconsing (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be the reason I brought it up there, Mesconsing. I can see this only if it is mentioned as "Paul Krugman, Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times and Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences". Sometimes you have to be blatant with it for the right context to get across. That would be reasonable to me and not undue weight to Krugman as it is a qualifier for his use here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Where are we on this? No consensus or leaning towards inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It has been my experience that these types of award honors are not used in these types of circumstances. The goal here is to try and impart that because he won a Nobel prize his opinion is more valuable. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, that would be the simple truth. There are tons of partisan economists, clueless statisticians and other "experts", yet only a handful get Nobel Prizes. So, yes, you're admitting that hiding his Nobel prize is your way of discrediting his expert opinion. Thanks for your candor! And now, with that out of the way, do we have any arguments against mentioning his qualifications or do we need to hit WP:NPOVN to end your filibuster? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What is your problem? After being completely irrational a couple of weeks ago you seemed to turn a corner and actually discuss issues. Now you seem to have reverted your attitude back again. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets poll it out and see where it goes.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Obama has won a Nobel Prize too. So, does that mean, that everytime Obama is mentioned, it should be preceded by "the Nobel laureate"...? --128.214.214.106 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Nobel for what? Peace. When Obama wins one for Economics, we'll bring it up whenever he makes claims about economics, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize was unrelated to Krugman's political opinion column. When they give a prize for such columns, then consider it. Collect (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that he has a column (it's merely being used as a source of his opinions in this instance). His notability is derived from him being a professor of economics and a Nobel prize winner. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And we are citing his op-ed political column -- not his economics text. So it is not "irrelevant that he has a column". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see any relevance to that. For example, if he posted it on a personal blog; would we cite him as "blogger Paul Krugman"? No, we would still cite him as an economist, it is what he is notable for. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll

Should author, Paul Krugman be described with the additional information of his Nobel laureate status/title/honorific in Economic Sciences with his quote or criticism in the article?

  1. Weak Support - I can see this go either way but I am inclined to support this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - Without mentioning his expertise, he mistakenly comes across as some clueless op-ed backseat driver. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  3. Nope Not done in other articles. Generally the bluelink is a clue to readers that Wikipedia has an article on the person. And the added information does not add weight to the person's political opinion columns. On politics, Krugman mwy well be a backseat driver - his work on economics for the Nobel Prize is not related to his opinions expressed in his political column. Collect (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His knowledge of economics, as testified to by the Nobel prize, is precisely why he has a column that allows him to criticize Ryan's economic plan. Economics is what he knows. He's not some columnist with an associate's in economics from a third-rate community college; he's a well-respected expert in his field, first and foremost. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And his column is specifically an editorial column on politics -- for which he has no Nobel prize. I would like you to also note that the NYT Public Editor Daniel Okrent criticised him for his columns in the past as not being straight with his use of "facts." He is not an "expert" on politics, just an op-ed writer on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In the article he is being used for his economics opinion, and not for general politics. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that for a second, and anyone that has been reading Krugman for the past few years would find that difficult to believe as well. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. Your skepticism is not an argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. No Per many of the excellent reasons given by Collect. The objection raised by Still is a Strawman argument. Krugman is well known, people know who he is, to claim that the honoriffic is needed so as not to confuse his with a community college degree holder is quite the hyperbole. Additionally, with his blog "The mind of a consience liberal" (or something like that) he has gone from economic commentor to liberal opinionator. As Collect noted he has during the last few years been criticzed for his blurring of facts, he has even reached the point of going against basic economics in order to attack republican positions. It is really sad that he has let his politics so completely cloud his economic principles. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Dr. Krugman's article is the place to equivocate. Per Still-24-45-42-125. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  3. Yes - Opinions vary on this subject, but when an opinion is given by a Nobel prize winner in Economics, that opinion carry more weight than the opinion of a blogger, or TV anchor. Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  4. Strong support -
a. The term "Nobel Prize-winning" is used all the time in WP to describe commentators giving their opinions. Here are just a few examples: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].
b. Every other expert in the article has his qualifications described. To intentionally leave Krugman out would be POV.
c. Anyone who has read his column would know that it's largely about economics and the intersection of economics and politics.
d. Krugman is being cited for his own opinion on an economic matter, not a political matter.
e. Given the comments above, obviously his credibility is in question. The term is needed to demonstrate his expertise. -- Mesconsing (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
a. Food Security does not use the term for Krugman. How about all the times that Krugman is not cited as such? Most of those articles are pretty obscure with only the SA of 2008 being notable, and in that case appropriate.
b. His qualification is not obmitted. Being a nobel winner is not a qualification of anything.
c. They used to be, now they are almost purely politics.
d. This is a political discussion, not an economic theory discussion.
e. His credibility is not being questioned on the page, thus the puffery on the page is not needed. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His recent opinion piece doesn't even discuss specific economic aspects of Ryan, it is nothing but political attacks. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His 8/15 piece throws out tired DMC talking point that "canceling the expansion of coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which would mean lost insurance for tens of millions of Americans – thousands of whom would, in fact, die as a result." IE, people Ryan's plan kills people. Does this sound like economic theory or pure political attack? Arzel (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like economic policy analysis to me. Policy analysis always includes an assessment of the effects, intended and unintended, of the policy being considered. Mesconsing (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. Strongly Oppose - These descriptors are only used to inflate the weight of this person's opinion and POV biases their claims away from a NPOV. And if this is not mentioned in the reference this also violates WP:NOR. Honorific titles have no place but the BLP of the person under discussion. Stating Krugman is an economist and columnist is appropriate and acceptable as a NPOV. Krugman did not receive a Nobel Prize for his criticism of Ryan's economic plans. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. No - If Krugman were talking about international trade, it might make sense. Here he's writing an op-ed about politics, not an academic paper in his area of expertise, so Nobel laureate doesn't belong. I'll go one further--it's not neutral and disinterested to allow Krugman to insult Ryan in his bio by calling his budget a "sham." This section needs to be rewritten if we even decide to keep it. Mforg (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  3. No - Adding "Nobel laureate" gives Krugman's political opinions undue weight. And, for all the other reasons given by Collect, Arzel, JournalScientist and Mforg. (and because, for all their expertise, some laureates are correctly perceived to turn out to be clueless op-ed backseat drivers). --Kenatipo speak! 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support Also, oppose mentioning he is a columnist since it doesn't contribute to his notability in a significant way. This is an international encyclopedia, him being a columnist means little outside the USA, him being a Nobel prize winning economist matters more. And the text he is being cited for is about economics, read it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  5. Oppose obviously Since this is an opinion piece and his Nobel award has no bearing whatsoever on the reference. If anything, it should say NYT columnist since it demonstrates he is giving his opinion or commentary on an issue. In the same fashion as Obama attacking Romney or Ryan. Should we change references of Obama to Nobel laureate President Obama? No, it doesn't belong. ViriiK (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: there is no policy requiring that we mention the Nobel Prize. The only policy which could apply discourages the use of honorifics. Let's apply the policy that we have--it works fine.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Nobel prize isn't important in relation to the opinion piece and serves to 'prop up' Krugman's opinion rather than serve an encyclopedic purpose - the title could also clearly be interpreted as an honorific. We don't note that the Beatles are a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band on every page they are mentioned, nor do we note that Angelina Jolie has won an Academy Award in front of every comment she makes. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Kenatipo, and blue link. I can't even fathom why we are having this discussion in the first place.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
     
    19:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't fathom why we're having this discussion either. It's seems so obvious that presenting someone's qualifications to comment on economic matters is a rational and reasonable thing to do. Mesconsing (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Aye's clearly have it by numerical count. In my completely unbiased opinion(tm), the arguments for Nay seem rather unsubstantial, difficult to distinguish from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh? I see 5 to 4 -- of which one of your "ayes" is weak" And one is you. And since the Nays cite Wikipedia policies, your "finding" that policies are "unsubstantial" is exceedingly weak for your desire to self-close here. Collect (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's 5 to 5. (Does anyone know how to fix the autonumbering problem?) --Kenatipo speak! 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's 5 to 5, and ViriiK and ClodSquad haven't even notvoted yet. Face-smile.svg --Kenatipo speak! 21:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Too bad we're not voting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Vote counts are always pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. No Prefacing a comment by giving the commenter's background or titles/honorifics/awards is in effect making an argument on a WP page by putting two facts together. The arguments in a Krugman editorial should stand on their own, and if people want to check them out, the fact of a blue wikilink should be sufficient and appropriate and easy to note the prominence of a commenter. It is essentially saying; source x, who won debate a, now is commenting on debate z.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's more like; source x, who is an expert in y, now is commenting on debate z (which is plainly about y). It explains why we're even quoting x. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've turned it into an RfC, we can let it run for 4-5 days. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite overkill

The article contains cite overkill. Regular content doesn't need 3 or 4 citations. Citations can be merged together where they aren't used separately or be removed when they are superfluous. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Due to how contentious some of the material is, it is safer to leave most of the additional citations. For multiple reasons, including link breakage and notability. Merging would require a great deal of care and who is going to decide which citation is superfluous? I have not heard the complaint that a Wikipedia page was too well referenced as it is usually the exact opposite. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
See WP:OVERCITE for a discussion about it. If there are three reliable references for the same content, and it's not controversial then there is no issue with removing one or two of them; over citing looks messy and makes the references harder to follow. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not a policy on Wikipedia but an essay, thus there can be an issue removing them. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an issue. When article of this type begins to gather references this fast and with this many, chances are many are being used wrong...and a great deal of them are not formatted correctly. Removal of references is no more an issue than removing any other content...which is difficult enough. But references should probably be checked through and have all none-reliable sources removed and formating made as inline citations.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you just merge the three or four references on one issue all under one citation mark? That's the regular custom in scientific essays: for example [cite 1] Jones 1998, p. 25; Davis 2005, p. 100; Sherman 2008, p. 450. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disawoval

"Mitt Romney on Wednesday unequivocally disavowed more than $700 billion in Medicare spending cuts proposed by his new running mate, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin." [52] - We should add something of this. Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a little misleading. For one, the cuts are already in the law. Obama cut Medicare by $700 billion with the AHCA (Obamacare) and placed that money into the AHCA. This report clarrifies the position better. Ryan wanted to take the $700 billion in cuts that Obama made to Medicare and put them into the Medicare trust fund to strengthen Medicare for the future. Romney said he would just restore the $700 billion in cuts that Obama made directly to Medicare. There doesn't appear to be a great difference between the two positions. Both would repeal the AHCA cuts to Medicare. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a good opinion, which you are entitled to, but that is not what the source says. Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We need to avoid precisely this sort of WP:OR and stick to the sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Did either of you even read the source that I presented? Arzel (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Obamacare"

This edit by TheTimesAreAChanging [53] "No edit summary to explain; previous rationale was to use Obamacare as the common name".

Can you point out where that rationale was discussed? Given that this is the first time the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is mentioned in the article, I think it is necessary to include the full name, followed by the nickname. After all this is an encyclopedia, and a person may come up to this article without the knowledge to understand what this is. Cwobeel (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"The term "Obamacare" was originally coined by opponents, notably Mitt Romney in 2007, as a pejorative term." - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Term "Obamacare". It is not a neutral word, so please use the official title of the act in this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Surprisingly you both are not making this argument for "The Bush Tax Cuts". I discussed it here, [54]. I attempted to change "The Bush Tax Cuts" and such to their proper legislature names for a NPOV but "Neutrality" changed this back to their "common names". He did not apply this method to the rest of the page so I made this change he missed. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
These have been changed to their proper legislature names for a NPOV. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The term "Bush tax cuts" was created and popularized by critics of Bush. The argument that "Bush tax cuts" is the common name for the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", but "Obamacare" is not the common name for the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", seems untenable. The official names of such laws are designed to have positive connotations, and the PPACA shouldn't be treated differently than the "Bush tax cuts". Incidentally, "Neutrality" seems to have trouble living up to his name.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Discuss the Bush tax cuts in the article in which that is being used. Here we are discussing the use of "Obamacare" without a prior explanation of what that means. Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Obamacare is mentioned in the source. How many sources would you like me to locate on this? Let me know. Either it is Bush Tax Cuts and Obamacare or just the legislature names I will not accept anything else as a NPOV. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I see it is being used here as well. We should use the full name of the law/act and provide the aka as well, in all instances. Cwobeel (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I will accept any of these options, 1. only the legislature names, 2. only "bush tax cuts" and "obamacare" or 3. legislature name (bush tax cuts) + legislature name (obamacare) - no other descriptors. That is three very fair options for a NPOV. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. It looks like only Neutrality disagrees at this point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Neutrality" continues to edit the page without engaging in talk. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Now he is replacing sources. It appears I will have to get an administrator involved. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What ridiculousness.
First, yes, I'm replacing Breitbart with the New York Times article about the repeal vote, and the roll-call record that the NYT published alongside it (showing Ryan's vote). Whenever possible, citations to well-known newspapers trump blogs. I also added another source from Forbes on Ryan and health care reform.
I also just found out that we have an article, Bush tax cuts, that discusses both the 2001 and 2003 tax-reforms. I've linked it here.
It is patently incorrect to say the phrase "Bush tax cuts" is pejorative, as is evidenced that we have an article under that title! There is zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that "the term ... was created and popularized by critics of Bush" and shouldn't be used.
Many, many news outlets refer to the term; e.g. WSJ; WSJ again; CNBC; UPI (the wire service); Politico; Washington Post; Washington Post again, and it goes on and on. Neutralitytalk 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How many outlets routinely use the term "Obamacare"? And did you just cite Wikipedia as a source?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And just to demonstrate how untenable the assertion that "Bush tax cuts" is somehow the wrong term, let me remind you that conservatives and strong supporters of the 2001 and 2003 laws also use this term:
Keep the Bush Tax Cuts - National Review
Extend the Bush Tax Cuts Now - 'National Review
DNC Spokesman: Some of Bush’s Tax Cuts Helped the Middle Class - National Review
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - The Heritage Foundation
Game of Chicken over Bush Tax Cuts Is Near - Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (published in Roll Call)
Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked - Jeffrey Miron of the Cato Institute (published in the NYT).
Nobody - seriously nobody - can seriously contend that the phrase is somehow biased in light of its use by conservative, well-respected sources Neutralitytalk 05:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You cannot use the existence of the Wikipedia page as an argument. This destroys your so-called argument,
Democrats Embrace Once Pejorative ‘Obamacare’ Tag (published in the NYT). --JournalScholar (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I ask why is "neutrality" insisting on biasing the page to his POV? --JournalScholar (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Respected newspapers tend to use "health law" or "health reform law" in headlines, and that's how we should use it here. Some recent examples:
Health care law’s big tax hikes hit the wealthiest 2 percent _ others also caught in the net - Washington Post (Aug. 9)
Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many - NY Times (Aug. 11
Repeal of Health Care Law Approved, Again, by House - NY Times (July 11)
Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law - Washington Post (June 28)
Supreme court upholds healthcare reforms in triumph for Obama - Guardian (June 28)
Obama's healthcare reforms: your guide to the key provisions (June 28)
~Look, yes, the term "Obamacare" has been used by both supporters and detractors; but it's still a politically-charged term. We should use descriptive language, not sloganeering either for or against. Neutralitytalk
Then why are you using "Bush Tax Cuts"? --JournalScholar (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Because, as exhaustively explained above, "Bush tax cuts" is not a political slogan. It's a descriptive term universally used in mainstream media and in conservative sources and think tanks. Neutralitytalk 05:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No you just decided it was not. Obamacare is used by both sides just like Bush Tax Cuts which is also used negatively by Obama supporters. I consider "Obamacare" to be a universally used mainstream media descriptive term as well and this has been exhaustively proven to you. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And as a reminder to all concerned, please no personal attacks (i.e., insinuating that others are "out to bias" the article). I've been devoted to this project for years and on this particular article I've added many, many paragraphs of content (almost 100% of which is uncontroversial), and have changed wording, added further citations, and made other changes, all to try to break logjams and make a quality article of which we can all be proud. I'm willing to continue to be flexible, as I think I always try to be. But I ask you not to personally attack any editor, including me. It is not only ridiculous and silly - it also is not tolerated on wiki. Neutralitytalk 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody - seriously nobody - can seriously contend that the phrase is somehow biased in light of its use by liberal, well-respected sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And the list can go on. Its interesting that you used two cites from the leftist British Guardian. Every WSJ and Forbes article uses "Obamacare". TV shows tend to do so very frequently. The Chicago Sun Times, CNN, and Yahoo all use it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
As a point of comparison, you might want to look at examples of how "Romneycare" has been used in Wikipedia. Here are a few examples: Massachusetts health care reform, Mitt Romney, Republican Party presidential debates, 2012, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Maybe you can find an example there that you can all live with. Mesconsing (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You cite the Forbes as "supportive of the law," yet look at the author of the article that used the "Obamacare" term. His profile - on the page you cite - is "I explore public policy and politics and expose liberal nonsense." You make my point for me.
You can cite blogs, opinion pieces, etc. all you want, but as I said above, the term is a political slogan. It's sloganeering when it is used by the health care law's supporters no less than when used by detractors. It is not the term used in mainstream sources' formal articles as explained above by looking at the NYT/Washington Post/Guardian/other feature stories. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I was citing a bunch of articles and got confused. Forgive me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And see my second list. The WSJ uses it in every article. CNN uses it, Yahoo uses it, ect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I have other things to do now but you can easily find it used by mainstream news sources,
Romney to campaign as only hope against "Obamacare" Reuters --JournalScholar (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
They're using it in quotations in the headline because they're quoting Romney's characterization of it! The word is Romney's description, not Reuters' descriptor. This underscores my point. Neutralitytalk 06:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And it is blatantly, factually wrong to say that "every WSJ article uses 'Obamacare' in every article." The WSJ's topic page is called health reform and health care overhaul. WSJ news (not opinion) features appear not to typically use "Obamacare" either in headlines or (although there is a paywall so I cannot be sure) in running text:
Health Insurers Plan Hikes: Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic (Sept. 7, 2010)
Insurers Press GOP on Its Health-Care Agenda: Industry Wants Key Elements of Obama Administration's Overhaul Reversed, but Fears the Removal of Coverage Mandate ("Health-industry groups are pressing to roll back key provisions in the Obama administration's health-care overhaul if Republicans recapture the House, but they're also worried that the party could go too far.") (Nov. 1, 2010)
Employers Are Advised on Dropping Health Insurance ("Consultants have told some large employers they can save money by dropping health insurance in 2014 and funneling employees into insurance exchanges under the new health-care law, according to a report by congressional Republicans."] (Apr. 26, 2012)
Health Case Ripples Outward ("After three days of historic Supreme Court debate, the political world and health-care companies confronted the prospect of President Barack Obama's health law being wiped away") (Mar. 28, 2012)
Health Care Reform Timeline - interactive news feature
Neutralitytalk 06:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think every WSJ editorial on the subject that I've ever read uses "Obamacare"--but you're right. Those are just editorials. I can admit when I've lost a debate. If you eliminate all editorials/opinion pieces, TV pundits, uses of the term with quotes around it, uses of the terms in a positive manner, and cases in which it is implied to be a political term; it is used much less frequently than a sort of generic euphemism like "healthcare reform". However, the formal name (PPACA) is barely ever used in its entirety.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We can call it ObamaCare, but does that mean we should? It has an official name that works just fine. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that Neutrality did, in fact, change the wording to "2010 healthcare reform" or something like that. I'm willing to accept that revision and move on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong about the postively worded "official name", however, unless we are to always use official names.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Good - I'm ready to move on as well. Neutralitytalk 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NYT [55] seems dispositive here: Democrats Embrace Once Pejorative ‘Obamacare’ Tag, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. used the word in a recent fund-raising e-mail. Even Mr. Obama has been picking up the term, reinterpreting the meaning of Obamacare. In short - no reason for any real debate on the accepted term. Collect (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy about glittering generalities being used as well as Loaded language I believe. You do not use the name pinned on the legislation by the opponants and it is even difficult to have the actual names of the legilation itself used because they are almost always meant to be powerful glittering generalities. Healthcare reform is how it should be refered unless you are quoting and then only if consensus agrees.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the Democrats do not regard it as pejorative at this point. Thus "loaded language" does not apply here. Many pieces of legislation are referred to by other than their "official names" which are frequently afield of what the legislation actually is - "Affordable Care Act" conveys very little about the laws. The official name is not "Healthcare Reform" AFAICT. And since the NYT routinely uses the term, I think your battle has been well and truly lost. Collect (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not assume to know what all Democrats feel or think. Nothing you stated above is part of the policy. It is loaded wording.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Sham" Budget

It's not neutral and disinterested to allow Krugman to insult Ryan in his bio by calling his budget a "sham." This section needs to be rewritten. I propose we undo this revision. [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mforg (talkcontribs) 05:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is. Read WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I have, thank you for the link. To quote, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." I don't think "sham" is neutral in tone and I think my rewrite is more encyclopedic and neutral. That's no knock on Mr. Krugman; he was writing an opinion piece and was not trying to sound disinterested. I think my rewrite fixes the tone issue. Do you disagree that "sham" is not neutral? Mforg (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between "sourced information" that is written by WP editors and quotes from the original source. To selectively excerpt quotes from a source so that they appear less negative (or positive) than they really are is deceptive and, without a doubt, POV. Mesconsing (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say I selectively excerpted quotes; I removed *all* quotes from the Krugman article and summarized his argument instead. I didn't think the other articles quoted in that section had serious neutrality issues, but if you think we should summarize them as well I would support that. To quote from WP:NPOV again, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Mforg (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV calls for the tone of the article to be neutral, not the tone of any given paragraph or sentence. If criticisms are balanced by praise, as they are in this article, then the overall tone is neutral. For any controversial subject, such as Ryan's budget, it is important to show the array of opinions on the matter, and not to refactor the opinions of those holding them. Mesconsing (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you up until "and not to refactor the opinions of those holding them." What about "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone?" Mforg (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem with trying to summarize others' arguments is that in any contentious article, such as this one, anytime one editor tries to characterize some notable opinion, another editor is going to complain that that characterization is unfair, or inaccurate, or misleading, or (you name it). That's probably why this article is rife with quotes. Summarizing opinions is only one small part of the WP:NPOV policy. It's probably not possible to follow it to every last detail, but I think we're all struggling to be fair with this article, even if not every last NPOV i is dotted or t crossed. I'd also ask you to consider: It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. (WP:NPOVFAQ). Thanks for your contributions. Mesconsing (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I see we disagree on the wisdom of quoting editorials in these contentious BLP's, then. If you look at other contentious articles like Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney, they all use less quotes and the ones that they do use are either from the biographical subject or neutral in tone. I think those articles are better than this one in part because of the way they handle quotes, and I'm striving to make this article more like them.
But back to specifics--I've read through the Krugman article and it's not described accurately at the moment. For example we say "Krugman criticized Ryan's contention that his plan would reduce the deficit," but he's actually criticizing the Washington Post's claim that the plan will reduce the deficit, which was based on a CBO report that only focused on the spending cuts in the plan. This obviously needs to be changed, so I may have been missing the forest for the trees worrying about the word "sham." I'll have a go at this unless someone gets to it first. Mforg (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How about: ""Krugman criticized the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit." Mesconsing (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The CBO doesn't just focus on spending cuts in its calculations, and Ryan does claim that his plan will reduce the deficit. The language suggested by Mesconsing was how it was written originally. It can't be said that the text is misrepresenting Krugman. It's also not clear that his opinion has been given undue weight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the problem with the original complaint is not a part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Krugman does not have to be neutral nor do we as editors have to scrubb his comments to be less offensive. If he said it, we are not supposed to write it to be sensitive to those that might be offended. That is actually the policy. I say leave it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The section in question has indeed been balanced with a mainstream counter argument that is of the same level of credential and mainstream thought. Balance is only needed IF there is a mainstream counter argument published of equal prominence as is done here. There is no need remove the wording from Krugman.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mesconsing, I think the language you suggest would be an improvement over what we've got.

TheTimesAreAChanging, it's Krugman's point that the CBO just focused on spending cuts. To quote him, "But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts." The actual claim that he's refuting in the article is the Washington Post's that "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020."

What's the meat of the argument here that would be appropriate to include in Ryan's bio? If we find a source where Ryan says that his plan will cut the deficit in half by 2020, Krugman's point about that would be relevant. If not, his criticism of the Post isn't particulary important. His important points that are worthy of inclusion are that 1) Ryan's plan doesn't specify what he'd cut from discretionary spending, 2) it's politically difficult to reduce spend on Medicare, and 3) that Ryan's plan is no more effective at reducing the the deficit than Obama's. Mforg (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is neither the point nor the current consensus. The Krugman quote is a criticism and is a legitimate single word quote used appropriatly and within policy and guidelines. None of you argument gets to the meat of your actual reasoning against inclusion and it is your point of view of what Krugman's point was. All the chat about the budget is just that, chat. It is not a discussion to improve the article now. You are discussing points of the budget trying to argue what they mean. This isn't a message board. What does any of that have to do with your original contention that the word "sham" be removed?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the Krugman piece is not described accurately in our article. Please give it a close read and see my point below. I still don't think "sham" belongs, but as I got into the weeds here I found some more serious factual errors, so let's fix those first. Right now I'm not making an argument about the neutrality of using "sham" but I thought it made sense to keep the discussion here; I can split it out if that's more appropriate.
We say "Krugman "criticized Ryan's contention," but where's that contention? We don't have a cite for it, and I haven't been able to find one. The contention Krugman criticizes in the article is from the Post, and it's pretty specific--that the plan "would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020." If Ryan echoes that somewhere, we could include this. Krugman's point about ignoring revenue lost from tax cuts is only relevant in the context of this strong claim from the Post and the particular CBO estimate he's referring to.
By the way, Krugman doesn't call the budget plan a sham, he says "the supposed budget savings from the Ryan plan are a sham." He does call it a fraud, so if we're going to use "sham" or "fraud," we should use fraud.
I'm going to go ahead and correct this as right now we have a factual error in a BLP. Mforg (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The CBO applied the same economic assumptions to Ryan’s plan that it applied when making projections about Obama’s budget and current law. Ryan’s plan assumed that Congress enacted a tax reform that kept revenues slightly above historic averages; it was "revenue neutral" with respect to the tax code as it existed following Bush’s tax cuts. If Krugman disagreed with the CBO's projections, then that is his opinion, not the fact it is currently presented as. The Washington Post didn't create the claim you mention out of thin air.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I trimmed the whole "In 2010, citing data from the Tax Policy Center, economist and columnist Paul Krugman criticized a Congressional Budget Office report that had been described in The Washington Post that said that Ryan's plan would cut the deficit in half by 2020" to "Economist and columnist Paul Krugman, citing data from the Tax Policy Center, criticized a Congressional Budget Office report that said that Ryan's plan would cut the deficit in half by 2020". There's no need for so many qualifiers before we hear what Krugman has to say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Book reference

I found this while doing some research and thought the Paul Ryan section of this book could be used to reference a few other peices of information that could have encyclopedic value. I didn't read through it much but found that the section is written by Ryan and I saw a few things he speaks about in his personal life. As a biography the article is very heavy with political information and I won't begin to criticise that as undue weight...but adding more about the figure that is from his own words and about him personaly can't hurt. The book "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders" by Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy (Threshold Editions; Original edition (September 14, 2010)) may not be everyone's cup of tea but it seems to be a perfectly reliable source, a book reference (desperately needed as they do not become dead links) and in the words of the figure himself. A preview is available on Google books.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not available at my local public library. Could we list it in a Further Reading section? 71.139.143.39 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it can.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collaborators not Adversaries

Please do not call each other "asses" or use other attack methods. We are here to Collaborate not to Debilitate. We are here to edit, not attack. If we all respect each other as fellow editors we can prevent alot of wasted time. Collaborators have always disagreed throughout the history of collaboration....but they didn't attack each other. The Campaigns have just begun. Let's be an example to the Real World and show them what Wikipedia Editors are really capable of. The "back-and-forth" between editors MUST be congenial. The Campaigns will end...and WE will still be fellow editors.```Buster Seven Talk 09:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I'm doing my best to be civil and collegial. If you see any place where I'm falling short, I encourage you to point this out to me. Whether you wish to do this for others is your call. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Having experienced the volitility of the Sarah Palin talk pages in the last election, my desire is to gently remind editors from both sides when we are veering off course. My firm intention and promise is not to edit the article or participate in any support/oppose/neutral discussion. I'm not sure which but one of the Major Magazines has already commented on this articles talk pages, comparing them to the heated early days of the 2008 campaign. Anyone paying attention over the last decade has seen or heard the increased vitriol in the media, talk radio, etc. Let's not be a part of it. I know the issues and differences are important, presenting Mr. Ryan in a fair and impartial way is important and victory in November is important to everyone here. Wikipedia is also Important. Our prestige in the Marketplace of Information is important. 'nuff said. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, here Buster! Well said. I know that there are many editors now taking a new approach to interacting with other editors in order to set as much of a civil tone as possible. The media always looks at these articles and sometimes make some note of the activity here, but then I can understand why. But we are just here to write an encyclopedic article accurately, not make headlines. I commend the editors here for their great cooperation!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wonders, "Why is B7 appointing himself the Local Sheriff?". Well, I'm not. More like the monitor at the local library. "No feet on the tables, phone use in the lobby, keep your shoes on, no sleeping, etc etc." And, of course, "No swearing or middle finger waving at each other." Work Nice and we will achieve nice work. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Aug. 14, 2012 is past

That's the day of the primary for the nomination for Ryan's U.S. House seat, with Ryan himself as the only Republican contender. (The article says he can still run for that seat although he will be tapped for the Republican V.P. nomination.) So do you have the result of that primary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I have just templated two editors engaged in edit warring: Dalej78 and Jrkarp. Both have been engaging in repeated removal of reliably sourced content:

With all the hard work editors are putting into this article, we don't need these kinds of disruptions. Mesconsing (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While their edits are disruptive, I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules broken by them, perhaps only because of the lack of hard-and-fast rules. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2008 Budget proposal

That section excludes many of the concerns and criticisms raised during that time. It was not only Krugman, Ponnuru, or Gayer. There were other notable voices. Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Such as? Mesconsing (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh... See The_Path_to_Prosperity#Reactions_and_debate Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add more, but remember why we have separate articles. We can't include every criticism here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If there is substantial criticism, we should be able to summarize it. And there is. Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just remember that this is the biography of the figure and not the article about the budget proposal itself. Some critcism is legitimate as the budget is very controversial but we must attempt to seperate what criticism there is against the figure and his policies. Yes, it is fair to add criticism of these policies and there is some. I will leave it to the general consensus of all here to determine if further criticism of his policy is appropriate and where to draw the line.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to the editors of the Paul Ryan article!

Your cooperation and civil editing has released this article from being locked. Play nice now! =)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't get too far ahead of ourselves, the article wasn't semi-protected because of editing disputes, but was SP because of vandalism, which I am sure will begin again, given the high visibility of the article.--JOJ Hutton 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It'll be back on semi-protection eventually especially when the national convention occurs. Now post-election, that's to be determined. ViriiK (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles are not preemptively protected, which I agree with. No need for such a degree, unless there is a high rate of vandalism. In those cases, an indefinite semi-protection may occur.--JOJ Hutton 20:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh I know that. I do request PP from time to time on various articles from one reason to another. For example, the 2012 Republican National Convention page, I requested semi-protection until AFTER the convention expires. The reason for this was because rabid Ron Paul fans were coming to that page to vandalize it to make it appear that Ron Paul will be on the ballot or at least skew the page to pro-Ron Paul POV's. It became so numerous that the obvious solution was to request locking it down until after the convention. That way once it was done and done, there would be no debate of what had occurred then. ViriiK (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalsim is a problem Wikiwide. I have extremely obscure articles I write and they still get vandalised. Vandalising an article will not automaticly get it protected, but only if it is a problem that seems to be occuring at an unreasonable rate. Hey...did you know the Mitt romney article has been semi-protected for months? I have never seen an article of a candidate in a major election be unlocked within a week of being protected. As long as we work together other will see this is not the article to mess with. When it happens, approach the talkpage of the editor and leave a polite note letting them know the actions were not appropriate. What may look like a vandal may just be a new editor who misinterprets our policies or knows nothing about them. Also remember that any good faith contribution, no matter how bad it seems, is not vandalsim. Be willing to lend a helping hand even to those that may appear to be on opposite sides of your own personal ideaology and much, much more can be accomplished!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears the word is out that semi protection has been unlocked. We appear to recieving a good amount a vandalism again...sad really.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS about a Daily Beast article

In this edit, Dalej claimed that the Daily Beast is not reliable. They also removed a primary source whose reliability is unquestioned. Actually, the Daily Beast has merged with Newsweek and there's no reason to believe it's unreliable. I'm not going to touch the article today, but I recommend that this change be reverted, ideally by the editor who made it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In another edit, Dalej removed a section as "conjecture and hypothesis", but didn't notice that it wasn't our conjecture. Rather, it was what reliable sources describe as the foreseeable consequences of the law. Again, this cut was a mistake that should be reverted. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In yet another, Dalej removed a phrase strongly supported by the cited source. Ok, I've changed my mind. Given the scope of these deletions, I'm going to go ahead and invoke BRD to revert them. This will mean my second revert on this article for the day, so I suppose someone could try to accuse me of edit-warring, but there's nothing to be done about that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

After my BRD revert, he did not come here to discuss his actions. Instead, he edit-warred by once again removing the part about rape and abortion. He also deleted my comment on his talk page without responding. I am officially concluding that he has gone rogue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

His next edit is also a revert, without explanation. Given that this is a BLP, such changes are unacceptable. However, I am not going to exceed 2RR, as there are far too many people who would be glad to report me to WP:3RRN regardless of the fact that I am in no way edit-warring. I instead encourage other editors to do as their conscience tells them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, even if the Daily Beast magically turned unreliable, there's no shortage of other sources that confirm the abortion rape thing. [68] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Just a thought, but the included information seems to be pushing a POV and giving undue weight to the issue in Paul's bio page. When he gets a Political Positions page that may be a better place to include this level of detailed information. Viewmont Viking (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the only way he's going to get one is if the political positions section here gets big enough to fork out. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Viewmont Viking, what Still describes is accurate. If you look at Talk:Political positions of Paul Ryan, you'll see that there was a Positions artice (I created it), but it was (foolishly IMO) deleted because there wasn't enough material. I've been waiting for others to come around. I suggest you start a thread about creating the daughter article. In the meantime, the material removed by Dalej is all perfectly proper and I'll restore it. We report facts about opinions, and this material is properly sourced and quite relevant. JamesMLane t c 16:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, just because the Daily Beast and Newsweek are now run by the same people, it doesn't necessarily bring the "Daily Beast" up to Newsweek's (marginally) reliable standards. I think the Daily Beast may be reliable, but no arguments were presented above that it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Still-24, could you suggest a less controversial, non-editorial source for this claim? I think what you might find is that reliable papers like the New York Times aren't willing to go as far as saying Ryan wants to criminalize abortion even in cases or rape or incest, because he hasn't said that himself. That claim comes from people who draw that conclusion from Ryan's voting record. For example David Axelrod, in this article.[69] We could quote an editorial, but to state it as fact in the article as we do now is going too far. Certainly the Daily Beast piece is an editorial, and so we mustn't repeat its views as fact. It's only a reliable source on the opinion of the author. We should be at least as cautions as the NYT. Mforg (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sure. Please take a look at http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/17/barack-obama/obama-says-ryan-supports-banning-all-abortions/. Note that it calls Obama's claim half true, on the basis that Ryan does make an exception for saving the life of the woman, but not for rape. I would politely suggest that this is a highly reliable source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing that makes The Daily Beast a weaker source than, for example, The Wall Street Journal, to mention another source with a clear ideological orientation. (I could have gone further and mentioned Fox News, which is regularly used as a source by some Wikipedians, but that would be shooting fish in a barrel.) It should be noted that CBS News has cited the Daily Beast item ([70]). Some Wikipedians seem to believe that the best indicia of reliability are that a source is run by a for-profit corporation and makes its money by selling advertising, so the CBS News endorsement should mean something.
It's widely reported that Ryan describes himself as being "as pro-life as a person gets." Given that plenty of politicians oppose exceptions for rape or incest, Ryan's statement is false unless he does, too. Is there a RS that states he would allow such exceptions? JamesMLane t c 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that the Daily Beast is entirely reliable for this, but it's not as if inclusion hangs on this one source. We have no shortage of them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I found this piece in the Washington Post (a suitably corporate medium) saying the same thing as the Daily Beast on this particular point. I'll add the WaPo citation, but leave in the Daily Beast citation as well because it's much more comprehensive on the issue of reproductive rights. JamesMLane t c 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not actually the Post, it's a blog hosted on the Post's website, i.e. it's an opinion piece. You might be able to compare the Daily Beast to the WSJ's opinion page, but not to the paper itself when we're talking about sources for facts, not opinions. Why don't we just use the Politifact link Still-24 cites above? Mforg (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading it again it's unfair to call that blog post an opinion piece, but the Daily Beast one certainly is. Perhaps we can rely on just the blog post and Politifact. Mforg (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Opinion pieces are normally identified as "opinion" or "op-ed" or something like that. This is listed simply as an article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A blog is an opinion peice and must be attributed to the author and publication.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is a partisan publication and therefore needs to be used with care. Reliablity of a source is broken into three parts of criteria, so as long as the author, article and publication are notable, and pass criteria (as determined by "reliable sources" policy, the only other issue would be the appropriatness of using a liberal partisan publication for this reference. Is it fairly representing the facts or are they using their own opinion? That is why even straight news stories from known partisan publications have some stipulations for use, especially on politicaly charged articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Come on, it's ridiculous to argue that the daily beast isn't reliable. Newsweek doesn't even have its own website, everything is hosted on the Daily Beast. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But as for this article, why use it when we have two other sources (Washington Post and Politifact) that are more neutral? We can kick this can down the road for a time when there aren't more reliable sources to cite. WP:NEWSORG certainly makes it seem like it's best not to use opinion pieces to source facts if there are alternatives. Mforg (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the specific use being discusseed, but one use of the DB that I saw was not a story or even a blog but simply posting Twitter posts. Not a reliable source for that in my opinion. Discuss the details and work it out. Its up to us to decide how best bto proceed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Back to The Daily Beast. I see nothing in our article on it which indicates it might be a reliable source. Normally, when we have an article on a newspaper or magazine, we mention its editorial policy. I don't see anything here.
I'm going to withdraw my statement that I think it's generally reliable; but I wouldn't yet assert that it's generally unreliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So Newsweek has no editorial policy and isn't generally reliable? Amazing. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Re the WaPo source, there is no prohibition on using blogs as sources. The prohibition is on using self-published sources. For example, most books are not self-published and may be cited (if the author's credentials are appropriate to the topic), but some books are self-published and may generally not be cited. Conversely, most blogs are self-published but some aren't. From WP:RS: "'Blogs' in this context [the restriction on use] refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Thus, the dreaded four letters B-L-O-G at the top of a page don't disqualify it as a source.
One reason to cite all these sources (Daily Beast, PolitiFact, and WaPo) is that each piece gives additional information about the subject under discussion here (political positions of Paul Ryan). Readers who want more detail than is found in our article will find valuable material in each of these sources, with each having information not found in either of the others.
Finally, I think it's important to reiterate that, in all the reams of published information about Paul Ryan, no one has pointed to anything that casts the slightest shadow of a doubt on the accuracy of this assertion. With the sources available in support and the total absence of any basis for a good-faith dispute, we really don't need to devote a lot of effort to arguing about the partisan viewpoint of the Daily Beast (or that of The Wall Street Journal and other right-wing sources used in the article). JamesMLane t c 02:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
We know that the ownership of Newsweek and the Daily Beast have combined. I have not seen any evidence that the editors or editorial policies are consolidated. Back in the book publishing world, some imprints are generally reliable and some not, even within the same publishing company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Morello: Ryan Is Embodiment of "The Machine"

Does his criticism really add encylopedic value to the page?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not as criticism per se. I'm wary of including the opinions of celebrities, but in this case, the fact that Morello's band is one of Ryan's favorites may make the irony of the criticism notable. Mesconsing (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is considered encyclopedic value however, I tend to see the critcism as needing context to the biography. If this were an event such as Occupy Wall Street I might be inclined to agree, but as being a favorite band criticising the figure...could that be seen as cherry picking. Not sure, so don't see that as an accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following quote because I believe it is an irrelevant viewpoint.

Another editor re-added it without rationale, but I believe a valid rationale is needed before this one can go back in, especially since it's a BLP. Regards —Eustress talk 04:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The rationale is that we mention that he's a fan of the band, so it's odd for us to suppress the fact that it's not mutual. And by "odd" I mean "a clear violation of WP:NPOV". StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't make accusations of bad faith. It is very far from "a clear violation of WP:NPOV".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The article refers to Ryan's preference for that music, so it is relevant to cite the maker of that music and his opinion. BLP does not mean that we can't add criticism, rather: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." So, I added such citation to what another editor added. Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I still think this is an irrelevant attack on someone, and we are instructed to avoid victimization. What do others think? —Eustress talk 04:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, I don't think that policy says what you think it does. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It simply does not follow that if we cite Ryan's opinion of Rage, we must also cite Rage's opinion of Ryan. The section on Ryan's personal life can include his musical tastes, but there’s no need for hyperbolic celebrity criticism. "It's odd for us to suppress the fact that it's not mutual"? Really? How many BLPs include this type of commentary in "personal life"? Is Ryan's admiration of their music automatically implied to be "mutual" unless explicitly stated otherwise? Will readers assume that anyone who likes a band's music must fully embrace all of its political views? We already know that some criticism is acceptable, Cwobeel (duh!); the question is why anyone would consider Morello a notable source for criticism. I don't think "irony" is enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Their opinion of Ryan is not notable for Ryan's BLP just because he said he likes the band. Arzel (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added it back, with two additional cites from the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post showing that the op-ed attracted some media attention. The media has paid attention to Morello-Ryan thing (yes, as an interesting sideshow) and so should we. The single sentence about it is appropriate.
I see a fundamental misunderstanding here of policy that should be corrected. Several people here have talked about what is "notable" or not. Wikipedia:Notability applies only to whether a topic is notable enough for an article. It does not apply to content within articles. Neutralitytalk 05:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Notability within the article is the same as weight. WP is not a newspaper, and just because Morello is critical of Ryan does not mean that his opinion is deserving of the weight you are trying to ascribe to it. It would be one thing if Ryan had made some specific statement about Rage Against the Machine or Morello, or he used one of their songs in his ads, but this kind of trivial crap really has no place in his BLP. Arzel (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, you may think it's not important, but it's been mentioned in the mainstream media a number of times. I find it no more "trivial" that the fact that Ryan "drove the Wienermobile once," or the specific place where he proposed to his wife. More to the point, I find Morello's op-ed attacking Ryan no more trivial than the fact that Ryan is a fan of Morello's band. Even the New York Times has noted the weirdness.
Is this the most important aspect of Ryan's campaign or life? No, of course not. But it's worthy of a sentence, and it's wrong to exclude it. Neutralitytalk 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Just because it made a few headlines doesn't mean it will have any long-term value. See Wikipedia:Recentism. It has nothing to do with his "personal life". What if every musician, artist, filmaker, ect. that Ryan liked criticized him? Would we mention them all?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No. We can't say that this is somehow trivial or too transient, when items like Ryan "drove the Wienermobile once," or the specific place where he proposed to his wife are not. The musical taste thing has been covered more than things that we mention now (such as the Wienermobile item), precisely because it's an incongruous pairing (see The Atlantic), because Morello specifically wrote an op-ed attacking Ryan, and that is interesting and unusual. Tons of news outlets thought so. To wit: CNN; CNN again; IBT; NYT; WashPo; WashPo again; LA Times; E!; ABC News; NY Daily News; HuffPo; UPI; WSJ; Seattle Post-Intelligencer; Salon.
And conservative sources have written on this too: Breibart; Daily Caller.
There is zero reason to remove amply-source content of this type. Neutralitytalk 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we not remove his musical preferences all together? Seems quite trivial. —Eustress talk 06:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, anytime a topic brings in apparent criticism, we should just remove the whole thing to avoid having to include that apparent criticism. Remember when we used to have a section about being class prez, but had to kill it because it forced us to mention the whole brown-noser thing? I sense a pattern here. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not involved in that discussion... please WP:AGF and contribute constructively. —Eustress talk 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A notable member of a notable band makes a relevant and verifiable quote, covered by reliable sources, in which the leader of the band compared the subject of the article to the concept of the band's own trademarked name. It is relevant, verifiable, on topic to the article's subject, not vulgar or defamatory, and stated as an opinion. Tom Morello is a notable political activist and verified member of the Axis of Justice, which is a notable, political non-profit organization. What am I missing as to the valid reason to exclude this, besides personal preference? Just because it's rock music, doesn't make it non encyclopedic information. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 06:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with his "personal life". What other Wikipedia biographies include comparable commentary? The amount of sources isn't the question. Facts about his life are exactly what biographies are for, not every random criticism ever made. If you think that this is notable just because "the band is notable" or Morello is "a notable political activist", that's a different question; however, I don't think that argument can withstand scrutiny. I'm disappointed to see that nobody has been able to argue for inclusion without claiming that those who disagree are politically motivated.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) WP is not a newspaper. Given that Ryan is going to be in the news...A LOT...over the next few months, he is going to have a ton of stuff written about him by all kinds of random people. This will be in the news for a couple of days until the next stupid thing comes up. Why do editors insist on filling up articles with a ton of trivial crap? Ryan said he liked the band and Morello blows a gasket, so what. Do we fill up Biden's article with stupid stuff like the baker snubbed him? Of course not. Do we throw in every time so other far more notable person attacks Ryan for some reason? Step back and think about what it is that you are trying to do. This is a BLP, not a place to attack a living person with all the crap that can be found. Arzel (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Oliver, I still don't think personal preferences like music belong in an encyclopedia unless they are somehow strongly linked to the person's notability. —Eustress talk 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the band he likes or that he played pick-up basketball should probably go as well. This is not his Facebook page. Arzel (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. My opinion is stated above. A rhetorical question to consider, without necessarily needing to be answered here, is whether the same treatment would have been given to this statement, if it had been a different genre of music, such as gospel, Christian, country, classical, etc. Not saying that it would, just curious. In my opinion, liking rock music is just as relevant as liking hiking, shooting, boating or kittens. What makes one activity more or less notable/encyclopedic? The US record industry generated over 23 billion dollars in sales in 2011 [71]. Let's look up bratwurst. Food for thought. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 06:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It would all, IMO, depend on how defining it was to him as a person. Paul Ryan like P90X, so what, a lot of people like P90X. However, Paul Ryan is an avid exerciser due to the fact that most (all?) of his male ancestors have died at and early age due to heart problems, thus P90X has become a defining aspect of his life. Simply stating a trivial fact does nothing but encourage other trivial facts, but if there other compelling aspects about why he likes something it can be argued to be an important aspect of his life. For example, I love grunge music and I love to scuba dive. However, my love of grunge music has had no other impact on my life where as my love of scuba diving has. One is a defining characteristic, one is simple trivia. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The arguments from notability were refuted earlier by Neutrality, who posted a number of reliable secondary sources which showed notability. As for his unrequited love for that band, I have yet to see an argument that has some basis in Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a hard time believing that Ryan listens to the band as they are diametrically opposed to his belief system. It sounds like something he was told to say to attract attention from people his age and younger. It's like that time when they released Romney's playlist from his iPod. You don't really believe that was real or that he even knew who those bands were, do you? This is PR. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea. Perhaps he doesn't listen to the lyrics. Perhaps you're right and this is just something he was told to say. Regardless, we have reliable sources which make a point of contrasting the band's view of him with his view of the band. We have to stick with our sources, not our speculation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you're helping to promote PR. Funny how that works, isn't it? They want you to think that everything is black and white, that's how they control you, through your own bias. Does anyone really believe that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against The Machine? Anyone? Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not here to promote or demote him. However, if we mention that he likes RatM, NPOV demands that we mention that RatM doesn't like him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You haven't thought this through at all, have you? Saying that Paul Ryan listens to Rage is like saying Richard Dawkins loves Christian rock. It just doesn't make sense. The only reason he said it is to attract votes from liberals. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. Personally, I listen to all kinds of bands with crazy political views. Not many bands promote social conservatism, war, or spending cuts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@Times, I would say that it's equal across the board. Bono promotes world peace, Toby Keith supports NRA, Wayne Newton supports USO, whatever her name is supports anti-bullying efforts, etc etc. They all have different views. For example, Toby Keith supports the NRA no differently than Paul Ryan, should that be mentioned here that there is a connection between the two? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I certainly know that this is all mere original research. I just wanted to respond to the apparently earnest inquiry of "does anyone believe Ryan?" I don't find his claim unbelievable. Condi Rice can like Led Zeppelin without neccessarily having the same political views as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Understandable. Maybe he does like them as part of his tracklist? Who knows. I've never really known someone (girls mostly) to be constantly stuck to one band since high school (when all the boy bands were the fad in the 90's). Besides, it's just a personal's section so I don't think it's quite controversial at all. If anything, I think a lot of that info should go anyways. What if tomorrow I asked Paul Ryan what's his favorite song and he says Queen: We Will Rock You, I don't think I'm going to go rushing to Wikipedia to list it. Hehehe. ViriiK (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Come on, guys, nobody believes this stuff. In March, Mitt Romney's office released his playlist with "Somebody Told Me" by The Killers on it. Can anyone see Romney listening to that song, with those lyrics? Obviously, his staffer put that on the list as a joke. And, I think Ryan is joking about liking Rage. He's getting massive media attention because of it, so it's working. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas, of course I don't believe it. I know a ploy when I see one. Hey remember the Jonas Brothers wearing their virginity rings? Ploy? Perhaps not but we'd never know but it did sure as hell get them a lot of publicity and money. Edit: What if Paul Ryan came out and says that he currently wears a virginity ring as a joke (He's got two boys I think?)? I think Still would have a hard time differentiating between a joke and seriousness. ViriiK (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very reasonable to believe that he listened to Rage Against the Machine, I like some of their stuff as well, I probably wouldn't buy it today, but that is besides the point. There are two components to a song, the Music and the Lyrics. There are many songs that I listen to just because of the music, and when I was younger I could care less about the lyrics or what they meant. A good example for today is the song "Pumped up kicks". When I first heard that song I thought it sounded pretty good, but after listening to the lyrics I had to change my view of the song. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Our standard isn't truth, it's verifiability. If Ryan told a lie for political purposes, we aren't going to suppress it just because some Wikipedians speculate that he was telling a lie for political purposes. We let the readers decide for themselves whether he was lying. There seems to be no dispute that he made the statement about the band. So we report the statement, we report the fact that calls it into question (RAtM's comment), and leave it at that. If some RS opined that Ryan was lying, that would be eligible for inclusion (as coming from the RS rather than from the speculations of nonnotable Wikipedians), but it would probably be too peripheral for inclusion in the bio article. JamesMLane t c 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's not only exactly correct according to policy, but it moves us away from speculation and towards discussion of article contents. The point that started all this, and seems to have been lost, is that we can start ignoring reliable sources, either. As much as some editors here have trouble believing Ryan likes RatM, we should mention it if we're reporting on his self-avowed musical tastes. But by that same token, when reliable sources pick up on this story and follow up with RatM's feelings abour Ryan, we report that, too. We don't pick and choose so as to create bias! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

...Well, I have a hard time believing that Ryan listens to the band as they are diametrically opposed to his belief system. It sounds like something he was told to say to attract attention from people his age and younger. This is unverifiable, unsubstantiated speculation, and as such doesn't really count towards consensus. How do you know whether Paul Ryan likes rock music or not? Did he tell you? No one currently editing this page has the expertise to decide what the subject of the article may or may not have intended, when they make a public statement. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 02:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs cut

The article seems to be more complete without http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&diff=507939501&oldid=507935098 StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that much detail or weight is needed in the lede. --Mollskman (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? Remember, you're trying to justify a change, so you need to actually offer some reason. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Just going to note that a reasonable time passed without an answer, so I'm forced to disregard Mollskman's opinion as unsubstantiated. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello!? do I get a chance to sleep :) Which part of Not that much detail or weight is needed in the lede. do you need help understanding? --Mollskman (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that you've expressed a preference without explaining why, according to Wikipedia policies, we ought to honor that preference. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Early life

I've made some changes to the early life section because they were inaccurate and misleading:

  • I changed the info re: the Ryan construction company. It's obvious from the company's website that Paul Ryan's family has had no involvement in the company, and this is confirmed by a news article from his hometown newspaper reporting on an interview with Ryan's brother.
  • I removed the sources from the "arrived in Wisconsin prior to the Civil War" statement because they simply didn't support the statement. The census was original research. There is no way to know whether the Ryan the contributing editor found in the census in Lafayette County, Wisconsin is the same Ryan who is Paul Ryan's ancestor. Ryan is an extremely common name, and even though someone might have had the same first and last name of Ryan's ancestor, it doesn't mean that it's the same person. In fact, it's probably wrong, as I have seen other reliable sources state that Ryan's immigrant ancestors lived in the Town of Plymouth, Rock County, Wisconsin (sorry, can't find source right now). Moreover, the editor cited the 1850 census, and according to Ryan's brother, their immigrant ancestor didn't arrive until 1851. The LA Times source simply stated that his "ancestors arrived in the 1800s," which does not support the pre-Civil War chronology. I have substituted the hometown newspaper source above, which states his ancestors came to this country in 1851.
  • I removed the ancestry freepages source from the statement about Ryan's mother's heritage. It's a user-generated site that has no reliability and fails WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED. Mesconsing (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman, the CBO, and the Washington Post

A flatly erroneous statement has now been re-inserted.

Here's the correct version:

In 2010, citing data from the Tax Policy Center, economist and columnist Paul Krugman criticized The Washington Post for its paraphrase of a Congressional Budget Office report. The Post had said that Ryan's plan would cut the deficit in half by 2020, but Krugman pointed out that the CBO had considered the "effects of [Ryan's] proposed spending cuts — period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."

Here's the incorrect version:

Economist and columnist Paul Krugman, citing data from the Tax Policy Center, criticized a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that said that Ryan's plan would cut the deficit in half by 2020. Krugman opined that the CBO had considered the "effects of [Ryan's] proposed spending cuts — period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."

Both versions cite this column by Krugman. Here's the relevant passage from Krugman:

The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

There's absolutely no basis for saying that Krugman criticized the CBO. Ryan's plan consists of spending cuts and tax cuts. Ryan, as Budget Committee Chair, can direct the CBO to prepare a report on a particular set of assumptions. He told the CBO to assume huge spending cuts (in unspecified programs) and to assess the effect on the deficit. The CBO duly reported that effect of the spending cuts would be to reduce the deficit. That's perfectly correct. As Krugman points out, however, that doesn't mean that the effect of the plan would be to reduce the deficit, because the plan also includes tax cuts. Thus, Krugman wasn't criticizing the CBO report. He was criticizing the inaccurate summary in the Post, because, contrary to the Post, the CBO report did not assess the effect of the entire plan.

User TheTimesTheyAreAChanging restored the incorrect version, with this ES: "Krugman's really criticizing the CBO's assumption that Ryan's tax changes are 'revenue neutral'. It muddies the water to repeat his claims and act as if the WashPost is his target". But there's no basis in the Krugman column (or in the CBO report) for contending that the CBO assessed the tax cuts as being revenue neutral. As Krugman states, it made that assumption at Ryan's request, because Ryan is entitled to request a report on stated assumptions. Krugman is not criticizing the CBO for responding to a Congressmember's request for information.

The CBO is widely respected. To say that an economist has disagreed with the CBO is negative and contentious material about a living person (Krugman) and is unsupported. I'm restoring the correct version, based on what the source says and on BLP. JamesMLane t c 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, this needs to be corrected by means of restoring the accurate version. Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a bit of truth to your claims: The CBO explicitly stated in its report that its estimates for tax revenue under the plan were supplied by Ryan and his staff: "The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Ryan and his staff". The CBO report can be challenged based on those assumptions, but the Washington Post did not write anything inaccurate. JamesMLane has obviously never read the CBO report for himself, and has instead relied on editorials; his interpretation would require that virtually every news report on the budget misrepresented the CBO. The assumptions of the CBO report, as supplied by Ryan, were Krugman's target. It would be a lie to claim that the CBO only mentioned spending cuts and nothing else, as anyone who reads the report can clearly see. However, if Krugman was really just criticizing the Washington Post, then his comments are irrelevant and should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The immediate issue is whether we should say or imply that Krugman disagreed with the CBO about something relating to Ryan's plan. Krugman clearly did not. Your take on it is "The assumptions of the CBO report, as supplied by Ryan, were Krugman's target." (emphasis added) That means that Krugman was not disagreeing with any analysis done by the CBO. The import of your wording -- what many readers would get from it -- is "Krugman criticized Ryan's plan but the CBO had analyzed it and found that it would reduce the deficit, so Krugman, in order to make his criticism of Ryan, had to argue that the CBO had made an error." Your theory also doesn't explain why Krugman would even mention the Washington Post.
As to why we get into this at all, it's in the context of reporting facts about opinions. There is contention about the Ryan plan, so we want to give readers a fair overview of the controversy. Krugman's POV and that of the National Review are prominent examples on their respective sides. We don't want to try to report everything that's been said about the plan, but we don't want to leave the reader in complete ignorance of the controversy, so we try to present every significant opinion in a fair but succinct way. JamesMLane t c 01:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I find your arguments convincing and well-grounded in Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The more important question to ask is, "Why are we using anything from Paul Krugman"? He's a hyper-partisan opinion columnist. If he has ever said anything worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article, there should be other, better sources saying the same thing. Belchfire-TALK 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that's question was answered a long time ago. It's because he's a Nobel prize-winning economist whose statements about economics are extremely notable. If you disagree, I suppose you can try WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN, but I don't expect you'll be happy with the results. Instead, I recommend that you drop the stick and focus on the issue at hand, lest you cede the debate by removing yourself from it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The most important thing is why are we including Krugman's beef with the CBO or the WaPo? The CBO's buget numbers are not being used anywhere in the article to promote Ryan's plan. If we are to include criticism, we should have what is being criticized in the article. This is really a version of WP:COAT since the orginating aspect of Krugman's compaining isn't anywhere in the article. Arzel (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We're not. We're including his beef with Ryan's economic claims. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
But why the emphasis on the Washington Post? JamesMLane asked me why I thought Krugman mentioned the paper at all. My response is that its coverage was symptomatic of the problems that Krugman felt were widespread in the American mainstream media:
"One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic....Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his “"Roadmap for America’s Future," a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post...."
We all know that Ryan can ask the CBO to make optimistic projections about tax revenues, or assume that politically unfeasible spending cuts take place. Technically, that is not a problem with the CBO--but it's not a problem with the Washington Post, either. Krugman is just upset that more journalists have not "checked his [Ryan's] arithmetic". However, Krugman's criticism of American journalism is not relevant to this BLP. Such commentary should be removed so that only the "fraud" part of the Krugman criticism remains--or the first part of the text should simply state that Krugman criticized Ryan's assumptions about future growth and the impact of his tax cuts as unrealistic. I'm not saying that the version I restored is ideal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As I stated above, our task is to give the reader a suitably encyclopedic summary, which means hitting the highlights and being fair to all significant opinions without going into excessive detail (which might be appropriate for a daughter article). There's additional useful material in Krugman's piece, and in many others, but I sought to balance being comprehensive and being succinct. Readers may encounter other unqualified statements that the plan reduces the deficit. Krugman takes the WaPo as an example and, in explaining why he disagrees with WaPo's version, draws a distinction that many readers might otherwise miss. Then we have the National Review on the other side. This is the best way to convey the gist of the controversy without excessive wordiness. JamesMLane t c 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Then the issue is really between Krugman and the WaPo and/or the CBO. If Krugman is simply pissed that the CBO or the WaPo don't agree with him, then why are we airing out that laundry here? And if so why isn't the WaPo's or the CBO analysis included. Right now it reads in its most basic "Krugman is upset with the WaPo's analysis of the CBO's analysis of Ryan's plan" without even saying what that analysis was! Exactly how is this relevant to Ryan? Arzel (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Roll calls on bunch of votes

Appear to use a primary source -- if we use this source, ought we not include all the votes listed therein, lest we use OR to determine what is listed? My own opinion is that unless a reliable secondary source is used, that all the "roll call"s should be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia policy suggests. We can use a highly reliable primary source -- the roll call -- to confirm that he did vote for or against particular bills, as this is a matter of public record. We have to be careful not to perform too much analysis, lest we inject original research, but the article as it stands is nowhere close to crossing that line. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In which case the "selection" of specific votes is OR - and we should include all the information from that primary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the selection of particular votes is the exercise of editorial judgment about what's important. We need to have a source for every fact asserted in the article. We don't need to have a source stating that the fact is worth including. This applies to reporting important facts about Ryan's voting record and important facts about every other aspect of his life. JamesMLane t c 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a head's up to anyone interested in this issue - Collect has asked for a second opinion on this matter at WP:RSN. -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing this source and clicking it, but I cannot recall the exact claims it was supporting. A quick glance and I cannot seem to locate it. For the benifit of the discussion could someone post the exactl claim and ref # being used in the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a single source. There are at least 4 of them: [72], [73], [74], [75]. As you can see, they're simply tallies by the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives of how the House membership voted on particular bills. They support statements such as "Ryan voted for..." and "Ryan voted against..." -- Mesconsing (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As a primary source they only show the record of the vote of all in that session. To make the specific claim of individual votes, I would presume would need the notablity of having been published as a claim in a secondary source. I think the figure is too controversial for the use of cherry picked voting up or down as the content of the vote could well be original research depending on how presented in the prose. He may have voted that way, but Wikipedia is not the voice of authority to make the claim just because it is a matter of public record. Like any other peice of information that is likely to be disputed you would need secondary referencing for this published in a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ryan is pro-life, there should be some reliable sources that make the same statement, but highlighting that one vote would seem to be undue weight as well as OR. Arzel (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You refer to a "piece of information that is likely to be disputed" -- does that description apply here? I could conceive of a situation where there's a good-faith dispute about how someone voted (if, say, the two "S. Brown" Senators voted on the bill and it were alleged that the votes had been mixed up). Then we might need to include other sources, and possibly footnote the dispute. I haven't heard of any such issue as to any of these votes, though.
No one is contending that mere publication by the Clerk constitutes proof of notability. That site publishes all the votes on everything, AFAIK. It's still open to any editor to argue that Ryan's vote on thus-and-such a bill is too minor to include in his bio article. (If we run into cases like that, one obvious solution would be to spin off all the detail into a "Political positions" article, leaving behind a summary of the most important points.) JamesMLane t c 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It does apply here and to any article in which a claim is made and someone disputes the information and the reference used. In this case a primary source without secondary referencing. You are not making the claim that the sun rises in the East and sets in the west. These are still claims using Wikipedia as the voice of authority and we should only be doing that with undisputable facts. If you have to show a primary source in this instance to show his voting record one way then another way at all in prose it would require a secondary published source in a BLP.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously saying that there are no secondary sources for the votes that Ryan took? Google anyone? Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
In any case, you can use primary sources, if you are careful not to editorialize. WP:NOR says: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
With care, and requires reliable secondary sources for that interpretation. Again, the record is not about Ryan and to single out his voting here in this manner may constitute original research. With such a controversial article I would think we would want to be careful with what we are claiming without secondary sources as BLPs I believe have some other guidelines to think about. But the point is, how exactly is it being used?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

break

Hi, all: How about using the Washington Post U.S. Congress Votes project to determine what a key vote is? There is a page for each representative - here is Ryan's - and it goes back to 2002. This seems like a good indicator which votes were "key votes." Neutralitytalk 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Using a primary source isn't wrong, as long as it's used correctly. If we have source A describing a certain vote as key in the context of US political life, then it's not OR to use source B (clerk's office) to see how Ryan voted on it and including both pieces of information in the article, citing both sources, without drawing any new conclusions. In usual cases, of course if Ryan is notable and a vote is notable, then likely there would be sources stating the vote and Ryan's vote together. However, as Ryan has just become much more notable, using the first procedure is IMO quite correct. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that with A and B it is used correctly.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Subheadings for budget proposals

Right now we have "2008 Budget proposal", under which is information about his proposals in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and then "2012 Budget proposal". I see no point to this organization. I'm changing it to a single subheading "Budget proposals" that cumulates all the material, in chrono order. JamesMLane t c 22:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that was a huge improvement.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It does look better and is more readable. -- Mesconsing (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Having done it, I'm now having second thoughts about the best organization. Ryan's plan has changed over the years. Our chrono presentation means that a reader wanting to know Ryan's current view has to do too much work. Something that was in his 2008 proposal isn't necessarily in his 2012 proposal.
Possible alternative: "Ryan, in his role as the ranking member and then Chair of the House Budget Committee, has advanced proposals for the federal budget in each year since 2008. Set forth below are his most recent proposal, followed by a chronology of its development." Then there'd be a subhead for the 2012 proposal, followed by the current blow-by-blow of how he got to this point (this latter section would include the provisions that have been changed or discarded along the way). The result would be a certain amount of duplication but I think it would serve the readers better -- some would want to know the history but many would be interested only in Ryan's current stance. JamesMLane t c 17:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Do a bold edit if you haven't already and see what happens.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
How about reverse chronological order? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Status

Why does the semi-protected status expire on August 25? Joe Biden's is set to indefinite. It is clear the page will become vandalized once the protection expires. The protection should be extended at a minimum through November 6, 2012. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for semi protection are decided depending on each article I believe and not what the oppossing candidate may have for other reasons. We would compare to other protections in general for biographies of politicians during elections and I know that we do not just protect until an election is over just because they are a candidate.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Having to protect an article a second time in such a short time span should be indicative enough to warrant indefinite protection which could always be removed at a later date. It should be standard policy to protect all candidates in notable elections until the election is over and if they assume office it should be reestablished. I believe it is naive to think that the vandalism will not continue due to the media publicity surrounding U.S. presidential races. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of people watching this article, and any vandalism is short lived. I'd prefer to keep it unprotected, and allow new editors to contribute. Cwobeel (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It just isn't standard practice to give special consideration to candidates in elections...not that it doesn't happen. Consideration for semi protection is something that well could be addressed directly to the admin who made the decision but I support the expiration as was set... and I also supported the semi protection. Let it work itself out. I see no reason for longer protection.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
New users can edit a semi-protected page...once they pass certain thresholds that generally are not that much. Four days from registration and 10 edits. Semi permanent protections over an extended period shut out IP editors. IP editors are editors too. I encourage editors to register accounts, but we still allow IP editing and I see no reason right now for that harsh a decision here yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree w/ Amadscientist. We should not lock out editors until they commit an offense. Semi-protection is designed as a response to vandalism. Smiprotecting before vandalism excludes editors that have every editorial right to do their jobs. The same call for semi-protection was heard in 2008 when, in fact, there was no evidence of anything more than a smattering of silliness. Like some say...We can expect vandalism...but let's not over-react when it happens. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
New editors, especially IP editors generally add unsupported nonsense or remove fully sourced content. Anyone who has something valuable to add can do so through talk - these are few and far between. I see no evidence that vandalism gets quickly fixed, since the page went unprotected numerous completely valid sources I had added were stripped from the page. I personally do not have the time to watch and monitor all these changes and it is clear the other editors here do not either. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Citation needed; why should we think that IP editors are the cause? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the appropriate remedy is to lobby for Biden's article to be unprotected. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that "anybody can edit", and no article should be permanently protected without a very, very good reason. Belchfire-TALK 06:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
What is it which needs to be remedied? Articles are evaluated for individual vandalism concerns on an on-going basis. The status of Joe Biden's article is irrelevant. The article for Tim Pawlenty had to be protected pro-actively, due to the Stephen Colbert episode which encouraged the vandalism of his Wikipedia article. There are many current events which might cause Joe Biden's article to be protected which haven't been discussed here, nor should they be used as an argument for protecting or not protecting this page (two wrongs...). Is there an argument being made for or against page protection at this point? OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012

In External links, please correct the following parameter in the CongLinks template as C-SPAN has changed their database. Change this: cspan=57970 To this: c-span=paulryan

184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for the correction. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Supporter of stimulus spending

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&action=historysubmit&diff=508186922&oldid=508173947

We have Paul Ryan on video making the case for stimulus spending during an economic slowdown. This is notable because he himself has flip-flopped on this exact issue. Why cover this up? Hcobb (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As with Mitt, we need to cover all of this views on the topic as they changed over time. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually - we don't. We onl;y report what we find important and fully and properly covered by reliable sources - we are not a political GPS tracking system for anyone. Collect (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you think that's so, therefore I must politely disregard it as an unexplained preference with no basis in Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, I think what Collect might be referring to is found at "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which relates to notability. However, drawing the line can be kind of tricky, and ultimately is decided by consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, maybe, but there's no indication of it in his words. And, to be frank, it's not much of an argument, since WP:NPOV prevents us from biasing the article by selectively hiding his views. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
To answer the original question... we're not "covering it up". We're being a little bit discriminate to avoid comparing apples and water buffalo. The "stimulus" incorporated into the Bush tax cuts does not in any meaningful way compare to the 2009 stimulus, and it is a gross failure of editorial judgment to say so without expounding the massive differences between the two. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 00:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying you made a "gross failure of editorial judgment"? What are you talking about? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to make any editorial judgment. Paul Ryan has spoken out on the floor of the House in favor of stimulus spending and all we have to do is use his exact words. Hcobb (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Ryan has spoken out in favor of retaining and continuing the Bush I stimulus package; there's not a shred of evidence he supports the Bush II or Obama stimulus packages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He stated exactly the reasons he supported stimulus spending. If there are no questions about Ryan being a RS about his own positions, then I shall quote him directly on the subject. Hcobb (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading the article, you are assuming that what he meant in 2002 by "stimulus" is the same thing that is meant today by "stimulus". Unless a BLP-reliable source makes the connection, that's not allowable. You can quote his words in 2002 without making the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
In the context of this article, that would mean not using the word "stimulus" in any other context, including his opposition to the "Bush II" and "Obama" stimulus. It's not at all clear he has "flip-flopped". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Business Career | Private Sector section?

Paul Ryan must have done some work before entering politics, yet his page suggests that he went straight from college to working in politics.

I suggest some mention of his work as a consultant for his family business. Paraphrasing from two recent articles in established and respected media outlets:

"Prior to his political career, Ryan had been a consultant to the family construction business, Ryan Incorporated Central, founded in 1884 by his great-grandfather and now run by his cousins. The Ryan family business has been built to a large extent on government construction contracts, and in recent years, includes awards of at least 22 defense contracts with the federal government, with one of those contracts worth $5.6 million in 1996."

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-ryan-r-wis/gIQAUWiV9O_topic.html#path-to-power

Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/paul_ryan_didnt_build_that/singleton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.walker (talkcontribs) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention of activity as Chair of House Budget committee in lede

The line:

As chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has focused on fiscal policy and has proposed privatizing Social Security, replacing Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55,[13] and turning Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamp Program) into block grants to the states.[14][15] [16]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference prankster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Byers, Dylan (11 August 2012). "The Paul Ryan Wikipedia edits begin". Politico. Retrieved 11 August 2012. 
  3. ^ "Paul Ryan's Future Uncertain". Huffington Post. June 16, 2012. 
  4. ^ Flamm, Matthew (April 16, 2012). "Digital media takes home a Pulitzer". Crain's New York Business. Retrieved April 17, 2012. 
  5. ^ Brian Montopoli, Does the Romney-Ryan lack of foreign policy experience matter? (August 14, 2012). CBS News.
  6. ^ Max Fisher (August 13, 2012). "Of Course Paul Ryan Doesn't Have Foreign Policy Experience". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2012-08-13. 
  7. ^ a b Ryan a foreign policy question in a campaign about economy (August 12, 2012). Reuters.
  8. ^ Becker, Bernie (August 12, 2012). "GOP defends foreign policy experience of Romney, Ryan ticket". Retrieved 12-08-14.  Unknown parameter |publication= ignored (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  9. ^ Jamie Crawford, Ryan's foreign policy views shaped by his budget battles (August 13, 2012). CNN.
  10. ^ Jonathan Bernstein, The least foreign policy ticket since? (August 13, 2012). Washington Post.
  11. ^ a b c Daniel Larison. Paul Ryan's foreign policy speeches: What they say about Mitt Romney's running mate (August 13, 2012). The Week.
  12. ^ Al Gore, Meet Paul Ryan (August 13, 2012). Huffington Post.
  13. ^ "House GOP Considers Privatizing Medicare". Fox News. January 28, 2011. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  14. ^ Luhb, Tami (August 13, 2012). "Romney-Ryan would aim to overhaul Medicaid". CNN. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  15. ^ "What is the 'Ryan plan'? Budget proposal back in spotlight with VP announcement". Fox News. August 11, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  16. ^ Lizza, Ryan (August 6, 2012). "Fussbudget: How Paul Ryan Captured the G.O.P.". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2012-08-12. 

These claims are not accurate and need to be broken up and copy edited with the corresponding reference to the right claim, accurately written. The main issus include the claim of Ryan as chair making all these porposals and the wording "privatizing" used to refer to the change he proposed..and at what period or date. A copy edit was made to correct and improve on the accuracy of the information from the sources but was reversed as "Any changes to the lede should be discussed". First, I don't recommend such reverting under that excuse. Its simply edit warring by reverting a legitimate edit. If a discussion is needed. one can always be started befor the revert to give time to discuss the contributions. Second it put the article back to an innacurate version. I will be doing some editing on the lede (as I have done before and as the article will need again since it lacking as a good summary of the overall article) to improve the claims being made, and put the correct ref to each claim and edit for clarity.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/news/economy/ryan-social-security/index.htm, which is Money magazine talking about Ryan's plan to privatize social security. And, yes, they do use the word "privatize".
We need to stick to our sources! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you are reading the source you will see that there is a distinction between when he made such a proposal and when he became chair and CHANGED that. The point was correctly made by another editor with an edit but also made the mistake of using the term "reform" which the source did not. The point is that the refs belong with the claims, not lumped at the end of a long sentence that incorporates all the information into a run-on, inaccurate sentence.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What it says is that he proposed it as recently as 2010 but quietly dropped it. It doesn't say he no longer supports it, just that he stopped pushing for it. There's no hint that he's even claimed that he no longer supports it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. He proposed privatizing Social Security in 2004 before he was chair as stated in the New Yorker reference. He was named as chair in 2007 when he then began his "Roadmap" and that is when he then scaled back on the Social Security privitization. It was 2011 when it was dropped entirely after "Listening sessions". Gotta actually read the sources Still.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now it looks like this is a current proposal from when Ryan was chair. it isn't a proposal anymore and he made the proposal during the Bush Admin in 2004. See how the information is innaccurately written to seem as if it is the current proposal...and that wasn't even in my original edit, but if it is in the lede and it continues to rflect this information innaccurately, we will need assistance from either a third party or Dispute Resolution notice board.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You did not read the source. I know, because here's what it says early in the article:
After legislation he co-sponsored in 2005 went nowhere, Ryan included a detailed plan to privatize Social Security in his budget proposal in 2010. Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.
Just as I said, he was trying to privatize Social Security in 2010. Any questions? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@User:Still. In your reply just above you end with "Any Questions?". There is no need to challenge your fellow editors in this aggressive manner. I realize you may have been hardened abit by previous dialogue but maintaining a professinal decorum is important as we move forward. Soften your tone among friends. And we are all friends here.```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. And people seem to call me Still-24, although I'm not picky about it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following change to expand the lede:

In 2004, Ryan proposed a plan to privatise Social Security. The plan entailed an investment of about half of workers payroll taxes into private accounts. The proposal was not intitiated by then President Bush, who instead proposed a plan that was far more cautious but died by summer of 2005. In 2007 Ryan was named Chairman of the House Budget Comittee. In 2008, along with Congressmen Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy he developed another plan which called for an end to Medicare replacing it with a system of direct payments to buy insurance and a scaled back version of the Social Securtiy plan. The plan also called for an end to Medicaid to be replaced by lump sum payments to the states. The plan was offered as an alternative to the President Obama's budget in 2010. In 2011 some of the controversial portions were removed entirely after "listening sessions" with colleaques. The privatisation of Social Security was removed.[1]



In March of 2011, Ryan unveiled another updated proposal. This plan initiates payments to seniors ten years from now as an option to Medicare in order to purchase insurance or a traditional Medicare plan. Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamp Program) would be turned into a block-grant system for each state. The new proposed Ryan Budget also decreases corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent and diverts all cuts to defense spending "elsewhere".[2][3]

  1. ^ Lizza, Ryan (August 6, 2012). "Fussbudget: How Paul Ryan Captured the G.O.P.". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2012-08-12. 
  2. ^ "What is the 'Ryan plan'? Budget proposal back in spotlight with VP announcement". Fox News. August 11, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  3. ^ Luhb, Tami (August 13, 2012). "Romney-Ryan would aim to overhaul Medicaid". CNN. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 

--Amadscientist (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good proposal. His current position on SS and Medicare is far to nuanced to be summarized by the current wording. Arzel (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That is way too long of a lead. Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cwobeel. While the info in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede is valuable for the article, it's far too detailed to belong in the lede. The lede should just state the simple facts that Ryan has been heavily involved in budget work in Congress, became chair of the budget committee, and has made several proposals regarding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Mesconsing (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I am confused. Above, Amadscientist makes a proposal, but that "proposal" is already on the article? Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
And I believe, the previous version is far superior as a summary. See WP:LEAD Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has focused on fiscal policy and has proposed privatizing Social Security, replacing Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55,[1] and turning Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamp Program) into block grants to the states.[2][3][4] Ryan introduced these plans in The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 and in an updated version The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012.[5]

That seems like a more appropriate summary for the lede. But we'd need to make sure that the info now contained in the lede is represented elsewhere in the article. Mesconsing (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is.... Also, the longer version does not cover many other aspects, such as the repeal all taxes on corporate income, inherited estates, capital gains, and dividends, and the fact that his plan is the most regressive federal tax code in in the history of the modern USA. Cwobeel (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert this unless you can detail how your edit is accurate to defend that version as referenced and written. The lede is a summary and should NOT go into all the detail you just mentioned. It is accurate at the moment and there is no consensus to revert the contribution. A proposal can be implemented in a bold edit as I did and was accurate and within policy. Your revert is edit warring. Please consider allowing a discussion and explain your position.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What consensus? There is no such consensus. The lead as you editied, with two long paragraphs, is way too long and makes it very difficult to understand and does not include ANY of the controversy as presented in the article. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ". Please point out where are the prominent controversies in your edit. Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Cwobeel has made a proposal and asked for discussion, which some of us have engaged in. Amadscientist, please respond to Cwobeel's proposal, instead of issuing ultimatums. I see no consensus here. Mesconsing (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What are you saying...that controversies must bewritten in a amanner that states they are controversies? Please all of it is controversial to some. What do you specificly see as being left out. Why do you say it is too long and what should be removed. The section has no consensus to remove it as it was even copy edited by another editor and that constitutes agreement on the inclusion. If there is no consensus to to revert, it stays. I made the thread to discuss the changes and indeed did, now you see it and object. I can understand that. But what is you objection as your policy interpretation doesn't add any support for this being innappropriate. No ultimatum was issued. Please state what is innaccurate and why it should be changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, you obviously did a lot of work to disentangle the nuances and chronology of Ryan's budget proposals, and it is appreciated. As I said above, my issue is not with the content, accuracy, or wording of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede; it's with their appropriateness for the lede. They're too long and too complicated for the lede. I think they would make good overarching intro paragraphs to the 2008 and 2012 budget subsections, as wading through those can be confusing. But the lede should contain just a summary of his work in the House, e.g., he's Chairman of the budget committee, he's proposed privatizing Social Security and replacing Medicare, he's a pro-lifer, he supported Bush's foreign policy initiatives, his stands have been controversial, etc. The details of his positions and strategies belong in the article, not in the lede. Mesconsing (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Mesconsing, I didn't see this immediatly. One thing is certain, a good portion of the article is devoted to the budget stuff, so adding something to the lede is appropriate, but I feel your concern about brevity is important as well. I will make a copy edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is not completely correct: "The plan would not generally affect benefits for those currently over the age of 55, though it would arguably result in an increase in out-of-pocket payments by seniors for prescription drugs and wellness visits." Not arguably: The plan eliminates all new benefits for seniors under the Affordable Care Act, which necessarily means higher prescription drug costs for seniors, and more expensive preventive care. Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That was changed to the statement "though it would arguably result in an increase in out-of-pocket payments by seniors for prescription drugs and wellness visits." by another. I thought it oddly POV. That should be changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, that was changed back to how it was written as supported by the reference. But there is surely more that you are concerned with or you would not have added the tag on the page. Please dicuss what other concerns you have. I do not care that this be my version, just that the information be accurate and supported by the reference. lede length is not a concern at the moment and the lede does accurate cover the article in summary. I disagree with the use of tags in this manner over a dispute that is being discussed. I suggest that tag be removed, but will not revert it and will allow it to stand if others agree even in silent consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead - discussion for consensus

Amadscientist: Tags are there for a number of reasons: (a) to alert the readers that there is a content dispute amongst editors, and (b) to encourage said editors to resolve their differences and find consensus. It is obvious, that there is no consensus, on neither the current version or the previous version, so we have to work together and find a compromise. So the tag goes back. Now, to resolve this, and as you have taken the initiative to, in good faith, clarify the convoluted chronology of the previous version, please propose a compromise version that is (a) shorter, and (b) that summarizes the two sections it represents, and that includes some mentions of the opposing views and critique. Cwobeel (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey...please be more accurate with your posts sir. I have no problem with the inclusion of the tag IF consensus agrees to it. Tags are no different than any other content and require the consensus of editors. I did not remove the tag. it was removed by an uninvolved editor because the dispute is being discussed. Again, if the tag stays I will not remove it, and DID NOT remove it...however I do support its removal but have no plans to question consensus if it is for inclusion of the tag....but you are edit warring by placing it back when we are discussing and I am still not in agreement that the tag is even accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that assessment. tags are there for a reason, and should not be removed until there *is* consensus to remove it. Otherwise, what is the point of these tags? Having said that, let's focus on my request to you above: please propose a compromise version that is (a) shorter, and (b) that summarizes the two sections it represents, and that includes some mentions of the opposing views and critique. Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead needs to include summaries of other important sections in the article. Now, it is more than half about the budget proposals. We need mentions of his views on , his philosophy, Social, environmental, and science issues, and some personal life stuff, for a lead that is concise and informative. Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and that can be added. So why censor the rest of the information. Why do you not just add what you feel is missing or discuss how to add it?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: keep plan specifics out of lead

I expect the lead to become an eternally frothing mess, with every editor itching to include every possible angle of everything Ryan has ever proposed. We should avoid that temptation. The details of his plans are simply too complicated for the lead, which is supposed to be an accessible and uncontroversial overview of his biography (this is a biography, after all, not a policy document). Simply listing the major proposals and alluding to their contents (tax reform, welfare reform, etc.) will suffice for the lead. The details can be fought in the article body. I feel this would be the best way forward for this article, until November and beyond. The lead, in its current state, simply advertises the behind-the-scenes grappling in a way that distracts the reader instead of informing him. —Designate (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest editors read up on WP:LEAD before adding in a ton of specific information. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I did. Be concrete. But, first, revert and stop edit-warring. When your bold change is reverted, your job is to discuss it, not revert some more. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
When you edit against standard WP policies the guideline is to discuss first and then get concensus. The lede is a short summarization of the article, if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up on the WP:MOS discussion boards. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be short and concise like the current version [76]. The rest is unnecessary and repetitive. It should avoid anything contentious for a NPOV. Too many are trying to POV bias the page. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I've read through the threads above and consulted the current iteration of the lead, and I too think the lead is too long. WP:LEAD calls for a summary, with details in the body of the article. Here is what I propose:
Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress talk 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Several editors (via edit summaries) seem to be in favor of a more concise lead, in addition to the editors above. I have implemented the text above. Any modification ideas welcome here. —Eustress talk 05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing here that could be mistaken for a consensus. On my monitor, Mitt Romney's lead takes 27 lines. Paul Ryan's, above, takes 8. Prior to the edit war, it used to be 21. All of this shows that the lead was not larger than is typical for politicians with extensive articles. On this basis, I propose restoring the original lead. If you disagree, please explain with something other than a link to a policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Lead#Length states, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." This article has a little less than 30,000 characters, Romney's has over 73,000. —Eustress talk 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Lead#Length is also a general guideline that this article was within the bounds of. At best, it may be an argument for combining some of the material in the last two paragraphs into one. It's not an argument for removing all of the material that was lost. That has to be justified on its own merits, not a gesture in the direction of a general guideline that it's following. I'm going to give you a decent period of time to come up with a response, but if you choose not to, then I have to assume there's not going to be a response, so you don't actually have any basis in Wikipedia policy for this extreme move. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I first argued that excessive detail does not belong in the lead, with which many editors concurred (see above and edit summaries); hence, the immediate consensus seems to be in favor of brevity and an editorial action seemed prudent. Then you offered an argument regarding length, to which I responded with character-count evidence. I think we should allow others to chime in now (will probably require a little bit of patience given the time of day). —Eustress talk 06:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can only hope that their comments have some basis in Wikipedia policy, else I'll be forced to disregard them as irrelevant, per WP:CLOSE. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are summaries intended to give a broad overview of an article. Excessive detail, by definition, does not belong therein. As for your being "forced" to do something - pray do not use that line again - coffee on my keyboard is not great! Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I had to look up "therein" in the dictionary, but I'm still having trouble understanding you. Yes, it's a summary, yet it's smaller than Romney's by far. You'd need to be somewhat more specific about why you want to remove these details. It's important for you to explain your reasoning rather than simply expressing a preference. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We have guidance from WP:LEAD that we ought to apply:

  • "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."
  • "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article."

The current version does not fit with that guidance. Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Until this dispute is resolved and consensus emerge, pleas don't remove the "Inadequate lead" tag. Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. With these deep cuts, it no longer stands alone. It barely stands with the rest of the article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the lede is fully in contention and not just between Cwobeel and myself. The tag should stand in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to put in a word of support for the version Eustress gave above. The chief problem with the lede we have now is that it doesn't give proper weight to his comprehensive budget plans, which are the reason he rose to prominence in the house. It's not enough to mention them in a subordinate clause in a sentence that focuses on Medicare. I can see mentioning the Medicare cuts in the lede, but we should swap the order and make it clear he's better known for the budget plans. Mforg (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Current lede

I don't agree with how it was done or the explanation given to why it was done, but it is done and I agree that the short version should stand until the dispute is settled. When that time is, depends on what editors agree on with this, I propose that this be filed as an informal dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard so that a volunteer may help begin a solid agreement of consensus from involved editors for the lede section.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, DRN is basically useless. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, DRN is basically useless because they never favor his way (0-3). As for myself, I do support a DRN if there is indeed an issue going on here. ViriiK (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen DRN produce useful results exactly once, when an exemplary volunteer went past the minimal requirements of the DRN process by actually trying to resolve the underlying dispute. I've also seen it fail over and over again in the hands of volunteers who basically perform a WP:CLOSE, except without discounting views that violate policy. In short, it turned into a vote, plain and simple, which is useless and contrary to Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You haven't been around here that long. You've started 3 DRN's yourself and you lost all 3 DRN's all of which had consensus. Let's get your definition of consensus here. I want your interpretations of what the rules are regarding the term "consensus". Not everyone will always be satisfied with a consensus result so people do get left behind. Rather, you engaged in tendentious editing in those DRN processes because you refused to cooperate in all 3 of them. ViriiK (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a matter of public record that your summary if false and misleading. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I asked you a question and all I got was derision. Typical for a tendentious editor. ViriiK (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything here that needs a specific response. Instead, I encourage anyone who's curious to go see for themselves. Thanks. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
My experiance with the dispute resolution notice board is that it has drasticly changed in just a few months and the number of volunteers growing and better understanding the process...which itself has also been updated to reflect recent survey. Even the opening form has been improved on. It is only one form of the dispute resolution and we can always try another approach first if that is a better choice. We could ask on one of the Project pages about the lede or make further attempts to discuss the dispute here. I say we ccould at least give this another shot here before we seek assistance. Perhaps among the varying opinions there is a way to form a lede that at least everyone can live with. I edit articles with the goal of improving them. A tag shows that an article has a long standing dispute, and it is holding back improvement. Mitt Romney is a GA (Good Article) listed page. I always edit with the aim of improving towards GA or FA (Feature Article) regardless of the subject. One day this article could be nominatted but it needs a good deal of work. There is no reason the editors here cannot make these decisions if they wish. Let's try a little more. I think we may need to begin a new section as this is getting buried and it may well be a dispute worth re-booting at the bottum of the talk page for the attention of all who may see it easier.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If at all, the version that needs to remain until the dispute is resolved is the previous version, before the recent changes were made. That version was there for a substantial time. Cwobeel (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the lede to the previous consensus version. We can continue to debate new proposals here. Cwobeel (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? tradionaly when a dispute is made you don't revert it back to your prefered version. You leave what is there to avoid an edit war and go to dispute resolution. It gives the impression that you want your version to stand and I believe it is making innaccurate statements, but another editor created a shorted version that avoids the subject for now until the dispute is decided and that has worked on other articles. We should not be editing the lede while a dispute is going and Cwobeel, it really isn't helping your case when you take it upon yourself to make such a bold edit in the middle of the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If that's a tradition, I can point to a few related articles where it's being ignored.
In any case, the logical thing to do is restore the last version that had some consensus while we work to build a new one. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it had the most consensus towards moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not restore "my version". I restored the version that was stable before this dispute began. Cwobeel (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If you see an edit you are disputing and there is a talk page discussion and more than one editor, editing the information over an extended period of time and that information is accurate and referenced and you raise your concern on the talkpage and it doesn't gain a consensus, changing it under those circumstances could be seen as edit warring. It is always best to either adapt the changes and work together or...if you do dispute the information just stop and begin the DR/N process. Being the major disputer and continuing to edit a version you prefer back in (and remember the version myself and another editor added was already removed for the shortened compromise) is not the route to take. So right now I say either we put it back to the last agreed on version and begin DR or go back to editing the page and deal one on one with issues as they come up.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
So, restoring your version is not edit warring? In any case, this is becoming too tedious and boring, so I am stepping back for a while. But it remains the fact that the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD. Cwobeel (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You are reverting and are at 3RR. An adaption is not a revert. And I have not done either. I am saying flat out, stop kicking and screaming and cooperate or take it to DR. I have not edited the article and am saying that we should return the lede to what currently has the consensus- the short version.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I have adapted the lede and if anyone else feels that another adaption is needed, another source or just expanding, they should feel free to do so and everyone may discuss concerns here as normal. If there is still a dispute it should be filed appropriately and we can go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The article has many problems but if all you are saying is that it doesn't comply to WP:LEAD then I should probably point out WP:IGNORE at this point it is best to ignore WP:LEAD until we can get accurate information and aggreement on an expanded introduction.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Larry Sabato?

This was removed because it is of no value:

Ryan has been described by Larry Sabato as "just a generic Republican on foreign policy."

It was then reinserted, with the comment "A boring statement, yes, but informative." OK, so tell us... what useful information about Paul Ryan is contained in this sentence? It appears to me that it's about Larry Sabato. Belchfire-TALK 06:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Um... the useful information is that Ryan is typical of Republicans on foreign policy. The informative value seems self-evident to me. Neutralitytalk 07:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Really, what should be self-evident is that Larry Sabato's editorial opinion is of no special relevance. We have here a single-sentence paragraph that contains no facts about the subject of the article. If you or someone else can't show us why Larry Sabato's opinion is so special that it deserves inclusion, it should go. Belchfire-TALK 07:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
He's a commentator, and a very well-known and well-respected one at that. We use Wikipedia:Secondary sources here. I have no idea where you get the idea that anyone needs to show that Sabato's opinion is "special" (whatever that means).
In terms of "facts," it is a fact that Sabato has made that statement. We appropriately cite Sabato's statement and attribute it to him. I would agree that it would absolutely be incorrect to simply state "Ryan is typical of Republicans on foreign policy" as a flat assertion. But when coupled with the source, it is absolutely appropriate. You cite no policy that says it is not. Neutralitytalk 07:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It would only be an interesting fact if we could say, in the (Wikipedia) editorial voice, that Ryan is typical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The quotation does not say that Ryan's views are wrong. It makes the factual assertion that his views are typical of the Republican Party. We have a reliable source asserting that fact so we can report it. If there's a good-faith dispute over it, then we can also inform the reader about any reliable sources that characterize Ryan's views as being sharply different from the Republican consensus. As it is, it quickly tells that reader that, for example, poring through the details of the section will not yield any unusual positions of the type that Republicans like Ron Paul would espouse. JamesMLane t c 17:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
While you may find Sabato's opinion convincing enough to consider it factual, it is still nothing more than one person's opinion. Earlier comments are 100% correct in that this sentence can't be in the article at all without proper attribution, but the original question has not yet been approached: Why is Larry Sabato's opinion important enough to merit a special mention? If the only answer is simply that Sabato is well-known, I remain unconvinced that his authority is dispositive enough to be the sole commentary on Ryan's foreign policy chops. Belchfire-TALK 18:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, according to a site called Wikipedia:

Larry Joseph Sabato (born August 7, 1952) is an American political scientist and political analyst. He is the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, and director of its Center for Politics. He founded Sabato's Crystal Ball, an online newsletter and website that provides free political analysis and electoral projections. He has been called "the most-quoted college professor in the land"[1] and a "pundit with an opinion for every reporter’s phone call."[2]

I think that explains why he's notable. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There a many notable people, should we include every singles person's opinion on Ryan in his BLP? Arzel (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We should include the ones that say something useful. Sabato allows us to say that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans, without any sort of synthesis. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. Saboto is not a source with editorial review, which is required to make a statement about living persons. That Saboto says that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans is sourced, but probably not of any significance. We cannot say that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
We can report on his statements, attributing them to him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's only part of the problem, Arthur. What does "typical Republican" mean? It's undefined. It's not empirical. One person would say it means "just like Jesus," the next person might think it means "puppy-eating baby-raper." And both might be right! The whole purpose of including it here is because there is a perception that it's unflattering, which might be OK if it actually meant something, anything at all, but it doesn't. Belchfire-TALK 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would say that the meaning of "typical Republican" is self-evident. Do you want it formalized in terms of standard deviations from the norm? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we know that Sabato's means the same thing by "generic republican" as an unbiased person would mean by "typical republican"? If not, we need to credit and quote Sabato. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with attributing this to him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement, as written at the top of this section, is adequate sourced—and has absolutely no indication why it's there. We would probably need another source commenting on Sabato. The modifications StillStanding has been suggesting, however, are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where I suggested modifying any statements, and since you don't bother giving a reason -- "it's just wrong" is an unsupported conclusion -- I find myself unable to comment further. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed

I wrote something about this, and it was either accidentally deleted or lost in an edit conflict, so I'm going to say it again.

Still-24-45-42-125 wrote "Opinion pieces are normally identified as "opinion" or "op-ed" or something like that." This is absolutely, positively wrong. Columnists are allowed free reign, as long as what they say isn't libelous and doesn't discredit the newspaper. Opinions phrased as facts do neither. As an aside, did anyone read Dave Barry's column in The Miami Herald when he was active there. It wasn't marked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well both claims are partly right and partly wrong. Columnists are NOT "allowed free reign" at Wikipedia. If a column is written by an author of note, an expert in the field and mainstream, then that is one part of the criteria towards a reliable source. However, any Newspaper blog, editorial, op-ed or other "opinion" peice MUST be used as the opinion of the author ONLY and attributed in prose to the them and the publication when using that "opinion" in an article. The prose does not have to state the term "opinion" or "Op-ed" just that the attribution be made to the person making the claim such as: "John Smith of the Metropolitan News believes... or states...or says...

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant, columnists are allowed "free reign" in traditional media (newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering...actually I was more like WTF?!! =) Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the term is "free rein" - giving a horse "free rein" means you are exercising no control over the horse by that means. And is a very old term even if Wikipedia only dates it to the 1950's <g>. [77] 1928 usage - and it was old then. [78] 1790. Oops -- Chaucer used the term! [79] I doubt that the 1950's claim holds water. Collect (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed childhood nickname

If this is seriously contentious to anyone, please revert. Of all the personal trivia to keep in the article, this has to be the least relevant I've seen, besides making his own bratwurst. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 05:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. But if he were to be elected, would we want to put it back in? I believe Reagan's childhood nickname is his article, as are other presidents. And what have you got against bratwurst? ;)   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing, in fact the article's subject and I share the exact same ancestry. However, if and when I were ever to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, which is doubtful, I'm not sure I'd want to be remembered for my choice of cuisine or a family nickname (which for me was "twerp"), especially if I hated it. As for the wienermobile, that is just too surreal for me to even discuss right now. ;0) OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 06:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is the P.D. -Petey- Thing, it currently seems to have a consensus from discussion. It seems to be perfectly good biographical information. We need to have more information from his personal life more fleshed out and made relevant in prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Post the link to the thread where this consensus is reached, as should always be the practice when stating there is consensus from a previous thread. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I wont debate that, but it is also best practice to check the archives on such things before you make the edit and if it is pointed out in such a small archive it is not unreasonable to expect editors to look without being linked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The only consensus that existed was the weakest kind...but it did exist. Silent consensus. It stood until you removed it and now you must show how the deletion should stand. See disccusion as it flows below.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD. This is useless trivia. The only people who would ever come looking for this information are childhood friends or family, and they already know the story. This is not a political nickname, a nickname the media uses regularly, or a voted upon nickname. Therefore, it does not add information to the article which is useful, nor does it improve the global view of the subject. It will be impossible to maintain every last bit of trivia about the subject of the article. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
(Not really understanding why you are citing BRD but...)BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. You have explained your reasoning but it is based on it not being a political nickname, media related or voted upon, none of which is a logical basis for exclusion from a biography of a living person. It is not contentious or controversial in nature and is simply a personal bit of information that many editors feel has encyclopedic value. I disagree that we will be unable to maintain "every last bit of trivia" as first we must determine by consenus what we think to be trivial.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Trivia is trivia, regardless of whether it is included or not included. I removed information from an article I found to be trivial. Show a link to a recent discussion where more than 3 people have agreed that this is useful information that any "common sense" person would think wouldn't be trivial as a potential vice presidential candidate. What was considered trivial, but not contentious for inclusion before he was selected as a potential VP pick has changed. Consensus can change WP:CCC. The article was one quarter of the size before, than it is now, and any information which was biographical in nature may have been considered relevant and welcome, such as the item about being voted the best brown noser, and the name of his great-great-great grandpa. Now that the article has increased in focus, and has more participation, a childhood nickname is trivia I believe is irrelevant to the article and encourages more irrelevant personal trivia. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 07:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The previous discussion to this one was no consensus and it was not removed. I thought there was something else beyond that but cannot find anything. Still have not explained the BRD comment, and the Brown noser was removed per consensus at BLP/N, but your removal is your own point of view on what is trivial. Removing content requires more than just the whim of editors to remove what they don't like for whatever reason. I have raised issue with the removal. I would ask you return it until you can establish consensus to remove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with your reasoning, and I see no consensus. The reason I gave you the BRD template, is to remind you of the process allowed on Wikipedia for challenging information in articles. No other guidelines have been superseded, that you have demonstrated. Also, this isn't really "content", it's trivia. If you want to take a stand on something so incredibly trivial as a childhood nickname with one source, with no further coverage in the media or by the subject himself, be my guest. Insert the information yourself, with your own edit summary about consensus. No other editor has seriously challenged this besides yourself. The other comments were merely questions and speculation. My comments above stand.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 08:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't revert you and still do not see anything on BRD that supports your templating of BRD (which is frowned on by the way) for this discussion. BRD has nothing to do with challenging content which, regardless of your POV IS "content", and all content is determined with consensus. As you state there is no consensus so then the information should not be DELETED. If I were to use BRD as an example here it would be to remind you that your BOLD removal of content is being challenged the proper way...by discussion. Are you CHALLENGING me to revert? Wow...that takes some balls. LOL! BRD is not a policy or a process you can make editors adhere to. So no, I do NOT have to revert you here. There is no consensus and should be no change. At least one other editor in this discussion has stated it would probably be returned anyway when compared to the Ronald Reagan article. Again I ask you respect that you have not made a case and as yet no one is supporting the deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Duck. Megaphone. Quack. You've proved nothing other than you aren't able to admit when you are mistaken, over trivia. Your comment regarding genitalia is childish. Put the information back yourself, take it to a board, or make a better argument. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 08:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Except for where I admit to where I was mistaken above. You do read the posts right? I said there is no consensus. Now...do you understand you are engaging in the very discussion you began or was this just for show and you are just wasting time attempting to push POV with your edit? You made the edit, you made a discussion. There is a dispute to the deletion. Gee...can you figure out where it goes from there? Your definition of the content is not relevant. It is the opinion you used to remove the content but is not based on any policy or guideline. From Wikipedia:Consensus:
  • In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
  • In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of contentious matter.
  • When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
  • In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
  • In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Since this is not contentious I recommend returning the content. All child like comments about genitalia aside, you really do have a lot of gawl to bait an editor into a revert while discussing BRD in my opinion and this is disruptive as WP:CCC states in regards to changing consensus:
"On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again."--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me apeal to your WP:RETENTION beliefs. Deletions discourage editors from editing when relevant content, well sourced and cited is removed without proper procedure. While I understand your opinion it is not one I share for various reasons. Mainly it really isn't trivia because it relates directly to the biography of the person. Its level of importance should be determined by collaborative editing. There is no trivia action needed that I know of besides the cleanup efforts to remove trivia list and no policy or guideline that I can find besides Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Even the unofficial Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Handling trivia, the opinions of various editors, states:
"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all."
The information is not sufficiently tangential in my opinion to be excluded.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I feel comfortable that you have not shown the deletion to have been a constructive edit and feel justified in adapting the information into the article in some manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I feel comfortable that there's no reason to keep any of this trivia. Given that it's a BLP, when something is challenged, the burden is on those who might want to keep it. It's been challenged but you haven't offered sufficient reason to retain it. In fact, I'm not sure that you offered any. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, per explanation by an admin on another page recently over the very issue you raise, it has been clearly stated that "WP:BURDEN specifically applies to verifying unsourced material; WP:BURDEN does not apply to other content challenges", "Once reliable sources are provided for content, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied." "The challenger should really explain exactly what the problem content is".--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing isn't the issue, so none of this is particularly relevant. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this is "trivia" and of no interest to readers? What is the criteria for establishing that something is trivia or not? Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a limited amount of space for this article. As it gets larger, more details will be shuffled off onto sub-articles which are unlikely to ever be seen. Adding useless detail to the main article therefore pushes useful detail into the fork ghetto. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, again, there is yet no clear direction for removal of content for size of article (currently under discussion). Generally speaking when articles become ungamely large they are split.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's called WP:UNDUE. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
One loud persistent voice does not consensus make. The first comment under mine is a question: attempting to state that it is support for your position, or a serious challenge to my removal of trivial information is disingenuous, at best. Filling up a page with policies and guidelines regarding trivia, when no editors have come forward with valid reasons for inclusion to support any of your arguments, is not consensus, now matter how much you would like it to be so. No consensus exists that has been demonstrated. Make your decision and do it. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 00:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I must agree. Not only is there no consensus to keep, there's been nothing stated that could potentially form the basis of a consensus. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No consensus is being claimed to be present. That is where we are here. One loud voice may be your opinion but your voice was equally loud so please don't sound so much like your voice isn't being heard. Policy and guideline is for those to see that with no consensus we would leave the information in. As you yourself actually state in the initial post you say anyone may revert it, but I decided to discuss it using policy and guidelines, the opinion of editors and the clarifaction of an administrator. No matter how much you repeat it, I am not claiming there is a consensus yet, just that you don't have one either and the information should stay untill a consensus is established. This isn't two editors and I have argued the points. Consensus determines inclusion or exclusion. Seek further consensus to remove it and I certainly can live with that consensus. Can you live with the no consensus/no change until you convince editors that it should be removed?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
With BLP's, we err on the side of removal. If a couple of editors see something as trivial and undue but there's no consensus against them, that's reason enough for removal. In fact, I don't see any actual reason given for inclusion. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That is innaccurate. I see no such policy or guideline at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which links back to burden in the lead and says nothing of erring on the side of caution with reliably sourced non-contentious material.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ronald Reagan's nickname "stuck with him throughout his youth." Not entirely analogous to what was included for Paul Ryan which was (paraphrasing) "Paul Ryan didn't like his childhood nickname." ...And? Stop cherry picking policies and guidelines, which are ambiguous at best on this type of trivia, and either add the trivial statement back with the proper edit summary, or step back and wait for other editors to contribute their opinion. Your opinion is noted, ad nauseum. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you feel you have a basis to have me excluded from the discussion you may bring this up with any administrator at anytime, either on their talk page or by posting to AN/I. Policies are "picked" for the situation it entails and is brought up as part of the basis of my argument. Now, let other editors weigh in and form consensus and stick to your original post here stating anyone could revert the information. I chose to discuss the deletion first befor I acted and only after I had established how Wikipedia editors are expected to handle the situation per policy and guidelines. I suggest letting a consensus form for either it to be deleted or still no consensus, in which case the information shoul stand or an out right consensus to keep. It may just be best to take this to the BLP/N for an outside opion from that notice board to just sort it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If taking a childhood nickname to a board is an effective use of your time, there is nothing stopping you from doing so; in fact, I encouraged the very same course of action above, to avoid further disruption of this page. I believe you have become personally invested in the content of this page. You have not achieved consensus on this topic, you are not arguing that this isn't trivia, and I have not violated the 3RR rule. My contributions to this topic stop here. You do what you feel you must, but the facts presented show: no clear consensus at the time of this posting, the edit I performed was not seriously contentious, and most "reasonable people" would not believe that removing a childhood nickname was worthy of even this much discussion between experienced users. As the 2012 Wikipedia research study concluded on dialogues such as these we are having: WP:CONS, Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group. Glad to see the money wasn't wasted on hypothetical situations. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 03:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I said nothing on this argument about 3RR. That was on your talkpage. You became so personaly invested in this article that you left uncivil threatening posts on my talkpage using an analogy and posting the title from "Kill Bill" and my "having it coming" so, if you want that discussion the open door allowed that reply from me. Any further chat not directly involved with improving this article is not helpful. If you feel that I have become personaly invested over the page with what you see, again, you should seek assistance and not make accusations on the talkpage. You sadden me greatly with your attitude and have been uncivil and outright confrontational over issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussions. So back to it. You said revert, basicly, even with an adaptive edit I did. You didn't like it, even with the full discussion before I took action, now you complain about my behavior and you think I am bullying you? Please. Stick to the discussion and if you are not able to handle it without edit warring take a break. Regardless of not vioating 3RR on other pages you did edit war your version back in when no consenus exists and you have not gained consensus for the change.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Amad, your summary does not seem at all accurate. Worse, it comes across as rather uncivil. Maybe now would be a good time to drop that stick and back away. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It is. Your judgement may not be the best (Edit: why not. Seemed impartial enough elsewhere so) to go by in this situation. What stick do you feel I have carried? I think we are done here. No one really cares enough to add it back in...including me and I am for it as biographical information directly related to the figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:STICK, which is good advice about recognizing when a discussion has reached an end. It looks like you're doing that right now, so there's nothing more to discuss. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I understood. I just didn't think the discussion was dead and over it was dragged into a barn and the doors closed....but it is still breathing just waiting to be brought up again by another, only because no real consensus has formed. A silent consensus of no one removing it is the weakest form of consensus so it can still be readded. I just won't do it. At least not right now and not until a clear consensus exists.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So long as others deal with the corpse, I'm fine with it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I just find it interesting that one editor finds it necessary to respond to nearly every comment, continuing to beat the drum for his/her position. As was noted, "one loud, persistent voice does not consensus make". Might be wise, when raising something to RfC, to let some people have a discussion around it without the need to defend every position with you specifically. I'm just saying... Vertium When all is said and done 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Amadscientist on this matter - this is in no way a BLP policy issue, as the information is not contentious or unsourced, and those are reasons for BLP exclusion, not an assertion that it is trivial. Nor do we have any space constraints on this article at this time as was alleged upstream (we're only at 31K of readable prose, well within guidelines). This is supposed to be a biography of a person's whole life and career, not a biography of a political candidate per se, so to say that you reject a nickname because it isn't political or media driven or "voted upon" (I have no idea what "voted upon" means here) makes no sense in the context of a biography. While nicknames are of course often trivial by nature, they are commonly included as they are thought to give a fuller picture of the person. In this case, the fact that the subject didn't like the nickname is an interesting minor factoid. We wouldn't be removing it because he doesn't like it, I trust - since this is not his official campaign bio, right? and what he likes is utterly irrelevant - so all that counts is whether it is sourced and if it is at all interesting for our readers. While I don't think this is exactly vital to include, I also see no valid reason given for the removal beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And Amadscientist is right that WP:BURDEN doesn't apply. The intensity of this whole discussion, I might add, makes me wonder if some kind of image cleanup is at work here - I don't know,, but it wouldn't be the first time in this political season. I'm inclined to reinstate the content. Tvoz/talk 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gay Adoption

Right now we say he "opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt." I don't think that's true. I've tried to find sources to back it up, but I haven't been able to. The press release from the Human Rights Campaign we're citing now is obviously not a reliable source on the issue (Take a close look at it, it's hosted on the Miami Herald website but it's actually a press release from HRC). I'm going to replace it with the Washington Post piece that says he voted against allowing it DC in 1999, and I'll soften the language so that it says he has opposed it, the language used in the Post piece. Mforg (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.thegavoice.com/news/national-news/5060-romney-vp-pick-paul-ryan-backed-bans-on-gay-marriage-adoption StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I did see that, but I put it in the same category as the HRC press release. It's an LGBT advocacy paper, so they have a bias in this area. They're also attributing the claim to the HRC press release. Given all that I'm more comfortable with the circumspect language the Post chose. Mforg (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No, this is a relaible source. Just being partisan does not exclude it but should be used with caution like using Forbes on bussiness information. They have a bias. So does the National Review. LGBT publications have no more restrictions of use than any other publication.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex Adoption

The article notes that Ryan "has opposed allowing same-sex couples to adopt", based on the cited Washington Post article, which states:
" 4. Gay adoption
Ryan has voted against allowing gay couples to adopt children, while Romney has said he is “fine” with such arrangements.
Ryan’s vote came in 1999, when the House was voting whether to allow gay adoptions in the District of Columbia."

However, this interpretation, augmented with the actual paragraphs from the bill, conflicts with the above statement.
Ryan on Adoptions
In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of H.R.2587 (District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000), which sought to prevent same-sex couples from receiving federal incentives of $5,000 for adoption of children in the District of Columbia.

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION OF CHILDREN For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000: Provided, That such funds shall remain available until September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a program established by the Mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate:

SEC. 131: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9–114; D.C. Code, sec. 36–1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not limited to registration for the purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally married couples.

In light of this, I think it would be more accurate to state Ryan's position as :
"has opposed federal adoption incentives for same-sex couples in Washington D.C."

Thoughts?--Misha Atreides (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You need a better source for that. That one is not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You think so? I assumed the direct quote from the text of the legislation itself is sufficient. It contradicts the Post report. Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the merits of the legislation (which is a primary source), but the source you linked does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as a questionable source. Looks "self published', with no editorial oversite and no authorship information. Use it as a starting point for research, but it can't be used to reference the information as a secondary source in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that website can't be used as a reliable source, as it's self-published and its authors are anonymous. The vote in 1999 that your source is referring to is actually the Largent amendment to the appropriations bill, which is here.[80]. That amendent would have excluded any unmarried couples from adopting from the foster care system, as per this Washington Post article from the time.[81] To quote, "the amendment ... would have prevented unmarried couples from adopting any of the 3,100 children in foster care in the District." That's a reliable source that I think we could use to clarify the adoption vote. Mforg (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@Amadscientist, noted. @Mforg, lead the way.--Misha Atreides (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@Mforg, incidental. Doesn't support the assertion that it's related to "gay rights". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, while we wait for the media to correct itself and get a new source, shouldn't we take the portion out at least? After all, we know it's incorrect, based on the actual legislation itself.--Misha Atreides (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How about we change "has opposed allowing same-sex couples to adopt" to "supported a ban on unmarried couples adopting within the Washington D.C. foster care system"? Mforg (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
But the H.R.2587 did not mention anything about banning, mate - only withholding the federal incentive. Same sex and unmarried couples could still adopt children as per usual, but they do not get the five grand.--Misha Atreides (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless we find a reliable source that clarifies that the bill at your source is the same one the Washington Post is talking about, or at least a reliable source that glosses the law the way you want it glossed, I don't think we should change the article. Hopefully, though, such a reliable source can be found. john k (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@John K, what did you mean by "glosses the law the way you want it glossed"?
To everyone else, I don't think it's ethical on our part to include the phrase, knowing that it is factually wrong. I'll leave it be and move on, but I am extremely uncomfortable with this. --Misha Atreides (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
How about "voted for a bill against gay adoption" or the like? It seems that "allowing" is the problematic word here, but there's no debate that this bill tends to reduce the status of gay adoptions. Homunq (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ps. I've made a WP:BOLD attempt to fix this.

Social Security survivor benefit nit

Ryan (and his mother and siblings??) would have received Social Security Survivor benefits until Paul Ryan completed high school (or stopped attending), unless he graduated from high school while 17. Any idea when he graduated from high school? (I pick at SS nits because Social Security is not a retirement investment plan, but insurance that covers even children like Ryan at age 16, or age 1 for that matter.) Mulp (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Add a Controversies Section

2012 Republican National Convention Speech

A lot has been said about the factual errors in Paul Ryan's 2012 RNC speech. We should add a section about it, under a larger section of controversies. Most other biographical pages have this section. Refer to the references for specific factual errors in his speech. [8] [9]

I think this belongs in the 2012 Vice Presidential campaign section, not a controversies section. Mforg (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Controversy/criticism sections are discouraged, as they can often end up becoming a raw dump of POV content, which especially in BLPs can be a problem. That said, considering the coverage both the speech and his remarks therein have gotten in many, many independent sources, it would be silly not to mention it in the campaign section. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph to the 2012 vice presidential campaign section that covers his convention speech and the criticism it has received for its inaccuracies. Tiller54 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are all coatrack POV magnets and should not exist. If the material doesn't have relevance under a real heading it shouldn't be in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It is really sad that so many of the so call "Factcheckers" in their haste to attack Ryan have made so many fundamentals errors in their assertations of Ryan. Many of the so called falsehoods were clearly true to the point that I think it is time to start questioning the validity of "Factcheckers". Arzel (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a more reliable source for that than an IBD editorial? a13ean (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
At least in the case of the auto factory (which is what the above editorial is referring to), it appears to be a case of semantics. According to Politifact, the plant was officially closed in December 2008. However, a skeleton crew of workers stayed there through April 2009 to complete a few outstanding orders. So the plant was not technically closed, i.e., emptied of employees and completely shuttered, until after Obama took office. That said, it's still clearly a decision that was made before he was inaugurated, and something he likely would have had little power to prevent afterwards. I've attempted to adjust the wording of those sentences in the article to clarify this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, GM announced the closing of the Janesville assembly plant in June, 2008, although the exact date of closing had not yet been determined at the time of that announcement. (See [82].) So the plant closing was in the works even before Obama was the official Democratic candidate. The reality is that closing a major operation like an automotive assembly plant doesn't happen overnight, but in stages. The fact that there may have been a few straggling employees at the plant in 2009 seems like a technicality. Mesconsing (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the paragraph about his speech at the RNC was painful. It's clearly not a neutral assessment and uses half truths and rhetoric to purport that Mr. Ryan used half truths and rhetoric. I'd expect better, especially from an article that is semi-locked. --T.S.77 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and if you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the section, I'd certainly like to hear them. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to parse the wording on the plant closing to get it technically correct, but it sounds very "He said...She said" at this point. How about something like: "Ryan was also challenged for implying that a General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville closed under President Obama. He failed to note that GM had announced plans to close the plant in June 2008, and major production was halted in December 2008, before Obama took office." (Sources: [83], [84]) Investors' Business Daily asserted that Ryan's statement was technically correct because some final production and cleanup work was completed in 2009." (Sources: [85], [86]) -- Just a thought. -- Mesconsing (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that's just an attempt at creating a strawman argument--that was hardly IBD's main point, as you must know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Convention speech section doesn't cover it

All that it has is one sentence on not-really "compliments", and then the rest is on actual flaws and ginned up "flaws". There's actually nothing in there on the speech! ....content, themes etc. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there needs to be more on the content of the speech. Why don't you expand the section? As to the "flaws," many reputable news organizations are calling them "lies": [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. Mesconsing (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they call them lies, so should we. We must put our sources at the forefront. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately we don't use opinion pieces to report facts. Politcal articles are already slezzy enough around here. --Mollskman (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice try Mesconsing. Your sources, which you purport to be from "reputable news organizations," are conveniently taken from said news organization's politically liberal opinion writers. John Nichols? Sally Kohn? Joan Walsh (of Salon which posts links to the Huffington post on their main page?!?). You need to try harder. It does nobody any good to source opinion articles masquerading as hard news sources. Find something written by someone with the political neutrality and credibility of an Anderson Cooper or a Bret Baier before you start saying that these "lies" are coming from what you are implying to be hard news sources, when they are not. --T.S.77 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's FactCheck, which, according to our article, was cited by Cheney in the 2004 debate. FactCheck stated: "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements." ([95]) It went on to enumerate them.
The Associated Press ran a story using the term "fact check" but in a generic sense, not referencing the organization FactCheck but drawing on reporting by half a dozen AP writers. The AP didn't use the common term "lies" but delicately said: "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech".
Then there's Bloomberg L.P., a multi-billion-dollar business-oriented news service that isn't generally known for calling upon workers to seize control of the instruments of production. Bloomberg pointed out that "many of the criticisms [Ryan] leveled against Barack Obama apply equally to his and Mitt Romney’s own records." ([96]) This was from a writer, Josh Barro, who's written frequently for the right-wing National Review Online ([97]); who used his Bloomberg podium to join in the Republican smear-and-distortion campaign about "You didn't build that" ([98]); and who, in the very piece that criticized Ryan, also wrote, "The central attack in the speech is one that I agree with: The Obama administration is adrift on economic policies. 'They have run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they’ve got left.'" Are you going to dismiss him as another liberal?
I think that, with a little more effort, I could produce links to the nonpartisan PolitiFact and to the conservative Boston Herald, but enough with the piling on.
Furthermore, Wikipedia reports facts about opinions, when notable. Even if the only people commenting on Ryan's mendacity were Democratic partisans -- a hypothetical that is clearly not true -- it would still be undeniable that the speech attracted much more such "partisan" flak than most campaign speeches. Note the compilation in HuffPo, titled "Media Calls Out Paul Ryan Acceptance Speech For Falsehoods".
Of course, reporting facts about opinions works both ways. If there are sources documenting significant opinions to the effect that Ryan was telling the truth -- that the Wisconsin plant that everybody else says closed under Bush really did close under Obama, or whatever -- then we can cite those sources, too, and present the reader with both sides of the controversy. JamesMLane t c 04:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
JamesMLane, thanks for the sources and the thoughtful reply, but have you read the relevant section in the article? It contains numerous criticisms of Ryan, cites Politifact, and allows for one conservative response. Also, try not to go off topic with comments about alleged "smear campaigns"--although I understand why you did so in this case, as it helped demonstrate the fact that people on both the Right and the Left have been critical of the speech (which is certainly true).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
To say that comments like mine are "off topic" is in one sense accurate, so let me explain why I do it. In my long experience with Wikipedia, some intense POV pushers find the NPOV principle hard to grasp. If they propose a heavily biased version, and someone else proposes a suitably neutral version, they think a reasonable compromise is one that's only somewhat biased in their direction. I therefore find it useful, as a practical matter, to include my POV (though of course only on the talk page). This helps make the point that their POV is not the only POV, and that all biases must be excluded.
As for the passage in the article, I wasn't commenting on any specific version. I was answering what I took to be a general statement that we couldn't say anything about Ryan's mendacity. That's a logical prerequisite to working out exactly what we do say. I will say, however, that there's no requirement that we describe all points of view at equal length. We give a fair presentation of each significant POV, which may require more detail for one side than for another. We can't achieve balance just by balancing the word count. JamesMLane t c 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)