Talk:Paul Ryan

Calling conservative organizations conservative

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

The National Review openly self-identifies as conservative[1] and Empower America was openly conservative before it merged with the openly conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy to create the openly conservative FreedomWorks[2]. 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:[3]

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. Neutrality^talk 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) The original suggestion was to wait 48 hours. I believe we've reached that duration. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:50, 18 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.

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

Weak Support Strong oppose - I can see this go either way but I am inclined to support oppose this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Support - Without mentioning his expertise, he mistakenly comes across as some clueless op-ed backseat driver. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 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: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. 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) Oppose unless "far-left" is also added, as that seems to be the real content of the column and his qualifications which are most relevant in context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 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) Strong Support - Paul Krugman has won both the John Bates Clark medal as well as the Nobel in economics. He has written on many diverse topics including economic slumps and liquidity traps. He is an expert on budget issues. LK (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Regular Strong Oppose per Collect, Mforg, et alia. Reasoning from analogy (even though it may not apply here), plenty of past Nobel laureates in many fields (chemistry comes to mind), have been absolute quacks outside of their areas of expertise, and, in one notable case, the only winner of two separate and unshared Nobel prizes became a quack even in his further ideas within his area of expertise (although he wrote a good introductory chemistry text). Winning the Nobel does not give a sacrosanct value to private speculation or opinion, but it does give a sacrosanct aura to them; this is obviously contrary to letting the facts speak for themselves, by, in essence, using the Nobel laureate status to elevate opinion to somewhere between the level of opinion and fact. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:06, 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

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 [13]. 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? [14] 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— Well-written: (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. Verifiable with no original research: (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); and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (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. Review Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 2 Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 3 Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 4 Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 5 Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined 6 Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Result Result Notes 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 ,

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.

GA1 Review

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: [15].--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.'"

• Paraphrasing would be better here rather than quoting the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "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)

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)

Social Security survivor benefit nit

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

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)

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.

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 [16].) 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: [17], [18]) Investors' Business Daily asserted that Ryan's statement was technically correct because some final production and cleanup work was completed in 2009." (Sources: [19], [20]) -- Just a thought. -- Mesconsing (talk) 05:28, 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": [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. 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." ([29]) 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." ([30]) This was from a writer, Josh Barro, who's written frequently for the right-wing National Review Online ([31]); who used his Bloomberg podium to join in the Republican smear-and-distortion campaign about "You didn't build that" ([32]); 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)