Jump to content

Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Add a Controversies Section

2012 Republican National Convention Speech

A lot has been said about the factual errors in Paul Ryan's 2012 RNC speech. We should add a section about it, under a larger section of controversies. Most other biographical pages have this section. Refer to the references for specific factual errors in his speech. [1] [2]

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

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

It is really sad that so many of the so call "Factcheckers" in their haste to attack Ryan have made so many fundamentals errors in their assertations of Ryan. Many of the so called falsehoods were clearly true to the point that I think it is time to start questioning the validity of "Factcheckers". Arzel (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a more reliable source for that than an IBD editorial? a13ean (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
At least in the case of the auto factory (which is what the above editorial is referring to), it appears to be a case of semantics. According to Politifact, the plant was officially closed in December 2008. However, a skeleton crew of workers stayed there through April 2009 to complete a few outstanding orders. So the plant was not technically closed, i.e., emptied of employees and completely shuttered, until after Obama took office. That said, it's still clearly a decision that was made before he was inaugurated, and something he likely would have had little power to prevent afterwards. I've attempted to adjust the wording of those sentences in the article to clarify this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, GM announced the closing of the Janesville assembly plant in June, 2008, although the exact date of closing had not yet been determined at the time of that announcement. (See [3].) So the plant closing was in the works even before Obama was the official Democratic candidate. The reality is that closing a major operation like an automotive assembly plant doesn't happen overnight, but in stages. The fact that there may have been a few straggling employees at the plant in 2009 seems like a technicality. Mesconsing (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and if you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the section, I'd certainly like to hear them. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to parse the wording on the plant closing to get it technically correct, but it sounds very "He said...She said" at this point. How about something like: "Ryan was also challenged for implying that a General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville closed under President Obama. He failed to note that GM had announced plans to close the plant in June 2008, and major production was halted in December 2008, before Obama took office." (Sources: [4], [5]) Investors' Business Daily asserted that Ryan's statement was technically correct because some final production and cleanup work was completed in 2009." (Sources: [6], [7]) -- Just a thought. -- Mesconsing (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that's just an attempt at creating a strawman argument--that was hardly IBD's main point, as you must know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Convention speech section doesn't cover it

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

Agree that there needs to be more on the content of the speech. Why don't you expand the section? As to the "flaws," many reputable news organizations are calling them "lies": [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Mesconsing (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they call them lies, so should we. We must put our sources at the forefront. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately we don't use opinion pieces to report facts. Politcal articles are already slezzy enough around here. --Mollskman (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice try Mesconsing. Your sources, which you purport to be from "reputable news organizations," are conveniently taken from said news organization's politically liberal opinion writers. John Nichols? Sally Kohn? Joan Walsh (of Salon which posts links to the Huffington post on their main page?!?). You need to try harder. It does nobody any good to source opinion articles masquerading as hard news sources. Find something written by someone with the political neutrality and credibility of an Anderson Cooper or a Bret Baier before you start saying that these "lies" are coming from what you are implying to be hard news sources, when they are not. --T.S.77 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's FactCheck, which, according to our article, was cited by Cheney in the 2004 debate. FactCheck stated: "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements." ([16]) It went on to enumerate them.
The Associated Press ran a story using the term "fact check" but in a generic sense, not referencing the organization FactCheck but drawing on reporting by half a dozen AP writers. The AP didn't use the common term "lies" but delicately said: "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech".
Then there's Bloomberg L.P., a multi-billion-dollar business-oriented news service that isn't generally known for calling upon workers to seize control of the instruments of production. Bloomberg pointed out that "many of the criticisms [Ryan] leveled against Barack Obama apply equally to his and Mitt Romney’s own records." ([17]) This was from a writer, Josh Barro, who's written frequently for the right-wing National Review Online ([18]); who used his Bloomberg podium to join in the Republican smear-and-distortion campaign about "You didn't build that" ([19]); and who, in the very piece that criticized Ryan, also wrote, "The central attack in the speech is one that I agree with: The Obama administration is adrift on economic policies. 'They have run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division is all they’ve got left.'" Are you going to dismiss him as another liberal?
I think that, with a little more effort, I could produce links to the nonpartisan PolitiFact and to the conservative Boston Herald, but enough with the piling on.
Furthermore, Wikipedia reports facts about opinions, when notable. Even if the only people commenting on Ryan's mendacity were Democratic partisans -- a hypothetical that is clearly not true -- it would still be undeniable that the speech attracted much more such "partisan" flak than most campaign speeches. Note the compilation in HuffPo, titled "Media Calls Out Paul Ryan Acceptance Speech For Falsehoods".
Of course, reporting facts about opinions works both ways. If there are sources documenting significant opinions to the effect that Ryan was telling the truth -- that the Wisconsin plant that everybody else says closed under Bush really did close under Obama, or whatever -- then we can cite those sources, too, and present the reader with both sides of the controversy. JamesMLane t c 04:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
JamesMLane, thanks for the sources and the thoughtful reply, but have you read the relevant section in the article? It contains numerous criticisms of Ryan, cites Politifact, and allows for one conservative response. Also, try not to go off topic with comments about alleged "smear campaigns"--although I understand why you did so in this case, as it helped demonstrate the fact that people on both the Right and the Left have been critical of the speech (which is certainly true).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
To say that comments like mine are "off topic" is in one sense accurate, so let me explain why I do it. In my long experience with Wikipedia, some intense POV pushers find the NPOV principle hard to grasp. If they propose a heavily biased version, and someone else proposes a suitably neutral version, they think a reasonable compromise is one that's only somewhat biased in their direction. I therefore find it useful, as a practical matter, to include my POV (though of course only on the talk page). This helps make the point that their POV is not the only POV, and that all biases must be excluded.
As for the passage in the article, I wasn't commenting on any specific version. I was answering what I took to be a general statement that we couldn't say anything about Ryan's mendacity. That's a logical prerequisite to working out exactly what we do say. I will say, however, that there's no requirement that we describe all points of view at equal length. We give a fair presentation of each significant POV, which may require more detail for one side than for another. We can't achieve balance just by balancing the word count. JamesMLane t c 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling conservative organizations conservative

In this edit, two references to "conservative" were mistakenly removed.

The National Review openly self-identifies as conservative[20] and Empower America was openly conservative before it merged with the openly conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy to create the openly conservative FreedomWorks[21]. There is no doubt that these organizations are conservative.

I'm not going to restore this because it would lead to the appearance of edit-warring, but I believe that the citations above are more than an adequate basis for doing so. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They were removed because they were not verifiable via the reliable sources provided. The press release you added does not mention Ryan as a speech writer for the organization and thus violates WP:SYN and has been removed. Using your "sourcing" argument you could make nonsensical sentences using a mis-mash of unrelated sources. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not appear that you have any understanding of WP:SYN. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You cannot use sources not referring to Ryan to further editorialize an organization out of it's original context stated in a source that does mention Ryan. Just stating the organization's name is presenting it from a NPOV which is what Wikipedia prefers. This is not the page to discuss these organization's political positions, this page is about Ryan. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to actually read the cited source. It says:
Ryan got his first introduction to movement conservatism when Hart handed him an issue of National Review. “Take this magazine—I think you’ll like it,” he said.
In short, the source explicitly identified the National Review as being associated with movement conservatism, the very fact you keep edit-warring to remove. Now apologize and put it back. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Now, as for Empower America, the NY Times writes:[22]
A few months after Mr. Kasten lost his seat, Mr. Ryan went to work for Empower America, a conservative advocacy group that was founded by Mr. Kemp; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations under President Reagan; and William J. Bennett, a former education secretary in Mr. Reagan’s administration.
Once again, it's clearly identified as conservative, which is the word you edit-warred to remove. You can put that back, too. Forget about the apology; I don't really need to hear it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The current sources on the page did not include the implied language that was removed. A NPOV would just mention the organization regardless. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see that you're conceding that the sources I quoted support calling both organizations "conservative". Good. However, contrary to what you said, at least one of these sources was already on the page, a fact I just made quite clear. As such, I take this to be a face-saving lie on your part.
Unfortunately, having conceded your original point, you now bring up a new one that's even less convincing. There is nothing POV about briefly mentioning that these are conservative, and in fact, our sources consider it important to put them in this context. In short, you're grasping at straws.
Is there some reason you want to remove "conservative" from this article? Do you think people don't already know that he's conservative? Are you just going to come up with another excuse now that I've shot down the ones you've tried so far? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We can't add every word that every source has ever reported. We would quickly run out of diskspace. In between what must be included and what must be excluded is editorial judgment arrived at by consensus. You have already been told this. Have you forgotten?

That said, I am not convinced that the orgs should be labelled as "conservative." Why not "American"? Why not "non-profit"? I see no reason why the reader can't follow the link to obtain more information. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I conceded nothing to the edits I made based on the sources on the page when I made them. You are now attempting to argue as if the NYT source was always there in the page, it was not. You added a press release from Freedom Works which did not mention Ryan to make this claim. You are now personally attacking me as lying which is both unnecessary and false. From a NPOV standpoint the article will read less biased if all such organization descriptions are removed - conservative or liberal. There is no need for these labels if a Wikipedia page exits to describe the organization. It seems clear based on your arguments that you wish to inject a POV that Ryan is conservative by adding labels to these organizations. Wikipedia is not the place for your POV. Regardless it is quite clear Ryan is a conservative and holds conservative views, I do not see this as a contentious issue. None of these edits on my part were done with any other intent than presenting a NPOV. I agree with Lionel's arguments. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So we've dispatched claims that it's unsourced, synth and POV, and now you're trying for "editorial judgement". Well, the editors who put the words in judged them to be appropriate and so do I. If for some reason JS does not, it's up to him to make his case here, as opposed to edit-warring or tossing out spurious excuses. The same applies to you: all you've offered so far is a slippery slope argument that refutes itself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I made the edits they were unsourced and had synth issues, please don't misreprent the argument in attempts to rewrite history. There are still NPOV concerns. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me help: the two orgs should be labeled conservative because it's not obvious from their names and it's relevant to his career. Now, if you can come up with a good counterargument based on editorial judgement, I would be glad to hear it. If you don't, then I guess it'll be clear that the consensus is to restore these pair of words. Oh, and as for space, I'm pretty sure this conversation takes up a lot more room that the word "conservative" twice, right? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively, I'm with Still-24, on this issue. It's relevant in context, and adequately sourced. If not mentioned in the particular sources used to connect Ryan to them, it may be WP:SYNTH, but it's not really disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty crazy. The whole mission of National Review is that it's a conservative magazine. The whole point of Empower America is to promote conservative policies. The most important thing to be said of either of these institutions is that they are conservative. And the disk space argument is complete nonsense. john k (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be labeling and should be avoided. Try changing it around by saying, "The National Review, know for it's conservative stance." That should satisfy the guidelines.--JOJ Hutton 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Re-read the guideline. The guidelines discourage the use of contentious or pejorative labels (e.g., "extremist"); they don't discourage the use of labels generally. Using the adjective "conservative" to describe the National Review is certainly not contentious because that magazine is in fact conservative, and nobody would contend otherwise. Moreover, "conservative" isn't a pejorative. Neutralitytalk 18:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Now define "Contentious". What is contentious and what is not, that is the question. Wouldn't the fact that this thread is even opened and there is a current discussion about it, be an example that it is, at least in part, contentious?--JOJ Hutton 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Neutrality. "Conservative" is a descriptive term, but not a pejorative one. Mesconsing (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A label is something others put on something, while a self definition is open to be used in the narrative of the prose when mentioning the magazine/site. Here is their own Press kit:National Review Media Kit they describe themselves as "America’s most widely read and influential magazine and website for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion." It is fair to call the National Review "Conservative" without either labeling or using it as a pejorative.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading over the conversation, it's my impression that there is a consensus in favor of the inclusion of "conservative" in these two cases. This is based, not only on the raw number of editors, but on which ones are convincingly referring to relevant policy as opposed to merely WP:STONEWALLing. Nonetheless, given how contentious this article is, I'm not going to edit the word back in right now, although I wouldn't object to anyone else doing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Better to let an uninvolved editor make that determination.--JOJ Hutton 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...no Jojhutton. Consensus determines inclusion or exclusion of material. As such, an unenvolved editor is NOT needed to make the change. Any contributing editor may re-add the content, however it is always best to give at least 24 hrs for the community to see the post and weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Uhm,,,I know how to edit Wikipedia. I also know that in situations like this, it's better to allow someone uninvolved, such as an admin, to determine consensus, because looking at the discussion, I disagree that consensus has been reached.--JOJ Hutton 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As an (involved) admin, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to recognize the consensus. I recall an argument about what constitutes consensus which led to an ArbComm ruling. There was certainly a dispute as to what consensus was in the MOSDATE archives, resulting from 4 or 6 malformed RfCs. (I still don't agree with the ArbComm-determined "consensus", but, unlike a few other editors, I wasn't blocked for disagreeing with the "consensus".) I don't think it's that bad, here, but there appears to be a potential disagreement as to the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing for an admin to intervene here on and disagree that any type of control is needed yet. No need for anyone to begin telling other editors not to include material, BUT if you feel more time is needed to form consensus before any changes I agree with that. However, I see no reason to begin second guessing that editors here cannot work this out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CCC, so I don't think we need admin intervention here. I'm fine with giving this a bit more time, but I'm not seeing anything mentioned that indicates a policy-based consensus to exclude the c-word. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As yet, no policy based reasoning has been given but many have expressed concerns over the perceptions such a description may have for whatever reason. While this may or may not be something everyone agrees with, it certainly can and has been the basis for choices editors make in deciding for inclusion or exclusion of material in many articles. If the outcome is "no consensus" then no change is made.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your arguments that were of concerns (falsely) relating to my personal motivation to effectively "hide" that the organizations are conservative is why they should be excluded as it appears your motivation is to inject your POV into the page. A NPOV would just be to state any organization (conservative, liberal or other) without descriptors if a Wikipedia page exists for it. Therefore there is no bias. The existence of a Wikilink to the organization's page disputes any accusations of "hiding" anything about them. As has been pointed out an organization can be presented from a biased POV depending on what descriptors are used, I feel it is best to leave these all out and just state the organization. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as no consensus. Unlikely that any consensus will develop at the present time. Safiel (talk)

Should the descripter "Conservative" be used to describe The National Review in prose if not mentioned in the reference.

Extended content

(suggest this poll be given a minimum of 48 hrs, the time set for auto archiving with no posts)

  • Support - This is not controversial. The publication is self described as such, known as such and the mention in this instance does not appear to represent a pejorative.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The paper self-identifies as conservative and this fact is highly relevant. It's a single, non-pejorative word, so there's no room to claim it's somehow undue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The magazine describes itself as "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture." The term is obviously accurate and self-professed. There's no good reason not to use it. Mesconsing (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The magazine self-describes this way in its media kit. Not everybody is up on politics like some Wikipedia editors. It is much more helpful to explain this to readers. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Organizations and publications should be presented without descriptors to represent a NPOV. Anyone wishing to learn more about the magazine can click on the Wikilink. Paul Ryan's page is not the place to describe a magazine's political position. This is injecting the POV of those who support it. Wikipedia's purpose is to present articles from a NPOV regardless of the opinion of the majority and should not be a consensus vote but a violation of NPOV and if it is not mentioned in the reference also a violation of WP:NOR. I oppose these descriptors regardless of the political affiliation (conservative, liberal or other) even if they are mentioned this way in the reference as they POV bias the page. Once this starts there is no end to this as descriptors can be used to bias in any political direction every organization and publication on the page. Support of this vote is a rejection of NPOV and support for original research on Wikipedia. I recommend administrators review this decision due to the core principles of Wikipedia guidelines that it violates. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The truth is incapable of being POV. It's a simple fact that this paper is conservative. We should state these facts because our readers benefit from it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So I can add, "...that included articles by Nobel Prize Winning Economists" or "...that included articles by an Anarcho-Capitalist" or "...that attacked Ayn Rand" ...clearly the "truth" is not a POV. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Add? You remove. You removed this part because you claimed there was no support. Now you admit there's support but you're against it for yet another set of reasons. I see a pattern here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I never admitted there was support for this in the source text as it is not described as anything but the "national review". I am making two separate arguments. My point here was that you can add any number of "truths" to something to POV bias it. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned with what you've admitted. In any case, you've made a basic logical error. Even if we were to grant that adding truths could add POV bias, it doesn't mean that you've made any case here to show that there's bias involved here. If anything, the organization freely admits to being conservative, so the bias would be in hiding this fact. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not apply positions to me that I never stated. I have made no such logical error as nothing could be more neutral than just stating the publication without descriptors. The publication freely admits to many things that does not mean it is appropriate anywhere the magazine is mentioned on Wikipedia, details are what the wikilink is for. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: no policy requires that we label an organization conservative"--or "liberal" for that matter. We rarely see liberal entities referred to as "the liberal insert name." No reason to do it in this case.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason to do it is that working for a conservative paper is different than just working for a paper, and not all of our readers are familiar with the NR. I'm sure Ryan's not ashamed that the NR is conservative, so there's no reason to hide this fact. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although the editors working on this article may be familiar with the National Review, I'm sure that at least 75% of the general public has never heard of it. So that's useful information for them to have in evaluating the statements made in that publication. Mesconsing (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Should we also label Krugman a liberal, since he calls himself one and writes the "Conscience of a Liberal" blog? Would we be "hiding" this valuable information from the reader, even as Krugman declares Ryan's budget a "sham"? Krugman's not "ashamed" of his liberalism, after all. (I'm being sarcastic).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, it is fine to call a publication "conservative" when it is widely recognized -including by itself - as such. That does not mean, however, that we should be making generalizations about the "liberal media". Tvoz/talk 07:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Who made generalizations about the "liberal media"? Krugman is widely recognized--including by himself--as a liberal. Should we mention that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That would perhaps apply to his political writing, but not to his economics. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
He doesn't distinguish between his political writing and his economics writing. Why should we? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that economic writing about current events unavoidably has political ramifications. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was a suggestion as a minimum. And JS makes the strongest argument of the lot. So strong in fact that if consensus is to include I suspect we will immediately have an RfC on our hands.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I will note that you personally believe that JS' argument is strong. I do not; it appears to have already been refuted. If you want to threaten an RFC, I'm going to have to suggest that waiting another month to insert the word "conservative" is silly, so we'll insert the word and then you can launch your RFC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You not agreeing with me is not a refutation of my argument. If you insert the word it will be removed in violation of NPOV and WP:NOR. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure it'll be removed, but it has nothing to do with these policies. It'll just be edit-warring. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like this poll has been inactive for a couple of days... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If only some sources are listed with "bias-warning" words like 'liberal' and 'conservative', this could create a NPOV problem. And listing them all in that way will create even larger discussion as editors wrestle with what words to use to describe each source (not to mention potentially unwieldy text). I'd urge a bit of horse-trading. Krugman, for example, is clearly liberal. That might be a fair "trade". Not labeling can be a problem, but over labeling (or one-sided labeling) can be a bigger one. Rather than voting your way into a result, I'd urge a reasonable compromise. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There's some principle underlying the choice. Pointing out that the NR is conservative isn't an attempt to knock it or praise it, but rather to show how Ryan worked for a paper that matched his political beliefs. It adds insight to his biography. While Krugman is definitely a liberal, he's a Nobel-winning economist first, so his opinions on economic plans relate to his expertise, not his political views. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that I'll support this descriptor. But I'd urge care in using such descriptors in general. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a game of "Let's start labeling everyone "Conservative" or "Liberal"". Honestly, it would create a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND fighting over labels everywhere else. Now readers from the outside needs to be able to read the Wikipedia and form their own conclusions without us telling them "Just to save you the hassle, they're (Conservatives/Liberals)". Meanwhile the definition of liberal and conservative will always vary and it is very ambiguous. For example, I view myself as liberal but liberal on what? How are you to know based on my labeling what am I liberal on? So we don't need to be getting into the labeling game. ViriiK (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I cannot see how this simple adjective can be controversial when it tells the reader a widely known truth. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If it is wildely known that why does it need to be included? That is a lot like saying that water is wet, for those that don't know what water is. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Forgive my obtuseness, but why is this even debated, considering, Wikipedia already has these:
The Heritage Foundation:"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank..."
Center for American Progress:"The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization"
FreedomWorks: "FreedomWorks is a conservative non-profit organization..."
National Review "describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservativeConservatism in the United States news, commentary, and opinion."
Health insurance mandate: "An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation"
Artur Davis: "He also began writing a column for the conservative National Review."
Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality: "Vice President for Communications at the conservative Family Research Council Genevieve Wood supported Santorum's remarks"
Pat Toomey: "... the conservative American Conservative Union (ACU) has assigned Toomey..."

--Misha Atreides (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - What an incredibly dumb suggestion and doesn't add anything to the article to begin with. As to the above, all of those, with the exception are think-tanks or organizations, not magazines. Should we start labeling individuals such as Paul Krugman as well, or perhaps start qualifying individuals by religion? Once you start this logically you get incredibly stupid and unneeded descriptions such '65-year old Mormon Massachusian anti-abortion/gay marriage/drug pro-gun/free trade Republican former governor Mitt Romney'. Why not include that if we are going to include political ideologies? Age, religion, location, association, views, and political status are all verifiable, important aspects of a person. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there already hundreds, if not thousands, of people identified by their political affiliations in Wikipedia? Even in Ryan's page itself, we currently have this: "He often visited the office of libertarian professor Richard Hart". Moreover (I didn't noticed it earlier), but didn't this discussion initially involved FreedomWorks? I see now that the entry has been changed (?). "Ryan became a speechwriter for Empower America (now FreedomWorks), a conservative advocacy group" --Misha Atreides (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and I think that idea is incredibly stupid most of the time, as noted above. These sort of statements add nothing of real value and leave out other important aspects such as religion, age, and residency. It simply doesn't make any sense in most situations, except when discussing an opinion piece (in which case the POV is important) or reactions to an event from a various points of the political spectrum, in which case it is unnecessary to do so. In most cases, however, labeling a group according to political position doesn't add anything other than to try and qualify/disqualify the source to readers. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How "incredibly stupid" it is depends on the context. For a politician, their political affiliation is significant. For an actor, not so much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It's accurate to the way they describe themselves and how they tend to be described by others. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The idea that everyone and everything must be labelled so that readers "get the point" is absurd. Labels should be used if and only if they add to the statement or claim being made in a clear manner, and that such a label can be supported by a reliable source. In the case presented, there is no reason to believe that the National Review is being used for a controversial claim for which the label would help the reader. If the reader is not being helped, then there is no reason to add labels. Collect (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the good reasons given by Collect, Toa, Sir Lionel, TheTimes, ViriiK, Journal, and all the usual suspects. Let's avoid labelling—we don't label all the liberals. If, on the other hand, we have to use labels, then label everyone. --Kenatipo speak! 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Whether or not Krugman is liberal doesn't tell us anything about Ryan, the subject of this article. Whether or not organizations with which Ryan has affiliated himself with are, does. So the Krugman argument is immaterial. And that leaves us with the argument of bias. But it's in no way biased to associate Ryan with a philosophy that he openly and proudly embraces. I'm nearly an out-and-out Marxist, and yet "conservative" is a respectable philosophy; insofar as I believe that's what Ryan is, I'm likely to respect him more, not less. Homunq (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not necessary. Anyone can click through and read about the National Review and make their own determinations about it. I don't recall seeing this type of adjective applied to political opinion magazines or writers when quoted or sourced in the past. —Torchiest talkedits 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
May I politely suggest that you look at the links and quotes above, from Misha Atreides? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those are good evidence that this standard is not being applied consistently. I note that The Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, FreedomWorks, and National Review are all articles for the organizations themselves. The next four examples (Health insurance mandate, Artur Davis, Rick Santorum, Pat Toomey) are all from articles in which the organization is described as conservative. Compare Tom Daschle, for example, described as "senior fellow at the Center for American Progress" twice in the article. —Torchiest talkedits 13:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such labels if accurate and provided consistently can provide useful context. We'll know we're there when we always refer to the NYT as the "liberal-leaning newspaper New York Times" But that is never going to happen in an article situation like this, and so it is a slippery slope into a POV black hole. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If the NYT described itself as liberal and the article was about a liberal politician who worked there, then it would make sense to identify the NYT as liberal. Otherwise, your analogy doesn't work at all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Ignore this. It just clears the references from above.

  1. ^ [1], Paul Ryan's Brazen Lies.
  2. ^ [2], The Most Dishonest Convention Speech Ever?

Nobel prize-winning economist

There was an RfC about this that got archived into oblivion. As far as I can tell, the consensus was to include mention of "Nobel prize-winning", so that's what I'm going to restore. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I predict that someone will revert you rather quickly. :-) That being said, my understanding of policy is that if no consensus is achieved, then the previous consensus holds, and that is understood to be what was in the article before the dispute started. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's my understanding of policy as well, but you're likely quite correct in your prediction. I wonder if the right thing to do is to ask an admin to formally WP:CLOSE the RfC. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is rather dishonest to try and claim consensus was reached on something that clearly was opposed that you were clearly aware of, --JournalScholar (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a consensus with a vote. With consensus, we don't just count heads, we filter out views that are ungrounded in policy. So, for example, a view based on the crazy idea that "Being a nobel winner is not a qualification of anything." would be laughed out instead of counted. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Another good example of a view we have to disregard is based on the notion that "Here he's writing an op-ed about politics". That's incorrect; he's writing about economics, not politics. Economics is his field of expertise. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see you can just arbitrarily dismiss everyone that disagrees with you. That is rather convenient. Thankfully you have no such power. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There are instances where a particular "support" or "oppose" may be diregarded, but I believe it is when they make a claim of "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" which usually carry no weight whatsoever (WP:TALKDONTREVERT).--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend reading WP:CLOSE for some details on this. If an opinion is based on a falsehood, it should also be disregarded. For example, "We shouldn't mention Alabama in this article because it's not part of America". StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Teachable moment if nothing else, for those reading this: "[D]iscarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. "I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so..." StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll (resolved?)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There appears to be a strong enough consensus for oppose, that we can go ahead and close this poll. Safiel (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Extended content
Concur When Paul Krugman offers economic critiques a concise mention his accomplishments in economics such as describing him as a Nobel Laureate is germane considering a Nobel prize is one way an academic may qualify as notable. Mr Wave (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope Not done in other articles. Generally the bluelink is a clue to readers that Wikipedia has an article on the person. And the added information does not add weight to the person's political opinion columns. On politics, Krugman mwy well be a backseat driver - his work on economics for the Nobel Prize is not related to his opinions expressed in his political column. Collect (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His knowledge of economics, as testified to by the Nobel prize, is precisely why he has a column that allows him to criticize Ryan's economic plan. Economics is what he knows. He's not some columnist with an associate's in economics from a third-rate community college; he's a well-respected expert in his field, first and foremost. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And his column is specifically an editorial column on politics -- for which he has no Nobel prize. I would like you to also note that the NYT Public Editor Daniel Okrent criticised him for his columns in the past as not being straight with his use of "facts." He is not an "expert" on politics, just an op-ed writer on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In the article he is being used for his economics opinion, and not for general politics. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that for a second, and anyone that has been reading Krugman for the past few years would find that difficult to believe as well. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. Your skepticism is not an argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No Per many of the excellent reasons given by Collect. The objection raised by Still is a Strawman argument. Krugman is well known, people know who he is, to claim that the honoriffic is needed so as not to confuse his with a community college degree holder is quite the hyperbole. Additionally, with his blog "The mind of a consience liberal" (or something like that) he has gone from economic commentor to liberal opinionator. As Collect noted he has during the last few years been criticzed for his blurring of facts, he has even reached the point of going against basic economics in order to attack republican positions. It is really sad that he has let his politics so completely cloud his economic principles. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Dr. Krugman's article is the place to equivocate. Per Still-24-45-42-125. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - Opinions vary on this subject, but when an opinion is given by a Nobel prize winner in Economics, that opinion carry more weight than the opinion of a blogger, or TV anchor. Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support -
a. The term "Nobel Prize-winning" is used all the time in WP to describe commentators giving their opinions. Here are just a few examples: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].
b. Every other expert in the article has his qualifications described. To intentionally leave Krugman out would be POV.
c. Anyone who has read his column would know that it's largely about economics and the intersection of economics and politics.
d. Krugman is being cited for his own opinion on an economic matter, not a political matter.
e. Given the comments above, obviously his credibility is in question. The term is needed to demonstrate his expertise. -- Mesconsing (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
a. Food Security does not use the term for Krugman. How about all the times that Krugman is not cited as such? Most of those articles are pretty obscure with only the SA of 2008 being notable, and in that case appropriate.
b. His qualification is not obmitted. Being a nobel winner is not a qualification of anything.
c. They used to be, now they are almost purely politics.
d. This is a political discussion, not an economic theory discussion.
e. His credibility is not being questioned on the page, thus the puffery on the page is not needed. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His recent opinion piece doesn't even discuss specific economic aspects of Ryan, it is nothing but political attacks. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
His 8/15 piece throws out tired DMC talking point that "canceling the expansion of coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which would mean lost insurance for tens of millions of Americans – thousands of whom would, in fact, die as a result." IE, people Ryan's plan kills people. Does this sound like economic theory or pure political attack? Arzel (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like economic policy analysis to me. Policy analysis always includes an assessment of the effects, intended and unintended, of the policy being considered. Mesconsing (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ha! You agree with the DNC Democratic talking points as an economic theory? There is no validity to this nonsense, all it does is expose your political point of view. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said I agreed or disagreed with anything. Unlike other editors, I am not in this for the politics. Please stop making personal attacks, please do not make false attributions, and please take your unwarranted assumptions elsewhere. Mesconsing (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - These descriptors are only used to inflate the weight of this person's opinion and POV biases their claims away from a NPOV. And if this is not mentioned in the reference this also violates WP:NOR. Honorific titles have no place but the BLP of the person under discussion. Stating Krugman is an economist and columnist is appropriate and acceptable as a NPOV. Krugman did not receive a Nobel Prize for his criticism of Ryan's economic plans. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No - If Krugman were talking about international trade, it might make sense. Here he's writing an op-ed about politics, not an academic paper in his area of expertise, so Nobel laureate doesn't belong. I'll go one further--it's not neutral and disinterested to allow Krugman to insult Ryan in his bio by calling his budget a "sham." This section needs to be rewritten if we even decide to keep it. Mforg (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No - Adding "Nobel laureate" gives Krugman's political opinions undue weight. And, for all the other reasons given by Collect, Arzel, JournalScientist and Mforg. (and because, for all their expertise, some laureates are correctly perceived to turn out to be clueless op-ed backseat drivers). --Kenatipo speak! 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Also, oppose mentioning he is a columnist since it doesn't contribute to his notability in a significant way. This is an international encyclopedia, him being a columnist means little outside the USA, him being a Nobel prize winning economist matters more. And the text he is being cited for is about economics, read it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously Since this is an opinion piece and his Nobel award has no bearing whatsoever on the reference. If anything, it should say NYT columnist since it demonstrates he is giving his opinion or commentary on an issue. In the same fashion as Obama attacking Romney or Ryan. Should we change references of Obama to Nobel laureate President Obama? No, it doesn't belong. ViriiK (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there is no policy requiring that we mention the Nobel Prize. The only policy which could apply discourages the use of honorifics. Let's apply the policy that we have--it works fine.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nobel prize isn't important in relation to the opinion piece and serves to 'prop up' Krugman's opinion rather than serve an encyclopedic purpose - the title could also clearly be interpreted as an honorific. We don't note that the Beatles are a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band on every page they are mentioned, nor do we note that Angelina Jolie has won an Academy Award in front of every comment she makes. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kenatipo, and blue link. I can't even fathom why we are having this discussion in the first place.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          19:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't fathom why we're having this discussion either. It's seems so obvious that presenting someone's qualifications to comment on economic matters is a rational and reasonable thing to do. Mesconsing (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It might, if he were commenting on economic matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No Prefacing a comment by giving the commenter's background or titles/honorifics/awards is in effect making an argument on a WP page by putting two facts together. The arguments in a Krugman editorial should stand on their own, and if people want to check them out, the fact of a blue wikilink should be sufficient and appropriate and easy to note the prominence of a commenter. It is essentially saying; source x, who won debate a, now is commenting on debate z.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's more like; source x, who is an expert in y, now is commenting on debate z (which is plainly about y). It explains why we're even quoting x. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I'm not using the # sign because the numbering is so messed up). To give some detail about Krugman adds legitimate information for the reader and improves the reader's ability to assess the quotation. Some readers would benefit from a mention of Krugman's Nobel prize and even a mention of his important published works and other details. Any such information, however, isn't directly relevant to the Ryan bio. On the other hand, just saying "Paul Krugman said this," even with a wikilink, is inadequate. We strike a balance by giving the reader summary information in this article and providing the wikilink for anyone who wants more. Calling Krugman "economist and columnist" is the best compromise summary -- "economist" states his area of expertise, "columnist" makes clear that he's not your run-of-the-mill economist. JamesMLane t c 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think he's "far-left"? To quote Krugman on this, "Milton Friedman would be Far Left to the nutcases on the Far Right today." Anyhow, that's something we don't have reliable sources to support, which is why it's not stated in his BLP. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Krugman trying to redefine Friedman is rather laughable as Friedman considered himself closer to libertarians than anything else. Krugman's blog is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal" so labeling him a "liberal economist" would be accurate. I believe a NPOV is just "economist". --JournalScholar (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If being liberal were somehow relevant to this, I'd be fine with mentioning it, as it's veritably true. However, while there are many liberals, few are economics, and very, very few are Nobel-winning economics. Calling him liberal is about as useful as calling him white and male. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe he's "far-left" (by US standards). And his statement about Milton Friedman is not part of his expertise and is demonstrably false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you do believe it, and I believe that you believe it, but I don't believe it's true because it's not what our sources say. Sources matter, personal opinions, less so. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Persons should be IDed by their current or most notable job, with the magical blue link leading to other fun facts, as needed. (Drop the job and suddenly Admiral Billy Bob rankles.) Hcobb (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral unless there is a specific precedent. The argument for mentioning the Nobel Prize is that it is relevant to the expertise of the person making the criticism (which seems clear to me despite the comments above; economics is a science and a Nobel Prize in the sciences indicates expertise in a way that awards outside the sciences usually do not). My argument against would be that the analysis isn't published academically.
So I would want to know - has Krugman published this or a similar analysis in an academic journal? If so, we should cite that instead - or an peer-reviewed analysis by a different author. Or alternatively, if there is no mention in the literature can an argument be made that the Ryan plan falls under WP:FRINGE? (does that policy apply to economics?)
But in any case: what is the opinion of economists as a whole of Ryan's plan? I don't know what the answer is, but the answer to this question is what should be in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Krugman is a great economist, but as noted, this honorific is besides the point when it comes to his criticism of Ryan's plan. His disagreement was not an objective analysis published in an economic journal. (In which case, mentioning his Nobel prize might hold some water) Rather, it was a political rant published on his blog where he calls conservatives "nutcases" and murderers. There is serious question where such a divisive, emotional attack should be mentioned in the article at all, but it's certainly not written in the same capacity as his Nobel-winning economic work. Thus, over-inflating his political opinions because of unrelated accomplishments in another field is wrong. (Believe it or not, Krugman did not win the Nobel Prize for his criticism of Ryan's plan or his views on conservatives. Rather it was for something completely and entirely different) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like an appeal to authority (specifically the authority of the committee who awarded him a prize). If you link to Paul Krugman's wikipedia article, readers can see for themselves all accolades attributed to him. He can stand on his own reputation without having his resume attached everywhere that he is quoted. Slowtalk (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the committee that gave him this prize is an authority. It's not just a few random people in a room. As for his resume, we're talking about two words. In short, your comment seems to be out of touch with the facts of the matter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether the committee is an authority is debatable and completely outside the scope of this conversation. Appeals based on that authority contribute nothing to wikipedia. To illustrate my point, I posit this question: Would you ever preface a reference to Albert Einstein with the words "nobel laureate"? He won the award (in a real science called physics) but no one seems to mention it. If Krugman had a reputation as solid as Einstein's, there would be no need to try to bolster his reputation with an allusion to an award that may or may not be relevant to the subject of his comments therein cited. Slowtalk (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The committee is an authority, and WP:UNDUE requires us to accept this. Einstein is not parallel as he was famous for being a physicist. Krugman is well-known, but not famous, so there's value in pointing out his qualifications. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a very creative interpretation of due weight. As I read it, the policy requires us to fairly represent his opinion, not to preface his opinion with his resume (as I said before). If we link to his article, then his qualifications are easily found for those who do not know him. If we are going to create a rule for who should have "nobel laureate" appended to their names, what is the line between well-known, and famous? This line of thinking seems to be quickly approaching ridiculous.Slowtalk (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't actually follow your argument. Are you saying that, so long as an article exists for a person, we shouldn't explain their relevance when mentioning them in another article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
In short, yes. In my experience, wikipedia is very prolific in cross-linking the subjects of other articles rather than elaborating further about those subjects in the current article. We take it for granted that the reader has knowledge of the cross-linked subject, but the reader is free to follow the link if more information is desired. This keeps articles clean and (more importantly in my opinion) concise. Slowtalk (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'll simply note that what you describe is not Wikipedia policy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is outlined in a specific policy or not, it is the prevailing style, and it is a valid opinion when trying to reach consensus. Slowtalk (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Krugman's Nobel is in Trade theory and the comment in question is in Public policy, a field in which Krugman's qualifications are more or less the same as any well-published academic economist. Anyone familiar with the contributions for which he was awarded the Nobel price can see quite clear that they do not provide much insight into budget issues. →Yaniv256 wind roads 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is deceptive, leading the reader to believe that he is speaking as an expert and in that area. Choice of words indicates that he's actually speaking as a political opponent trying to score "hits", not analyze. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just going to note that this conclusion is far from obvious: there's nothing about his choice of words that suggests any such thing. Since your !VOTE is based on a lack of understanding of the issues, I do not believe it will carry any weight in a WP:CLOSE. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
WOW! You seem to be positing that the close is a close call -- with only 6 supporting the puff and 17 opposing it, I would, in fact, posit that the WP:CONSENSUS is about as clear as found on any page ever. And I would note that the type of comment you just made is considered poor form in any RfC, and is generally ignored by any admin closing the discussion. Saying any editor simply does not "understand the issues" is a sure way to get marked as someone who desires the WP:TRUTH instead of WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that it is really bad form to be telling people that their comment was effectively going to be ignored. While you have made clear what the standard closing practice is...I suggest you stop commenting in such a manner as you are certainly not going to be closing this RFC...being involved and all. You are also making it a matter that would now, almost by necessity, reqiure the closing of an admin--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary, I am improving the quality of conversation by encouraging editors to explain their reasons in terms relevant to Wikipedia instead of simply expressing their personal preferences, which are flatly irrelevant. You are free to disagree, but I contend that you'd be mistaken. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion its a consensus poll. "One loud voice" constantly interjecting itself is undue weight to your opinion and is very much a matter of putting down the stick and dealing with this horses corpse.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and in a consensus poll, WP:CLOSE applies, which is why I'm gently reminding editors to explain their views so that we can build a consensus instead of expressing their preferences as if they were voting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If we were quoting Krugman's opinion on botany, I might agree. However, he's actually speaking within the range of his expertise; economics. As such, your argument isn't so much wrong as irrelevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems like unnecessary puffery - what does his Nobel Prize have to do with his criticism of Ryan's budget? (Also, the Economics Nobel Prize isn't a real Nobel prize. There, I said it) "Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman" seems like the best way to identify him. john k (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you said it, but you didn't explain it. Why do you say it's not "real"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
See the article Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It's not technically a "Nobel Prize". I don't think this has anything to do with whether it should be listed, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The article says it's "an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics, generally regarded as one of the most prestigious awards for that field. Although not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, it is consistently identified with them." So John is technically correct, but not in a way that justifies his conclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified Oppose: that he's an "economist" is clearly relevant, but his prizes (like his political leanings) have nothing to do with Ryan, the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunq (talk • contribs) 11:45, August 25, 2012
  • Opppose references to any awards such as Nobel Prize, but support calling him an economist. Using additional honorifics is WP:UNDUE. Save that stuff for Krugman's own article. —Torchiest talkedits 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus on this seems clear, and it matches the status of the page: "Economist and columnist Paul Krugman...", with no mention of prizes. So I think this poll can close now. Homunq (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Good Article Nomination

I'm pleased to announce that WikiProject Conservatism has assembled a crack team of editors to work toward promoting this article to GA. Currently Obama is FA, and Biden and Romney are GA. We would appreciate your cooperation in keeping instability to a minimum--at least until after the GAN closes, <smile>. Thanks! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello "Crack team" be sure and collaborate with major contributers and others. Do not be disapointed if the first attempt does not work. Keep trying if needed. You can also alert the other WikiProjects listed above to encourage a larger group of interested editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not concern yourself simply with improving the article, rather than trying to get a 'status'? -- Avanu (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Review has been closed, closing thread. Safiel (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I recommend you withdraw as the reviewer. WP:GAN states that "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and the count tool identifies you as a top contributor to this article. —Eustress talk 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress talk 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress talk 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles only states "..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required.". It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "[Y]ou cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review.

I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit [32]. That is NOT a significant amount.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, am I right in thinking that in the week before that seven day period you made 50 edits to the article? [33] Fayedizard (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No, actually probably less days and not 50 (Edit:that was exactly correct, yes) but that seems close going by the above information. However 7 days would be a reasonable amount of back look for the article itself, it's history for stablity, edit warring etc.. Some editors use even less days then that. As few as 3 days with no major edit warring and I haven't engaged in edit warring or disruptive behavior to warrent any concern. But lets look at it. From the history, 10 edits on the 12th. 13 edits on the 13th. 8 edits on the 14th. On August 16 I made 4 more edits that day. 10 edits on the 17th (that was a very high traffic day). 4 edits on the 18th. 2 on the 19th. 1 on the 25th.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That looks like 53 total edits and 50 edits from the 12 to the 19th. So yes. Starting out with the greatest amount per day when I began and dwindling down to almost nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, thank you for doing this. We're lucky to have a reviewer at all: has anyone here made a GA nomination that languished for lack of reviewers? Wikipedia used to have an interminable backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer notes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since this particular review has been closed, closing the thread. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content

The policy is actually pretty clear and I do not believe I am being unreasonable or endangering the integrity of the GAN review process. By guidelines: The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. [A]ny registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. The original concern raised included non-criteria such as talk page discussions and unfounded assumption of bad faith and a personal interpretation of "significant contributions" to it "prior" to the review. No specific, detailed definition exists to define what Significant is and "prior" is there for a reason, so that a reasonable amount of time could pass and still allow a contributor to review. I believe 7 days prior to the review with a single edit is NOT a significant contribution a clear week PRIOR. Before that my entire editing history on the article only amounts to 53 total edits. I have not edit warred or disrupted the page. I believe I am a neutral editor and a reasonable candidate to review this article as having previously reviewed biographies of a similar nature and have not held any bias towards any figure for any reason in any of these reviews. There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw. The nominator may withdraw the nomination, but has weighed in and believes "a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits". I concur. This could be a reasonable point of reference. 1 week-1 edit as minimum prior editing and no more than approximately 50 edits total in the article history to not be significant.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on whether you are biased. I can, however, say that your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over the meanings of "significant" and "prior" are red flags, and thus I have no confidence in you as a reviewer. Though your willingness is commendable and I suspect you'd do an excellent job, I still strongly believe you should step aside. I understand that it's harder to find someone to do the work if we eliminate those most interested, but that's the process that we have to live with (or formally change). Homunq (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ps. If someone else formally takes the title of reviewer, I would have no problem with them leaning on amadscientist to do much of the actual work, if that was what they wanted/decided to do.
I am disapointed that I have lost your confidence over an issue you see as a red flag. I am correct in the "prior" having meaning of narrowing the "significance" but, that is to make the distinction between the reviewer's work during the review, as to make it clear the reviewer may contribute to the article to make changes themselves. It is not a designation of a period of time before the review, but the overall contribution of the reviewer. However, I do not feel 54 total edits is significant in this case. I cearly have backed away and edit count is not what this is about but, "Contribution". My overall contributions to the article before the review began are not significant. I am not an "involved" participant in what goes on the page and I am not engaged in a contentious discussion. I have not begun the review, even though I feel I have strongly demonstrated that I have not violated even the spirit of GAN process or the guideline. I am not refusing to step down. The discussion just hadn't persuaded me that I should withdraw voluntarily yet and I believe this should be given some time. The nominator has not objected and no one has actually even come forward, volunteering to take over the review. I realize this has become a concern. I am here to do a good faith review of the Paul Ryan article for Wikipedia. That's all. I will not start the review until this has been decided one way or another.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've got to say that "prior" implies "anytime prior" not "recently prior" though I agree it could mean either in context. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, yes. If you're going to reply, at least read the post before yours when you click save.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Were you planning on getting this decided some way other than asking for folk's opinions? I supplied mine. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate. If you had another way forward for this decision to be made please explain. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, you may be an excellent editor with incisive views on how to improve the article. But if nothing else, you are demonstrating that you lack the listening skills to be a good reviewer. Multiple people are telling you that they don't feel it's appropriate, and you keep responding essentially "that's just your opinion". Even if you were 100% right about policy, your personal blind spot about how you're looking to others would hamper your ability to lead this review. Step down. Now. Your stubbornness is not helping this article get reviewed any faster. Homunq (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No. I don't think this was handled in the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe it was a crucible and demands were made on my talkpage for me to submit to consesus for a GAN talkpage complaint that had not yet had time to be fully decided. If there was to be a consensus in the true spirit of Wikipedia it would NOT have been rushed and would have had the patience to wait until enough time had passed to say that the discussion should close and then we would see what the consensus was regardless. With such unclear guidelines I find it odd that people are allowed to use their personal opinion to form the basis of the argument, but my just defending my actions was just another excuse to template an editor. Remember, I didn't file the complaints, it was one editor. This might well have been handled in a completely different manner but all that happened is one editor got impatient and just moved the page to delist it himself against policy and guidelines after admitting there is nothing in place to remove an editor from reviewing. Didn't even wait to make a closing on the complaint at the GAN talkpage and, funny that I am accused of not understanding policy but even after being told some three seperate times that AN/I was not the place for the issue...some editors kept trying to vote me out in some public display of shame. I know that many of those editors voting at the GAN talkpage were aware of what I expected. Just a closing of the talkpage discussion with a formed consensus....but that was too much to expect.
I encourage everyone to support the new reviewer and contribute to improving the article. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
To clarify a few points, as the editor who dealt with this: I specifically said there is no "set in stone" procedure as to how removing a reviewer is generally done. I never said that there was no procedure at all. Look in the WT:GAN archives, specifically Oakley77 and TeacherA; Wizardman has had to step in a few times and G6 some pages. Secondly, ANI is not an AFD. It has no minimum time limit. Once a consensus is obvious, the decision is enacted by an admin. You don't even have to wait for the purple closing tags; those generally were not used that much before January of this year. You refused to listen to consensus here, and unfortunately, drastic measures had to be taken. --Rschen7754 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. You just couldn't wait and let a consensus happen. You had to make sure your truth on the issue was the final say regardless of the discussion. What I didn't listen to was the undertone of hostility and demands that I submit to an unofficial battle of wills. A complaint was made to the GA talkpage. A consensus was forming, but a AN/I was also made. There was no administrative action taken or felt needed and it was also stated that the ANI was not a jury. The AN/I was a secondary report and was not a basis for me not withdrawing alone. It was simply kicked back to the original talkpage and I was simply waiting for them to make the closing on consensus. What...you don't think there should be a closing on a controversial situation? You think nothing of taking such a drastic measure before consensus was formed and then accuse the other editor of it being "their fault" by not listening to consensus? I just need to live with consensus, I don't have to submit to intimidating and hostile talkpage demands. And nothing I did or expressed indicated I would not withdraw once the decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, everyone. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Review closed. See GA1

===Criteria===

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

    2

  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

    3

  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

    4

  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

    5

  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

    6

  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

Result

Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

I will begin later this evening. The editors could use the time to begin running through criteria and begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately. Run through references and take out non-reliable sources. Check the claims being made to the source. Format all references as inline citation and not bare urls. Other common things overlooked, copyright concerns for text. Besure there isn't anything that paraphrases too closely to the source and check the license, author and source of all images. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You see! This is precisely why an uninvolved editor is needed for the review. You say here that expanding the lead is a major issue, when we (you included) already discussed this at length and arrived at a consensus on the current version. —Eustress talk 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" is not stating that i think it is a major issue and does not demonstrate an issue. The suggestion is to collaborate on things that are obvious. Uhm, obviously the lede can use more collaboration to expand it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

,

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

Why is there no article on Janna Ryan but there was one on Jill Biden?

There was also one on Todd Palin made right away. Why is Janna being shielded off? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think the creation of the article on Jill Biden, created on August 23, 2008, was jumping the gun. IF, Romney/Ryan wins, as soon as they went "over the top" according to electoral votes as verified by a reliable source, then I think it would be appropriate to create an article on Janna Ryan as the presumptive incoming "second lady." Until then, it would be inappropriate to created a separate article for her, UNLESS, she does something significantly notable in her own right, which there is no evidence of to this point. Safiel (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Our enforcement of notability has tightened a little since 2007–08. I don't imagine Jill Biden would have an article today until after the election. Palin's different since he was the spouse of a chief executive, rather than a legislator, and that tends to put one in a gray area of notability (see Kitty Dukakis, Ann Romney). Throw in his racing career and he's borderline notable. I don't think Janna Ryan is anywhere close, unless she does something significant unrelated to her marriage. —Designate (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Feedback to Good Article Review

I would note that I concur with the Reviewer pretty much in all the points of his preliminary review and I would concur in his preliminary conclusion that the article currently does not meet the criteria for Good Article status. Nothing that I see in the review that I am inclined to disagree with. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's a good review. My one concern is where it notes that a section is "heavy on critical remarks" rather than sympathetic ones. Neutral is not the same as balanced; we should be guided by the facts (as expressed in reliable sources), not by a "one for you and one for me" philosophy. However, since I agree with all the specific concerns given, that's a minor quibble; I expect that this review will improve the article significantly. Homunq (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Balance means to give everything its proper weight and my point in the review is that currently there is undue weight being given to critical opinions over supportive ones. In this respect balance and neutrality are essentially the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No sir, that is not what balance is at Wikipedia. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." It is not EVERYTHING being given proper weight in the article but only if they are of equal validity. "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." WP:BALANCE--Amadscientist (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe "equal validity" is covered under "proper weight" as something of less validity is not given proper weight by elevating it to equal status. This is not a case of equal validity being an issue, however. Many groups and individuals of some significance support Ryan's positions and this is not adequately reflected in the article's present state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the details of the personal life section range out of reasonable biography into a listing of virutally every detail that could be mined from sources. 7th grade basketball? father's secretary called him at work? Why are these relevant? Avocats (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The material about the call from his father's secretary was clearly relevant as it is what prompted Ryan to go home where he found his father dead and the death of his father is obviously significant to Ryan's bio.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Marathon time material

I removed some material about Ryan claiming to run a marathon in 3 hours. Maybe, big maybe, include this in 6 months if it goes to court over it or becomes a professional runner, ect. --Mollskman (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the big deal about it either. Doesn't really add anything to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 13:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a big deal for any serious runner: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4785636&page=0 So if real achievements are relevant enough for a politician's bio (see Gary Johnson's Ironman), then also heavily aggrandized ones. --GirasoleDE (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but it really doesn't even matter to them. If every time someone stated a wrong time, mistaken or otherwise, they would have a hundred million instances to be upset over and would have all jumped off buildings by now. The people who it really "matters" to are the the folks trying to get Obama/Biden elected who see a benefit from trying to give this trivia more airplay. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
If every time someone stated a wrong time, mistaken or otherwise, they would have a hundred million instances to be upset over and would have all jumped off buildings by now. That's nonsense. Lying about your personal best is the worst thing you can do in the running community - and nowadays it is quite stupid because the results are available on the internet. The people who it really "matters" to are the the folks trying to get Obama/Biden elected who see a benefit from trying to give this trivia more airplay. - Who cares about the motivations of the people spreading these news? If it gets enough "airplay", it's relevant. And now it is not only Runner's World, Slate, Huffington Post and The New Yorker (with a follow up), it's also Paul Krugman: [34] --GirasoleDE (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Just because talkheads bring this up doesn't mean we parrot it here unless there is consensus to do so. You keep mentioning other stuff that is trivial. Please bring that stuff up for removal since I actually agree with you about that other stuff. --Mollskman (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe add to the campaighn article. Those sub articles are so sleezy that this would be a perfect fit. --Mollskman (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
One good candidate for removal, is the "fact checking" material about his recent speech. All of that "fact checking" didn't even allege one factually wrong statement, it's just debating slanted "compare and conrast" inferences, in other words, providing a soapbox for debating points of his opponents. So, our "coverage" of the speech has nothing about the speech but instead consists mostly spin talking points by his opponents. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Any editor is free to add material to a Wikipedia article. Instead of spending your time venting about what isn't in the article, why don't you spend your time more constructively by adding what should be in it?   --  Mesconsing (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
(added later) Good point which addresses 1/2 of what I said. The other half is about the crap this is in. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Any editor is free to edit a Wikipedia article. That can be just as constructive as adding material... -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I was just making the point in talk. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Other than possibly making Ryan look dishonest, I don't see anything objectionable about the marathon material. And making him look dishonest is perfectly fine so long as reliable sources say he is dishonest, such as the fact-checkers who found lies in his speech. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how we can deem Ryan misrepresenting his best marathon time by over an hour (and misrepresenting that he has completed multiple marathons rather than just one), yet include mentions of P90X and supposedly climbing a bunch of Fourteeners. How can we justify including athletic info that paints him in a positive light, but then saying the marathon time lie is irrelevant to a politician bio. By that logic, isn't the Fourteener stuff even less relevant that the marathon debacle. Furthermore, we know about the marathon time because a media source (Runner's World) actually did independent reporting and detailing the investigating they did. The source for the Fourteener claim doesn't go into detail. From that source, I have no idea whether Paul just the reporter or whether any independent investigation was done at all regarding which mountains Ryan has climbed. --JamesAM (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Beyond that, as GirasoleDE notes upthread, it's been covered in the mainstream media -- Runner's World, Huffington Post, Slate, the New Yorker, and to that list I'll add the websites of ABC News([35]), The Atlantic ([36]), and Mediaite ([37]). Even if supporters of Ryan complain that this particular lie of his is being given too much attention, they're in the same position as Obama supporters who complained that the Jeremiah Wright baloney was given too much attention. We do include things that achieve media notoriety, even if the high-minded Wikipedia editors conclude in their infinite wisdom that the media attention is misplaced. JamesMLane t c 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. And now we can add the Los Angeles Times to the mainstream media: Paul Ryan exaggerates his marathon-running prowess. --GirasoleDE (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the key point. Virtually every national news source has its own article about the marathon claim right now, and the AP and Bloomberg have written articles which are being widely distributed. If it is notable enough to receive coverage from essentially all major news outlets, then it should not be deleted from the article solely on the grounds that it is insufficiently notable. -- Martha6981 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Do no editors even read WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS? Arzel (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the point for those rules. With notable figures, we don't want wikipedia to be a diary because the articles would become clogged and unreadable. This does not mean that media coverage is not a guide to notability. This is particularly true in articles about politics where people have widely divergent (and frequently politically convenient) subjective interpretations about what is or is not notable. The personal life section is not at risk of becoming excessively long, and much of the material in it is less notable as measured by media coverage. Therefore I am reinserting the two sentences that I included before. -- Martha6981 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what it is at all. This is clearly a WP:RECENT issue which is very unlikely to have any longlasting impact. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Simply linked to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is not an effective rebuttal. It says that most newsworthy events don't need to be included in Wikipedia. It doesn't say which ones don't make it. So it's incumbent on people arguing for exclusion to get into the specifics for their view. This is even more clearly the case since the pre-existing consensus on the page was apparently that Ryan's recreational athletic exploits should be included. Ryan's supposed participation in P90X, mountain climbing, and bow hunting have been included for a while. Now, when there's an athletics story that casts Ryan is a negative light, suddenly this is verboten (while the positive stuff was okay). Keep those in but leaving the marathon is a clear-cut pro-Ryan bias. This is not a close case. It's a crystal clear double standard. But not addressing this issue (which I brought above), it seems like the exclusionist are conceding the point. The marathon story is just as worthy for inclusion. If anything, it's a better inclusion than those other matters, since it was covered by numerous news source, came during remarks to political radio host in the midst of a political campaign, etc. It's also raised a debate about honesty, whereas the other stuff is just about recreation. --JamesAM (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
JamesAM, I actually agree with your last point. This has zero to do with Ryan's physical feats, and everything to do with his character, or lack of it as some would paint this. I would only include it in the campaighn sub-article if at all. --Mollskman (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think my last point was that "this has zero to do with Ryan's physical feats", then you overlooked something. I said the marathon issue is "also" about honesty. Meaning it's additional about honesty. The fact that Ryan ran one marathon at age 20 in a time of 4 hours, 1 minute, and some seconds is about physical feats. The other stuff is "just" about recreation (assuming it's not also shown to be false, as opposed to the marathon being about recreation and honesty. --JamesAM (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Get over it! The news has travelled across the pond: Daily Mail: Paul Ryan caught out shaving an HOUR off his marathon time - stern.de: US-Wahlkampf: Ryan stolpert über falsche Marathon-Zeit. --GirasoleDE (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You make it sound like we live in an age where messages must travel by boat! Anyone with an internet connection could have heard of it, that logic is utterly pointless. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is huge coverage, add it to the campaighn sub-article where this election cycle gotcha stuff belongs. --Mollskman (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Words have meaning. Something isn't gotcha journalism just because one labels it that. Ryan made his remarks during a review with Hugh Hewitt, a friendly figure for conservative Republicans. Then, reporters simply fact-checked the claim. That doesn't correspond with gotcha journalism as our very own article has described it. --JamesAM (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"He's used to the media letting him get away with outlandish claims. But this time he went too far" Paul Ryan’s marathon lie salon.com. 87.164.113.21 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I restored it. There seems to be no argument for removal other than the fact that it makes him look bad. Well, that's not our problem. If he didn't want to get caught in an embarrassing lie, he shouldn't have lied. Neutrality does not mean whitewashing, so we have to report what the secondary sources consider important. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that Ryan intentionally lied. His marathon time of four hours was still pretty respectable. As someone who hadn't run one in 20 years, I imagine he just misremembered. Why would he make an extraordinary claim that he knew could be disproven?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding, who do you think you're fooling? "No argument for removal except whitewashing"? Specific Wikipedia policies have been cited; you cannot just reduce opposing arguments to strawmen.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Naming a policy is not an argument. Otherwise, we could just throw out the name of a policy and end a debate. An argument (or at least a convincing one) actually analyzes if and how the policy applies based on the fact. Why should WP:NOTNEWSPAPER bar inclusion of this and not bar inclusion of some other fact (e.g., President Obama's smoking addiction). Consensus has sanctioned the inclusion of Paul Ryan the cool mountain climber dude, and Paul Ryan the bad-ass bow hunter. But now Ryan misstating his marathon time by over an hour is suddenly off-limits. It's a point that keeps sitting there unrebutted (let alone effectively rebutted) by people who want to exclude mention of the marathon. --JamesAM (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Since you have on the record stated your hostility towards the subject of this article here and elsewhere, you have a clear COI, so your comments should be viewed in that light. --Mollskman (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
My arguments should be viewed in terms of whether they are convincing or not. You haven't addressed the double-standard regarding other athletics exploits vs. the marathon. I take it from that you have conceded the point regarding the double standard. You don't to avoid the duty to support your edits by magically saying the arguments raised by another editor don't count. And again, mentioning the name of a policy, doesn't amount to an actual violation of the policy. Look at WP:COI and the section on "What is a conflict of interest?" Insisting that we don't have a double standard regarding which recreational activities of Paul Ryan we include isn't a COI. Nor does the humorous use of the term "bad-ass bow hunter" to illustrate that the article is including mentions of Ryan's impressive activities, but not the mediocre and possibly deceptive one. Now beyond the fact that you haven't identified any conflict of interest under the COI policy, note also COI applies to article edits. The only article edit I made regarding the marathon used very sober, restrained language. I bent over backward not to go out on any limbs. It would be helpful if an advocate for exclusion would address the double standard regarding recreational activities. --JamesAM (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A modest proposal

The Times had a blurb in today's paper acknowledging that he misstated his time. I would suggest something along the lines of "In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt Ryan said that he had ran a marathon in under three hours; he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was closer to four hours." with appropriate cites. This briefly includes an incident which has received significant coverage, but also doesn't imply that he intentionally lied about anything or make it seem like too big of a deal. Thoughts? a13ean (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If he responded on this topic, we should definitely include his response. We should not weigh in on whether he was mistaken or lying; that's not our job. If reliable secondary sources have something to say about it, we may want to quote them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Pointless triva which has no long lasting historical value per WP:NOTNEWS Arzel (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like my suggestion has failed to satisfy either side; I suggest an RFC. a13ean (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe create Paul Ryan marathon time controversy and Paul Ryan mountain climbing controversy? We can't get into every little silly thing like this.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

Fake request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request to add awards and honours section:

2010 - American of the year award from FARTA - Free Americas Regional Trade Association Tadpole15 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to modify the above to get the request off the list. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

GA1 Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While acknowledging the legitimate concerns about the previous reviewer, I do believe the point about the lede is a valid one. Some expansion of the lede to make it a fuller summary of the material in the article body would be good. I plan to do a complete review later, but for now one concern I have is the "political philosophy" section as it seems to not present the situation accurately. As written it seems to imply that Ryan flip-flopped on his views of Ayn Rand, when the National Review source would indicate more that he just does not fully ascribe to Rand's philosophy. Another issue I noticed right away is that there are a lot of single sentence paragraphs that could probably be merged into other paragraphs or expanded with additional information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment Cwobeel (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Too early to submit to Good Article as the article does not fit the criteria about stability (criteria #5). It can be reviewed again after the elections. Cwobeel (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There can only be one official reviewer for a GA. Anyone is welcome to comment, but it is up to the official reviewer to make the decision. --Rschen7754 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that rule was more about "are there edit wars" rather than "is the information changing week to week". It's easy to maintain a GA when the editors reliably contribute well-referenced content. Disavian (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
While I did have concerns about this being nominated so close to the election, I think this consideration applies more to articles at risk of fast-paced overall developments. His involvement in the campaign will likely be handled more in the article on the campaign, with only summary material provided here in a single section so I do not think it is a serious concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Still as an ongoing article its going to go through a lot of changes in the coming mnths. Theres not hurry to waiting till December/February to nminate it. The page is not running away.Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Only managed to get through the lede and life sections so far, but I am already seeing a problem with close paraphrasing. While I think most of the problems in those parts have been basically fixed by my edits, I imagine there are more issues later on so editors should be keeping an eye out for those issues. I have added a cite tag to one bit of information that I could not find in the surrounding sources and removed the claim about Ryan's family not working in the company, since the source seemingly said the great-grandfather who founded the company was not involved in the company. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my preliminary review with some general suggestions:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Writing seems to generally be good, but there are a lot of issues with close paraphrasing. As I noted already, many section have single sentence paragraphs that could be consolidated or expanded to satisfy the stylistic issue and the lede should be a more complete summary of the material in the article body.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I have tagged on the article or mentioned below all the areas where I think citations would be necessary or where the material does not quite match the sourcing. The OR issues would similarly be addressed by responding to the parts I have brought up here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Does not include any material regarding homeland security. I believe there is some information on this out there that would be helpful to included in the foreign policy section.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I dare say the level of non-neutral treatment borders on quickfail territory, but hopefully there will be some serious progress made on this given the attention and collaboration devoted to the article. The fiscal policy section is the worst offense, but the budget section is also rather heavy on critical remarks as opposed to supportive or defensive remarks.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Not seeing any problematic issues in the revision history.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The image of him at CPAC and the image in the tenure section merely have descriptive captions, rather than captions that establish relevance and draw readers into the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Below is a comprehensive listing of issues I noticed that should make this go a little faster. If someone resolves one of the concerns it would be helpful to cross out the material that has been addressed or otherwise indicate that a specific bit of material has been fixed:


Philosophy section
  • "Ryan tried to get all of the congressional interns in his office to read Rand's writing. He also gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged to his staff as Christmas presents."
  • Almost word-for-word what is said in the New Yorker source.
  • "According to AP, he supports their belief in individual rights, distrust of big government, and respect for America's founding fathers"
  • More close paraphrasing and I am pretty sure the source provides enough material to cast his views in a more original manner.
 Done. Thank you for the excellent comments (which required actually reading the source!). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Tenure section
  • "Early in Ryan's congressional career, he held office hours in some remote parts of his district in an old truck converted into a mobile office."
  • Closely resembles the wording in the source.

*"Ryan has also co-sponsored 975 bills."

  • It would be helpful to get an idea of how many bills he co-sponsored ended up passing, since the bills where he was the initial sponsor are noted as having a low success rate.
176 have passed, I've added it to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Political positions intro

*"According to the Washington Post, 22 percent of the bills co-sponsored by Ryan were sponsored by Democrats, and 'by this measure, he is slightly more bipartisan than the average Republican, with a figure of 19 percent.'"

  • Part of this is a close paraphrasing and the rest should probably be paraphrased.
I've changed it a bit, and moved it to the relevant part about the 975 bills. To me this makes more sense since we are talking about the bills he has co-sponsored. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Fiscal policy section

*"Ryan, 'though best known as an architect of conservative fiscal policy,' has also been described as a 'big-spending conservative.'"

  • Combining two separate and unconnected quotes in this way is suggestive and POV editorializing. We can probably paraphrase those two terms, though I think a rewrite of the whole paragraph is in order.
I've just removed the both of them; they are unnecessary and are being synthesised together. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

*". . . criticized Ryan's votes for these deficit-causing policies . . ."

  • The term "deficit-causing policies" should not be used in the editorial voice as it is here. Some use of the term "deficit-spending" would be appropriate. As noted above, the whole paragraph should be rewritten to be more balanced and less argumentative.
Attributed it to the commentators. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "President Barack Obama initially saw Ryan as 'someone he could possibly work with to reverse the building federal debt.'"
  • This quote should either be paraphrased or attributed since it is from the article and not Obama.
done IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "However, in 2011 Obama criticized Ryan as being 'not on the level' for describing himself as a fiscal conservative while voting for these policies, as well as two 'unpaid for' wars."
  • When it says "these policies" I take it as referring to the votes mentioned in the paragraph above it. This should be clearer and based off what is said in the PolitiFact source. Also the wording "However, in 2011" should be modified since it appears to be implying some sort of flip-flop on Obama's part regarding Ryan.
  • "Columnist Ezra Klein wrote in 2012 that 'If you know about Paul Ryan at all, you probably know him as a deficit hawk. But Ryan has voted to increase deficits and expand government spending too many times for that to be his north star. Rather, the common thread throughout his career is his desire to remake the basic architecture of the federal government.'"
  • We shouldn't just plop a quote like that down. I think this can be paraphrased rather effectively by drawing on more of the material from the column.
  • " . . . repeal the requirement that the Federal Reserve System reduce unemployment."
  • I think this can be re-worded a bit with more original wording.
  • "Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.[81] Ryan also voted against the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Ryan characterized as 'class warfare.'"
  • Given the rather friendly-sounding names of these pieces of legislation, I think there should be a little bit of detail about what he was opposing and why beyond the "class warfare" comment that seems to be argumentative.
  • "Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security. Ryan's proposal ultimately failed when it did not gain the support of the then-Republican presidential administration."
  • This claim that it failed because "it did not gain the support of the then-Republican presidential administration" is more argumentative wording and, in this case, is not clearly supported by the source. For one, it is clear Bush did support these proposals on Social Security so the claim about it not getting the support of his administration is simply not accurate. Secondly, the use of "then-Republican presidential administration" could be taken together with the claim about support as implying his ideas were too extreme for Bush. Another issue with this material is where it says "Ryan pushed" and calls the change "Ryan's proposal" as the source indicates there were other conservative voices supporting this change, including at least one who is named in the article. It would probably be good to expand on his involvement in the 2005 Social Security debate, as well as making the material more accurate.
  • "Ryan's budget proposals 'would mean significant cutbacks for education across the board
  • Another instance where we should paraphrasing as including the quote in this context a bit POV.
  • "In particular, the Ryan plan would lower the income level qualification from $33,000 to $23,000 for the Pell Grant program, and set a maximum grant of $5,550, about one-third the average total year cost of college . . . According to an analysis by the Education Trust, this would result in more than 1 million students losing Pell Grants over the next 10 years."
  • More very close paraphrasing. The wording here is just slightly altered from the HuffPo and NPR sources.
  • "Ryan states that his education policy is to 'allocate our limited financial resources effectively and efficiently to improve education.' Jordan Weissmann of The Atlantic said that Ryan's vision on education policy is to 'cut and privatize.'"
  • The placement and wording of these two statements is argumentative in an almost flippant and snarky manner. I would say there is general weighing issue with this entire paragraph on education, that overwhelmingly favors a critical view.
  • "The National Education Association teachers' union has criticized Ryan's positions on education."
  • It actually is not accurate. This appears to be referring to a statement by the president of the NEA and the source provided actually does not contain any specific criticism. However, the full statement does include some criticism of Ryan's ideas on education so that source can be provided. There should be some specifics about the criticism and it should be clearly noted that this is after Ryan was selected as the VP candidate and that the union affiliated with the NEA is supporting Obama.
Budget section
  • "It would have also phased out Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model; instead, starting in 2021 . . . "
  • Another instance of close paraphrasing of the source.
  • "Ryan's proposed budget was criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers."
  • Not what the source says. In fact, it appears to be saying Ryan was the one complaining about "the lack of concrete numbers" because GOP leaders decided to reveal the budget before he finished it. That would certainly be something on which to elaborate.
  • "Economist Ted Gayer wrote that 'Ryan's vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate.'"
  • The thing to note here is what is left unsaid. It is included in the paragraph on Krugman's criticism of the 2010 budget, but does not mention that Geyers was providing a direct response from the Tax Policy Center that Krugman cites in his criticism and that they rebutted several of his claims, including the "fraud" claim that is included in this article.
  • "An analysis by the CBO showed that the Ryan plan would not balance the budget for at least 28 years, partly because"
  • Nearly the exact same wording as in the cited source with some minor re-arranging.
  • " . . . but Ryan rejected their criticism."
  • Many problems with this, most notably the source. The opinion blog of Rachel Maddow is being used to support material suggesting a flippant dismissal by Ryan of concerns regarding how the budget reflects on his faith based off a truncated video clip. A better source for his response would be this one: [38].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Ryan's budget 'envisions continued increases in Pentagon spending' and 'significant cuts to the much smaller appropriations for the State Department and foreign aid,' with diplomacy and development spending being reduced sharply"
  • It would be better to have paraphrasing here and the material on diplomacy appears to be almost exactly the same as the material in the citation.
Social issues section
  • "During Ryan's 1998 campaign for Congress, he 'expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions," telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time that he "would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions,' and while not stating that he supports jailing women who have an abortion, stated: 'if it's illegal, it's illegal.'"
  • "This could lead to laws that would 'criminalize all abortion, as well as in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control.'"
  • Source is a very strong opinionated criticism of Ryan and should be noted as such, not quoted in a manner that treats the statement as fact.
  • "Ryan has also supported legislation that would impose criminal penalties for certain doctors who perform 'partial-birth abortions.'"
  • Another instance of close paraphrasing.
  • "Ryan was one of 227 co-sponsors of the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act bill in the House of Representatives that would have limited funding for federally funded abortions to victims of 'forcible rape'. 'Forcible rape' was not defined in the bill, which critics said would result in excluding date rape, statutory rape . . . The language was removed from the bill before the House passed the bill, the Senate did not vote on the bill."
  • Close paraphrasing again.
  • "He voted against a bill for stronger background check requirements for purchases at gun shows and supports federal concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, which would allow a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a firearm in every other state, a top National Rifle Association (NRA) priority."
  • More close paraphrasing.
  • "Ryan, who owns a rifle and a shotgun, is an NRA member . . . "
  • Almost the exact same words used in the source.
  • "Ryan supported legislation that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to apply for temporary guest-worker status, including one bill that would provide a pathway to permanent residence status (a Green Card) for such immigrants."
  • Close paraphrasing again as the citation for this statement includes nearly identical wording.
Campaign section
  • "Dan Balz of The Washington Post wrote that Ryan was promoted as a candidate for Vice President 'by major elements of the conservative opinion makers, including The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Weekly Standard and the editor of National Review.'"
  • This could use with quite a bit of paraphrasing.
  • "According to a statistical-historical analysis conducted by Nate Silver, 'Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900' and 'is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee [for vice president who previously served in the Congress] was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center'"
  • Definitely another instances where this would be better to paraphrase.
  • "Political scientist Eric Schickler commented that while Ryan 'may well be the most conservative vice presidential nominee in decades,' the NOMINATE methodology 'is not suited to making claims about the relative liberalism or conservatism of politicians' over a long time span."
  • Similar to above, this material would be more suitable if it were paraphrased.
Personal life section
  • "Ryan pursues an intense cross-training fitness program called P90X. He is careful about what he eats and has made close to 40 climbs of Colorado's Fourteeners (14,000-foot peaks)."
  • Another sentence with very close paraphrasing.
  • "Ryan is a hunter and fisherman who makes his own bratwurst and Polish sausage. A bowhunter, he is a member of the archery association the Janesville Bowmen . . ."
  • Yet again there is close paraphrasing of the sources in the citations.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I am going to try and see if improvements can be made to the article that will address the issues here. Putting final review on hold.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see how I can fix stuff here. I should be open for the next few days so I'll have some time to work on it. :) Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Closing

This review is being closed as fail due to an ongoing edit war. I suspect it may be best to wait until after the presidential election to nominate this article again. Whether Romney/Ryan win or lose the three months window between the election and inauguration should provide a decent time-frame for stable work on the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

political philosophy

I have a concern that the very title might be OR. Is it a fair heading to say the section is about the figures actual political philosophy? Do the references show these views from Ryan as political philosophy or have we added this by extrapolating or synthesizing the information from the varied sources to make a conclusion? Is the section written to express what sources are saying or has there simply been too much editing without checking the reference and the information is just getting away from us. First, I really think, if this information stays, it should be a more accurate and encyclopedic heading. Perhaps this is undueweight to all of this in its own section and could be incorporated into "Personal life" under the subheading (and only if needed) "Any Rand". I think we should drop at least one reference, the Atlas Society reference is an "archived" site blog. It does not qualify as a news blog with no author information and the Atlas socity does not have proper editorial oversite or fact checking and I even wonder if it amounts to just being a very elaborate fan site. It cannot be used to reference a fact and with no authorship it can't be used as opinion. The rest might be trimmed down before being added to the Personal life section if its moved.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal life wouldn't be the proper place for it. I don't see any issue with the heading "political philosophy" either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I can help out a bit here. The Atlas Society is the splinter group that Kelley formed due to disagreements with the Ayn Rand Institute about cooperation with (non-Objectivist) libertarians. We should treat it as a legitimate source of informations about Objectivism, although perhaps not as canonical as the ARI. It's definitely not just an elaborate fan site, although that description made me chuckle.
I think TDA is right about needing to be more careful in our descriptions of his relationship with Objectivism. On the one hand, he's obviously a big fan and we should report this. On the other, Objectivism (at least according to Rand herself and the ARI) is not a cafeteria philosophy. In other words, you don't get to agree with just part of it and still call yourself an Objectivist.
For this reason, we have to be careful not to frame a clarification on his part ("I'm sympathetic to it but reject one aspect entirely") as any sort of flip-flop. In particular, we have absolutely no reason to believe he accepted Objectivist atheism but changed his mind. Whatever his faults, Ryan is not known for flip-flopping the way Romney is.
Hope that helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done

I would just like to thank two or three users who are working out the right wording for criticism of Mr. Ryan's RNC acceptance speech. Pretty sure that it is not easy. I am also sure that notice of the character of his speech belongs here, in the opinion of enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:BLP requirements. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks specifically to user:Collect; I know we're on opposite "sides" of the politics, but we're both on the side of a strong wikipedia. Homunq (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
yes, well done Collect. Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Sally Kohn?

User:Collect thinks she should be mentioned by name. Since I've never heard of her, I'd like to know why. Homunq (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the point of a reference to name the author; the text should generally state the publication. That and and overwrought use of “in opinion columns” is pretty weasely. Kerfuffler (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sally Kohn is a notable person with a BLP, and noted for writing editorial columns. That's who she is. And the position about citing opinions as opinions is well-established at BLP discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

--In the context of its brief mention in this paragraph, the notable fact is the well-documented tsunami of indictment of Ryans speech, not the particulars. Sally Kohn's name belongs in the reference, not the text.SPECIFICO 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

False claims in speech

North8000, I'm going to politely ask you to revert yourself on this one, because you didn't read the sources. Consider that FactCheck stated, "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements". That was their first sentence; it wasn't buried. Please go ahead and fix it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't here to critique Ryan's speech. Belchfire-TALK 22:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct. We're here to report the critiquing of reliable sources, and we have plenty that call him a liar. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
So what? You can find a partisan media source to support any claim you like, that doesn't mean it's fit for this encyclopedia. Belchfire-TALK 23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You won't have a speech given by a politician that isn't both widely praised and widely critiqued. Both points of view are relevant and should be included, especially if they are substantive points. After all, the entire theme of the RNC was about a speech given by Obama where he supposedly said that people who build a business are not alone in the success they achieve. If the GOP can make an entire convention about a construing a speech out of context, how is it unenclyclopedic or undue to include substantive critiques of one of the speeches given at the RNC? -- Avanu (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding, I don't see any claims of factual errors in the article that you linked. I see claims of spin, being misleading etc. but no claims of factual errors. And this is ignoring that the claims are spin themselves, and ignoring that your "reliable sources" are participants, not sources. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says this:

"His speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered,[166][167][168] but was also criticized for containing what some believed to be half-truths.[169][170][171][172][173][174]".

I've just read through all these sources, and each one of them discusses the non-factual nature of the speech. The phrase "containing what some believed to half-truths" is unjustified from the sources. I suggest that the sources are being misrepresented. I suggest that the sources would be better represented by:

"His speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, although also characterised as containing many lies, misrepresentations and omissions."

The Fox News source uses the terms "lies", "misrepresentations" and "deceiving". Not one source contradicts this view - hardly "some believed to be half-truths". Trishm (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reasonable basis for claiming his statements were "half-truths" when all of our sources use much stronger, unambiguous terminology. This will not stay. I won't edit war over it, but I'll use every available mechanism to make this article comply with NPOV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lie is a pretty strong word to use, especially when regardless of the opinion of some, Ryan did not lie. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are notable opinions that he did not lie, we can attribute that to whomever said that. Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Fact, Ryan did not lie. I realize this is a hard truth for many, but Ryan made no statement regarding the GM plant which was a lie except for the minor statement that the plant did not last a year, as it was actually open longer than 1 year after Obama made his first statement. It is quite sad actually. This one event will probably be the end of the view that Many of the so called fact checking is an independent view of events. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, what you or I think is actually irrelevant to the article. The nine sources cited in the article are unambiguously unanimous - Ryan's speech contained lies and misrepresentations. I have not found a single news source, US or international, that says otherwise. Even the specific example that you give of the GM plant is still factually wrong in one respect, and recalls an earlier statement that was quite incorrect. A question for you: how would you use the CNN article that you link to,, or any other reputable source, to improve this entry? Trishm (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
NONE of them claim that he said anything that was incorrect. They are all just talking about what they say he implied, not what he said. And this is an article about Ryan, not about his opponents, and so statements should be in the form of being about Ryan, backed by sources, not statements about what his opponents said. Plus this creative "lie" angle is a BLP violation. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the sources disagree with you. They win. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems some here are disposed to label Ryan a compulsive liar and fraud. This is silly season editing at its worst. Wikipedia should never be used as a campaign vehicle on any side - whether about Obama's 57 states or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's what our sources say, that's what they say. Argue with them, not us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this point, I'm not disputing the sources, I'm using them. Show us one allegation of a FACTUAL ERROR in any of them. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Again you seem to think Wikipedia is a glorious billboard for silly season claims -- have you added the "57 states" to the Obama BLP, by the way? <g>. Your edit history is rife with problems on political articles in which you seem to present a very consistent POV. Alas for you,
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, and how does this apply? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grasping for "facts" in the world of politics is often futile. And here within Wikipedia, the "factuality" of something isn't what we're after. What do our so-called reliable sources say? If they say Ryan misrepresented something, we can easily say "According to the Reliable Source News, Ryan's statement on X was overstated, untrue, etc", whatever the source said. So what is the debate about in this section? Do you want to include a speech and only include positive praise of it? I assume we're talking about Ryan's speech at the RNC, which is clearly a unique speech due to the venue. If sources say it is a great blow against the evil socialist Obama, shall we exclude that? And if other sources say it was full of hyperbole or exaggeration or even lies, shall we exclude that? I say no. We include a clear representation of what our sources tell us. It is obviously campaign "silly season", and it is a stupid time to edit political articles, but hey, what do you do? -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective, and partisan politics aside, the bloke running for VP on the Republican ticket has made a major speech that has been reported to be full of obvious lies by reporters of all political stripes around the world. Some of the lies are clearly lies, others might be finessed away under fine parsing of the words, but it's fairly clear that the image projected by Ryan in this speech is of someone who is not reliable. The marathon kerfuffle is symbolic of this. In other words, the facts themselves are not the key point of this paragraph. The key point that I'm getting from fairly extensive reading of the sources is that whether something is true or not doesn't seem to matter to Ryan, and this is someone who, if the Republican ticket wins, would be a heartbeat away from being president of the United States. The problem with using the structure "According to the Reliable Source News, Ryan's statement on X was overstated, untrue, etc" is that it doesn't convey the general agreement among sources. Trishm (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked three times and nobody can find even an assertion of something that he said that was factually wrong. We should be covering the specifics, and the un-spun specifics of areas of issue, not trying to game in adjectives and swipes by his opponents by calling them "sources". North8000 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First up, North8000, we are not your personal researchers. You can ask all you like, we are not mandated to do your work for you. You could ask 20 times for proof the earth is more than 4000 years old, it still doesn't change the facts if no-one complies with your demands. That said, the sources even have titles including "brazen lies", "lies", "dishonest" and so forth. But, just this once, here is one example of a specific claim:

The Affordable Care Act increases taxes on millions of small businesses – Paul Ryan declared that the Affordable Care Act would impose “new taxes on nearly a million small businesses.” The Act changes taxes for small businesses in three ways. It provides a tax credit (pdf) to subsidize insurance coverage for which between 1.4 and 4 million small businesses are eligible. It imposes a tax on medical device manufacturers, of which there were only 5,300 (pdf) in the United States in 2007. Finally, it imposes an employer mandate on businesses that do not provide coverage, which will not affect (pdf) businesses with under 50 employees. Most small businesses, then, get a tax cut, and the number of small businesses facing tax increases is about five thousand, far under a million. Ryan’s claim is just false.
You just made my point which is that there is a new tax on small businesses. Not only is not a lie, it is correct. Your construction (even if it is accurate) asserts that the net effect is not an increase; even if it were true, that is a different topic. It certainly doesn't establish a "lie" North8000 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how claiming a million when its actually more like less than 10 thousand small businesses in regards to taxation is not at the very least misleading at face value or unrepresentative of the realities involved if not an intentional "lie". I understand your point that the number or outcome is not the reason making it 'less than truthful' but his use of vocabulary does. If you/he want to clearly reflect the nuance that you're making - it should somehow be clarified that a million small businesses are subject to new taxes due to the enactment of the ACA (true any way one tries to parse it; this is part of normal tax-assessment) but without any mention if that new exposure actually translates into higher payments for the same million small businesses (tax-payment not the same as tax-assessment thanks to tax-credits and/or tax-refunds being in play here) and to what percentage (the actual 5 to 10K), leaves the reader/listener with a false or misleading impression as a result of his less-than-absolutely-specific statement. Is that a 'the sky is yellow not blue' lie?? maybe not... but it is certainly a key omission that skews perception and I've read/seen several sources saying as much. One can be subject to the Marriage Tax, being of legal age, sound mind, and so on, but in the end - if you're not married, being subject to that tax doesn't mean a single thing -- even though this is typically not an increased exposure to tax-payment but a decreased exposure via a tax-deduction for newlyweds; for single people it can be construed as a penalty for being single. For the clear transfer of knowledge or intent from one person to the next; specifics (among other tools) serve us best, and his statement wasn't specific enough for the majority of the reporting on his speech/statement. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that what you are saying / agreeing is that what he said is literally true, but is misleading by leaving out other mitigating factors. That is probably correct, but saying something that is literally true can't be called a "lie" here. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is an instance where its not a contributor to the article synthesizing this POV on his or her own (for a change) but being done by several well-established & typically reliable sources themselves in response to what they've perceived as some sort of 'crossing the line' given the gravitas of the speaker making the statements and the setting in which they were made in. This is not something that can be addressed in this forum without our own synthesis taking place to dismiss or rebut the majority of the reporting currently referenced. The best one can do, imo, is find alternative [reliable] sources to counter the majority reporting and the verbiage used in their reporting. Otherwise, we are pretty much stuck with the labeling in use until the next event comes along to quiet down (or ramp up?) the matter. Continued argument over this nuance is already working to Ryan's opponents favor by keeping it in the forefront of discussion. (i.e. the twitter/blogosphere are making Lyin' Ryan an embedded staple rather than just a passing fancy for example). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikipedia should be just covering the specifics. Wikipedia should be covering the subject in the article, using appropriate sources, appropriate weight and appropriate context.Trishm (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: The mandate is a tax. Definitions of small businesses vary, but can include businesses with over 50 employees.76.222.58.150 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
North8000 asked for an example of a source saying that Ryan said something non-factual, because he disputes the characterisation of the sources in the article. I provided such an example, which discusses the subsidy that small businesses get to offset the costs of the mandate, and that the mandate does not apply to small businesses with under 50 people. Why are you pointing out that the definition of small business includes those with over 50 employees? That is not in dispute.Trishm (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't me, there must be confusion. But see above to note that not only is his statement about a "new tax" not a lie, it has been confirmed here by an opponent of his as being accurate. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You said that, far from raising taxes, the ACA actually cuts taxes for "most" small businesses. Therefore, your argument is that the subsidy outweighs the mandate, and that this is an undisputed fact?76.222.58.150 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No, my argument is that the sources cited in the article do indeed claim that Ryan erred in his facts. The subject of this discussion is the existence of the claim. Trishm (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not correct / germane. This is an article about Paul Ryan, not about the existence of talking points by his opponents. So, with respect to this, and following YOUR definition of the topic, what you are calling sources are actually participants in the material, not sources. Possibly it is germane enough to be covered (e.g. "reactions of opponents"), but as participants not sources. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The claims about Ryan "lying" seem poorly supported. I'm seeing opinions pieces and blogs, which are inappropriate. In order to include a highly charged accusation like this, I'd like to see much more solid sources. These sources must also fairly address the counter charge raised by Ryan's supporters that his claims were factual, instead of mis-characterizing Ryan's remarks and then calling those mis-characterizations lies. Right now, I think the entire paragraph should be removed until we can find a consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Only reliable sources should be used. If those reliable sources claim lies, then we can quote them on that, but if those same sources fail to idenfity specific lies, we can also note that. Additionally we should balance the claim of lies with the reponse that its just spin being characterized by lies. Several reliable sources have now come out and said something along the lines of 'technically true statements, but misleading', which is not a lie, and which is also the standard practice for all politicians. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly season in full swing -- the edit being made implies that most folks found it to be "lies" which means that the articles contradicting such claims as were made must also be included directly as such for NPOV. The term "widely" is an opinion which would require specific reliable sourcing - and ought not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In short - the simple claim that it was criticized is valid - the rest, ain't. Collect (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I am handling the GA review I will weigh in on this point. I believe the term "lies" should not really be used in this context as it appears the claim is more about misleading or deceptive statements rather than outright lies. Some take a view that these comments constitute lies by knowingly implying something that is false, but this sort of characterization should be noted in that context. However, it is probably better to leave that kind of explanation for the main article on the campaign and thus not mention the term "lies" in the material on this page. Noting that the criticism is about him allegedly misleading on certain points by omitting important facts is, I believe, more appropriate in the context of this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Perhaps "alleged distortions" captures the essence of the major complaints. "Lies" is a loaded term and doesn't seem accurate as Ryan's text is parsed a second and third time. Ronnotel (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--The issue is not what words any of us would personally use to characterize Ryan's statements. However, much of the press reaction has questioned Ryan's truthfulness. The Fox News piece states "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech." That is pretty strong and unambiguous. Similar language was used by many commentators, and the phrase "Lyin' Ryan" has entered the vernacular. The sources cited are not self-published blogs, but rather news analysis from respected authors and established reputable publishers. It is simply a fact that the speech generated controversy and that controversy should be duly reported here. The reference is really rather brief, and well-supported in my view.SPECIFICO 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

The sources have been stripped down to three, two of which are British. This is hardly representative of the coverage of a US event. I suggest that one of the British references be replaced by the Fox news source, now no longer cited.Trishm (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points about claiming someone is a "liar" based on a campaign speech: 1. In politics, politicians constantly blame their political opponents of being liars. Politicians (and their supporters) do not distinguish well between disagreeing with someone's position and with their representation of the facts. Want an example? Is the American economy better under Obama than under the Republicans? Some people will say yes, some no. Each person with a position on this issue will accuse any person with opposite views of being a liar, undoubtedly. If being named by a political opponent (or, for that matter, in an opinion page or a blog) a "liar" means that the politician in question should therefore be named as such in an encyclopedic website such as Wikipedia - then just about EVERY POLITICIAN IN THE LAND SHOULD HAVE THE ADJECTIVE LIAR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY. Therefore, simply refrain from calling a politician a "liar" or even suggesting something to this effect using the word "liar" or "lies" (such as in "some people said he lied"). Period. If you really must - present the claim made by the politician and then present a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED PROOF that this claim is false. Do not call someone a "liar" just because someone else does. 2. In relation to the above: DO NOT USE OPINION PIECES to extract alleged facts about the SUBJECT of these opinion pieces in encyclopedic content! How easy is it for us to find someone who agrees with our particular point of view, and then quote that person to back up our own position (sometimes without naming the person, but only in form of a reference and sometimes even without that, and simply writing "some people say..."). Duh! Quoting people - even exactly - does not necessarily encyclopedic content make. Thanks Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also removed the entire sentence:

"The speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, although it was criticized for alleged "lies" and misstatements.[1][2][3][4][5]"

It does not add much and seemed to be the cause of a small edit-war. Maybe better to leave out altogether. Please discuss here before returning it to the article itself.Rtmcrrctr (talk)

If there's an edit war, it's because you keep trying to delete it. I'm sorry, but it's too important and too well-sourced to be cut. There is plenty of discussion above that explains the reasons for inclusion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is plenty of discussion above that presents the opposite point of view to yours, namely why the claims should not be included. I have requested to achieve consensus here - which clearly hasn't happened before returning this sentence. I said Please, but you simply ignored my and many others' position and went ahead and simply returned the sentence. My edits in the "edit-war" you seem to blame me of were only two out of - by what I could see - many, many edits. Both in the Article page as well as the Talk page there are many others of my position: It is definitely not just me holding the position that the word "lie" is inappropriate. You seem to ignore us. I repeat: PLEASE do not change before consensus is achieved. Let this (second) warning be recorded if any of us is accused of engaging in an edit war by the powers that be. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, just stop edit-warring. You're at 3RR already and you're not even slowing down.
Look, this material belongs in the article for all of the reasons given. Policy supports it, even if it's unpopular among conservative editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's start from the basics: this article is about Paul Ryan: His background and his political opinions. Does it matter what someone else thinks about Paul Ryan? Certainly not in an encyclopedic article about Paul Ryan! The ONLY political commentary allowed in an article by Paul Ryan should be made by one person and one person alone: Paul Ryan himself. That does not mean that Wikipedia endorses all or any of Paul Ryan's opinions, but only that it is the role of Wikipedia to loyally represent facts about the man, including his thoughts. His thoughts matter, yours, mine and anyone else do not - at least here, in an article about PAUL RYAN. What you think about him and his politics does not matter, nor what I nor what any other political commentator in the land thinks. In this article the only opinion that matters is Paul Ryan and his alone. So please do NOT quote us commentators - from the Guardian, Fox or anyone else - to give their opinions on the opinions of Paul Ryan. Kapish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I quote from WP:BLP: “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, …”. It is in fact part of the purpose of Wikipedia to document public reaction to politicians and celebrities, because it's part of the historical context. I strongly suggest that you read WP:BLP, WP:APR, WP:BRDWRONG, and WP:DRNC before committing any more changes. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kerfuffler's assessment and the suggestion to review long-standing WP guidelines & policy. The idea that the article should be isolated to Paul Ryan's POV could be deemed as nothing more than an attempt at self-promotion via 3rd party - another WP policy no-no. Any changes made in this vein should be reverted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Except all the links that were added appear to be negative. That's not NPOV, even with the "people at the convention liked it" sentence before it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a "positive" cite, feel free to add it. But you don't get to remove the "negative" ones just because the reaction was so uniformly negative. Besides, we need all of those cites to support the fact that he lied; BLP requires us to have strong sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So why not just find a positive comment and add it? As it is you are basically trying to get around WP:NPOV by making an unsourced claim that some liked the speech, and then stacking it with a bunch of editorials by people who didn't like it. I'm sorry, that's not WP:NPOV and you should know better. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What you said is an argument for removing the positive part, not for removing the whole thing. If we can only find criticism for his lies, then so be it. NPOV does not mean putting lipstick on a pig. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
If you removed the positive part, then it's even more non-NPOV. The contributor has the responsibility to make the edit NPOV, it is not their job to throw up something POV and require other editor's to fix it. My question to the person who originally contributed the bit I just removed is: did you try to find reliable sources that liked the speech? Here are some I found in a few minutes using a simple web search: [39], [40], [41]. I really don't care about his speech, but if you can't even try to be NPOV, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you.--Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there really any disagreement that the speech was well delivered and well recieved by his audience that warrants the need for additional references? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to cite both if you are going to meet NPOV. See WP:UNDUE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course but by that logic the statement about it being well delivered.... should be removed because that appears to be the minority side in the balanced equation concerning undue weight - not the side that has criticisms pointing out inaccuaracies, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted that claim too, it should be cited as well. Same as the speech being well-received. I doubt either of these would be difficult to source. But an edit which gives completely uncited positive prose and heavily-cited negative prose doesn't meet WP:UNDUE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Point taken I guess. I just didn't think those parts were ever in doubt and adding refs to support them would just be an exercise undertaken for the sake of a solution looking for a problem. What I don't understand is what happened since the weekend - there were enough sources listed for both sides of this coin to choke a pig. Just look higher up in this thread back around the 1st of Sept. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened was edit-warring by those who do not want this article to report that Ryan was called a liar. Most recently, Vernon removed the material, cites and all, based on a misunderstanding of relevant policy. It's rather frustrating. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I added the earlier line back in. It probably doesn't need all the refs now though -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It's still all negative refs and no positive ones. I don't see how this meets NPOV, though I guess I will bring it to the noticeboard. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Shame on you, George Orwell III (talk) and I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk). There is clearly no consensus to call Ryan a liar (or call his nomination speech "lies") yet you continue to fight doggedly this edit war! The passion in which you fight for the right to term Ryan a liar shows your bias. The reaction to his nomination speech was - as much as it was controversial - an entirely negligible issue to Paul Ryan's career. Yet you relentlessly revert to the "lies" entry. Clearly you have an agenda to push! Shame on you! Rtmcrrctr (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody here has called Ryan a liar. Political commentators in popular and respected newspapers have. It is not our job to decide on the merits of their claims; it's our job to document them. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I want to make it clear that scare quotes are never appropriate in this context. Either the sources say it or they don't. Adding scare quotes is just a way of adding bias by casting doubt on the sources; if the source isn't reliable, don't use it. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree, and George Orwell III, the extreme excessive sourcing only illustrates the clear bias trying to be presented in that section making it very hard to assume good faith in the edit. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I presume the sources were added because people were nitpicking some of the earlier sources. I note that in the time it takes you to write these comments, you presumably could have easily found positive sources and added them. You need to read WP:APR and WP:DRNC. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Come all ye to the NPOV board. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is actually quite funny, in that the section prior to that one in on the NPOV noticeboard is about a very similar incident, and the consensus there is pretty clear. Did you read it? Kerfuffler (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would anybody read it? It's irrelevant. Belchfire-TALK 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

216.81.94.70 is an IP address for the Department of Homeland Security in Washington DC. Such an editor has no business makoing political edits at all. Collect (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What I got out of our little trip to NPOVD-land is that we have to cover the reaction. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What I don't understand is this: There were originally three sources next to the positive stament, and then several more after the negative statement. Who removed the positive sources?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the text as I left it:

"Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being exceptionally dishonest.[6][2]*[7][4][5]"

I think something like that has several things to recommend it:

  • It avoids the word "lie", which is a magnet for WP:TRUTH-warriors on both sides (and for WP:WEASEL-based conciliators).
  • The main clause focuses on the wider reception of the speech, since its reception within the convention itself is lesser news.
  • It is well-sourced.

Also, on another note, I'd like to register my opinion that I don't think this high level of protection is warranted. Of course there will be some edit warring on an article like this. I'd rather see hair-trigger article-specific user blocks to deal with that - even something as draconian as an automatic 12-hour article-specific block to any editor who makes a non-minor edit, good or bad - than what is effectively an article-specific block for all non-admins. Homunq (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd water down "exceptionally" to "very". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly there's room for a healthy back-and-forth on details like that. Which is exactly why the page shouldn't be admin-only-protected now. Homunq (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You can't simply leave out that it was factually true. Every statement made by Ryan was a correct statement. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Factcheck.org, which is a prominent independent, reliable source says. "Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements."[42] That should be included and we should use the same type of measured language. TFD (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
We can either follow a source like that and say that he made false claims, or weasel a small amount and say that many sources said that he was dishonest. If we do the latter, since we're reporting on what was said rather than making a judgment about what is so, we are obligated to give an accurate picture of what was said; and that means some indication that the sources in question found it unusually dishonest even for a political speech. I suspect that the latter ("many said ...") will be a better basis for a lasting consensus/compromise. Homunq (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The article should reflect that his RNC speech was seen as dishonest by multiple RSes. Sample wording and sourcing is just below, to be added at the end of the third (last) paragraph of the VP campaign section. Homunq (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered,[4][5] it was also criticized by multiple sources for being unusually dishonest.[8][2][9]

--Homunq's proposal seems reasonable to me.SPECIFICO 17:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

What would be considered "Usually" dishonest versus "Unusually" dishonest. Is it expected that it be simply dishonest like Clinton's speech last night and that Ryan made fewer "dishonest" statements making it unusual? Or is it that Ryan made no factually false statements, but did make statements which did not tell enough of the story to satisfy his critics? Arzel (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This is silly. None of the sources explicitly call the speech either "unusually" or "exceptionally" dishonest--that's just editorializing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The first source, a Fox News editorial, called it "an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech". It think that qualifies as calling it exceptionally dishonest. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Belated reply: You cannot use an editorial to describe something as "exceptionally dishonest", because editorials/opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact", according to WP:RS. Nor can you violate WP:SYNTH in combining various sources to justify your own description of Ryan's veracity. This proposal was absolutely ludicrous. None of the DNC's specific lies identified by fact-checkers have resulted in attempts to edit related articles with comparably hostile language. And to think there was once an entire paragraph devoted to "debunking" Ryan's speech!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are aware that the original text under dispute said “misleading”, which is in fact exactly a term that most of the sources use to describe the speech? Kerfuffler (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A point of order - I think describing the Fox piece as an "editorial" is a bit of stretch in the sense that the term is usually reserved for opinion pieces that represent the view of the news service. In fact, the piece is more accurately described as an opinion piece by an occasional (unpaid?) contributor (who, by the way, appears to have somewhat partisan leanings). I think part of the problem here is that so many sources have been misleadingly represented in this manner that it's difficult to separate the light from the heat. Perhaps we need to have some time to sort out the competing claims. Ronnotel (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There's little point quibbling about this source when it is just one of many that notes Ryan's dishonesty during that speech. The article cannot hide this. WP:NPOV requires that we cover this topic. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it a violation of WP policy to call someone a pest? Cease and desist! Clearly there is strong opposition by many here to add this sentence, yet you ignore that and insist on adding it. The response in the Leftie commentariat to Ryan's speech as 'lies' is predictable as it is inconsequential. Your insistence to add it should be regarded as nothing more than you pushing a political agenda of branding Ryan and, no doubt, by extention the Republicans (and conservatives in general) as "liars". It is probably another violation of WP policies to tell you what you can do with your agenda, so instead, again: cease and desist. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the conversation, what I see is that we discussed our disagreements and came up with something almost all of us were comfortable with. In other words, there's a consensus for inclusion. I would add that, given how Clinton and other Democrats have attacked Ryan's lies, this has become even more significant than before.

In short, I'd like you to revert yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that changes everything then, doesn't it? I mean, now it's not just the Guardian who criticizes Republicans, but also this famous-beacon-of-neutrality-in-American-politics aka Bill Clinton that criticizes Republicans. After all, it's not like he has a long history of criticizing Republicans (and being criticized by them) and his wife is the Secretary of State in an administration now criticized by the Republicans or anything, right? On a slightly less sarcastic tone: as I said over and over earlier: of course Lefties criticize a Republican. There is nothing unpredictable, newsworthy or informative about it. Let it go, mate. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to concur with User:StillStanding-247 on this. We discussed this ad nauseum, and several people commented in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, your attitude is very clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND, and as such, you should walk away before you make it worse. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"We discussed this ad nauseum, and several people commented in favor of inclusion." Ummm, "...several people..."?! What about the people who commented against the inclusion? You haven't mentioned them. Oh, silly me, you haven't mentioned those people because their opinions were not compatible to your own. Apparently, only people whom agree with you count, right? Rtmcrrctr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with User:StillStanding-247 as well. There is no source that I am aware of that assesses Ryan as talking a straight game, and plenty that consider the speech misleading at best. The "well-received" and "dishonest" is not false balancing - it is a fair characterisation of the response to the speech. I actually think that it is an important point that the speech was well-received despite the obvious "mental reservations" (saying something to give a false impression, while remaining literally true).Trishm (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ [43]* [44]* [45]
  2. ^ a b c James Antle, Michael Cohen and Jim Geraghty, Paul Ryan's speech to the RNC: panel verdict (30 August 2012). The Guardian.
  3. ^ [46]
  4. ^ a b c Karen Tumulty, Paul Ryan promises GOP ‘won’t duck the tough issues’ (30 August 2012). The Washington Post.
  5. ^ a b c US Elections, Paul Ryan Republican speech 'contained errors' (30 August 2012). BBC.
  6. ^ [47]* [48]* [49]
  7. ^ [50]
  8. ^ [51] [52]* [53]
  9. ^ [54]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Ryan/Archive_5&oldid=1267562297"