Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

• Paul Ryan → Paul Ryan (disambiguation)

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)

• Oppose. "Eloise" sung by Barry Ryan was a *worldwide* hit, and also a hit for the Damned. the comic artist seems to be also quite well known. A lot of links to the politian are also auto-generated by templates. what is this by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:USCongRep/WI/110 (E-Kartoffel (talk) 10:26, 11 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

• When Ryan was sixteen his father died. Ryan collected his Social Security benefits until age eighteen, which he saved for college.
  • 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.

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:

• Gilbert, Craig (April 25, 2009). "Ryan shines as GOP seeks vision". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

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):

• Michele Norris, Melissa Block (April 8, 2011). "Paul Ryan: Father, Fitness Buff, Zeppelin Fan". All Things Considered. NPR News.

Early life, education and career

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

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

Ryan has a sister, Janet, and two brothers, Tobin and Stan. 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.

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.

Ryan briefly worked during college for the Oscar Meyer meat and cold cut production company as a Wienermobile driver. 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.

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

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.

Irrelevant commentary

and more to the point CWenger's own userboxes suggest that the removal of the Wienermobile image file is more about political editing: User:CWenger (Userboxes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CWenger The user is a student of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. This user is interested in politics. This user watches and supports FOX News Channel. This user is a libertarian. This user supports flat taxes.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, regrettably I don't have a "This user supports Paul Ryan" userbox yet. But that is irrelevant to the current discussion. This information is worth one sentence max, and even that is pushing it. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC) CWenger, you don't need the "This user supports Paul Ryan" userbox, as you have clearly stated above under College: And I say this as a huge Paul Ryan fan. –CWenger (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you should hold out for the "This user is a HUGE Paul Ryan FANATIC" Userbox.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps. But in any case, still completely irrelevant to the current discussion. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Comment: NBC only has a breaking news headline, not an article to cite.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

 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."

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)

Discussion moved to Reliable Sources Notice Board

Ryan's second-budget plan section

The section has a lengthy list of people who have criticized the plan, and not a single word from anybody supporting it. Hard to believe absolutely nobody did. Churn and change (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks. ClodSquad (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am doing that (a bot adds that anyway). Not sure what's happening. Manually signing now: User:Churn and change Churn and change (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Congress Republicans have extreme discipline, so it wouldn't shock me if all of them supported the plan, without being particularly notable. Could that be it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a somewhat more balanced version here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42420994/ns/politics/t/ryan-plan-good-deal-depends-partly-your-age/#.UCc7-pjfJ8E I am no economics expert, so I am not going to put it in; but, no, assuming no one said anything notable in support of the plan is not ok. Churn and change (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is another link from a reliable secondary source, largely agenda-free: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-11/paul-ryan-budget-medicare/56963864/1?csp=YahooModule_News

That source, non-partisan, says: 'Ryan has won respect from most of the nation's leading "deficit hawks"'Does this article reflect that? I am no "deficit hawk" but then would I bother with Wikipedia if it reflected just my views? Churn and change (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV template has been removed from this section. The problem here is that the USA today article has used the term "leading deficit hawks" and then referred to 2 individuals, David Walker of the Comeback American Initiative and Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The exact statement in USA today used is: Ryan has won respect from most of the nation's leading "deficit hawks" — fiscal experts who long have warned about the need to slash the nation's debt, now $15.9 trillion. They then go on to quote one such leading expert extensively, and the second only briefly. For a brief story, they can do this. On Wikipedia, we ended up with The budget has been praised by the nation's leading deficit hawks who have warned of the need to slash the national debt. Former US Comptroller General David Walker and Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both praised the budget as making tough choices to control the chief problem, spending. Is Wikipedia claiming that David Walker and Maya MacGuineas are the nations's leading deficit hawks? Neither of the first two statements have in line citations, nor does USA Today attempt to imply that the "chief problem is spending." The extent of the quote by Maya MacGuineas seems to be: Ryan's 2012 budget plan "puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path, and he deserves praise for making many of the hard choices necessary to do so". This section now fails the WP:NPOV section, as well as the WP:V guidelines, unless it is re-worded to not include synthesis WP:SYNTH. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the bias issues by a slight copyedit of the section. The Weekly Standard provided the needed source for the Justin Amash information. The Krugman claim still needs a source.OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 09:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor Organizational Issues

The introductory paragraph lists Ryan's double major; the paragraph on education/early life does not. Since the latter paragraph is supposed to be more detailed than the introductory paragraph, perhaps the double-major should be listed in the education paragraph, with only the degree in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.241.68 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Churn and change (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 8/12/12

In the section entitled Election campaigns there is some discussion of the fact that Ryan can continue his campaign to be re-elected as representative and at the same time run for VP. I suggest that it would be good to research and include a sentence on what would happen to the House seat if he is elected VP and also re-elected as a representative. Would there be a secial election or would his sucessor in the House be appointed? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal called on Romney to pick Ryan as VP a few days ago

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/09/Wall-Street-Journal-backs-Paul-Ryan-as-VP/UPI-71041344516249/

Not sure where or how to include it. Churn and change (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2012

As a result of Ryan's bold budget proposal and traditional value-based approach to policy, in December 2011 he was named Conservative of the Year by Human Events the first publication to serve the U.S. conservative movement and long-considered President Ronald Reagan's favorite source of political news. 69.250.38.98 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If we include what the various partisan magazines have to say of Paul Ryan, there will be space in the article for nothing else. We could perhaps include actual "awards/prizes" from conservative institutions, but not the various adjectives and epithets they use to describe him. For neutrality we would then have to include what the liberals have to say of him, and clearly that is a lot. Churn and change (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle -- we can't include everything so we should include nothing. The proper middle ground is that we exercise some editorial judgment: We give accurate reports of facts, including facts about significant opinions, being careful to distinguish between reporting them and adopting them. For example, we should not state in Wikipedia's voice that Ryan has a "traditional value-based approach to policy" because some people vigorously disagree with that opinion. If a major organization gave him an award and said that that was the reason, then we can consider quoting that encomium, putting it in quotation marks and properly attributing it. Giving a fairly representative sample of praise and criticism will add to the reader's understanding, although of course we have to be both balanced and selective. JamesMLane t c 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

By actual awards/prizes, I meant literally that. This specific request belongs to "adjectives, epithets and encomiums" which I would argue against including on notability grounds. If that assessment is wrong, please provide supporting information--that this particular encomium is a yearly one, has a vetting process, is known to be influential, is perhaps something candidates seek out, is mentioned by prominent politicians in their resumes and websites, and so on. Churn and change (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I've marked the request as answered for now to remove it from the category. Feel free to make a new request on the non-archived talk page after gaining a consensus. — Deon^talk 06:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Status

I propose extending this through election day November 6, 2012. The editing at this time appears manageable without having to deal with excessive vandalism likely to occur once the status is lifted. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, criticism of Ryan's roadmap

Criticism of the roadmap is described as Paul Krugman's point of view. It is not, Krugman cites the non-partisan Tax Policy Center's analysis found here [[2]]. Since mentions of PK lead to shoot the messenger responses it would be perhaps fair to modify that paragraph, giving the correct source for these criticisms. 85.181.3.192 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ponnuru cites CBO data to defend Ryan, Krugman cites CBO data to attack him. We use people like Krugman for their opinions, which are (hopefully!) based on such data. People can read Krugman's article for further information. To be honest, I think that section may be a bit unbalanced towards Ryan. I can't help but notice that Krugman gets an entire paragraph to make several claims, whereas Gayer and Ponnuru each get one sentence. Krugman's claim about increasing taxes from their present level "for 95% of the population" thus stands unchallenged. However, Ponnuru argued that "current law automatically raises the tax rates to pre-Bush levels in 2013. So if you’re comparing the tax level with current law, including that automatic tax hike, Ryan’s plan represents a tax cut. If you’re comparing it with today’s tax rates, on the other hand, it’s not a tax cut." However, the larger attention paid to Krugman may be justified, due to his Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman doesn't need to be removed/replaced, as you suggest; he is a reliable source for such criticism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the OP's point. Krugman's claims are backed up by hard numbers from a non-partisan source, but at present this article reads as if what Krugman says is based on nothing but Krugman's own opinions. Cut some of the words from Krugman's paragraph if need be, just make sure you mention the Tax Policy Center's analysis. It is a better source if what you care about is objectivity. 109.156.119.136 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What quotes from that report would you suggest we consider adding?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the table Krugman is referring to in his article is [3]. It shows that people with cash incomes in the top 5% are given a 3.4% reduction in tax, the top 1% are given a 14.1% reduction in tax. Although the bottom quintile would see a 1.3% reduction in tax assuming they are smart enough to choose the optimal tax option, all the other groups would see increases in their average federal tax rate: an increase of 1.1% for the second quintile, an increase of 1.4% for the third quintile, and an increase of 1.8% for the fourth quintile. I suggest that a good bottom-line figure to quote in the article is that 117.5% of the total tax cut would accrue to the top 1 percent. By contrast, 2.2% of the total tax cut would accrue to the bottom 25%. Hope that helps. 109.156.119.136 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A good quote from the report might be "The Roadmap’s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law—and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system—the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes." 109.156.119.136 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, much better now. Now if one pointed out that Krugman adressed the same CBO estimates used to respond to him, then this would be truly fair and balanced. The CBO estimates are based essentially on Paul Ryan's estimates of government reduced to 3% of GDP (edit: and more importantly an assumed 8% growth rate 85.181.29.249 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC))-- the CBO has to abide by the framework defined by the congressmen requesting estimates, so in general these estimates have to be taken with some caution as they can be highly conditional. I don't think there is an encyclopedic way of pointing out how much of a fraud the plan is, so just for your amusement, I'll point out that Colbert did so very nicely attacking just one of its weaknesses [[4]].85.181.29.249 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The CBO makes the same optimistic growth assumptions for Obama's budgets.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and their Obama budget also includes the single biggest contribution to the deficit, namely the Bush tax cuts. The point is, their estimates are based on Ryan's assumptions. 85.181.23.96 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

break

Here is what I am finding so far:

Archive 16 - Resulting consensus; not to use for BLP for negative information. User:Merzbow states: "Note that their current "news articles" are simply reprints from AP and so on (or direct links to other sites). Maybe in 5 years this will change, but for now, they should not be used as a source for controversial material on living persons".--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 26 - Resulting consensus;Not reliable as defined by Wikipedia. User:Protonk states: "The huffington post is not a reliable source for facts as wikipedia defines it. The vast majority of the 'news' they traffic in comes from wire services (AP, Reuters or Bloomberg) and this 'news' is comingles with obvious opinion pieces from columnists or celebrities. when they include some op-ed from a notable figure or recognized expert on a subject, that opinion can be given its due weight with the source identified."--Amadscientist (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 17 - Resulting consensus; Can be used as opinion of a notable person. User:Protonk states: "Despite huffpo's dubious nature as a news organization and reliable source of factual information, they do serve as a selective outlet of opinion for otherwise famous people."--Amadscientist (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is more but I am stopping for now as the editor above seems to be dismissing the archives as not readily accessable. So as far as i am concerned the above illustrates a clear consensus by the general community as far back as 2008.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable forever, and ever, amen, regardless of author. And then some. Got it. Thanks. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:46, 13 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.

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.
Presumptive nominee

--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)

 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 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)