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

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

Arbitrary break

Ignore this. It just clears the references from above.

Mention of activity as Chair of House Budget committee in lede

The line:

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

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

Please see http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/news/economy/ryan-social-security/index.htm, which is Money magazine talking about Ryan's plan to privatize social security. And, yes, they do use the word "privatize".

We need to stick to our sources! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Right now it looks like this is a current proposal from when Ryan was chair. it isn't a proposal anymore and he made the proposal during the Bush Admin in 2004. See how the information is innaccurately written to seem as if it is the current proposal...and that wasn't even in my original edit, but if it is in the lede and it continues to rflect this information innaccurately, we will need assistance from either a third party or Dispute Resolution notice board.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You did not read the source. I know, because here's what it says early in the article:

After legislation he co-sponsored in 2005 went nowhere, Ryan included a detailed plan to privatize Social Security in his budget proposal in 2010. Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

Just as I said, he was trying to privatize Social Security in 2010. Any questions? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@User:Still. In your reply just above you end with "Any Questions?". There is no need to challenge your fellow editors in this aggressive manner. I realize you may have been hardened abit by previous dialogue but maintaining a professinal decorum is important as we move forward. Soften your tone among friends. And we are all friends here.```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. And people seem to call me Still-24, although I'm not picky about it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following change to expand the lede:

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

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

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

I think that is a good proposal. His current position on SS and Medicare is far to nuanced to be summarized by the current wording. Arzel (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is way too long of a lead. Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. While the info in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede is valuable for the article, it's far too detailed to belong in the lede. The lede should just state the simple facts that Ryan has been heavily involved in budget work in Congress, became chair of the budget committee, and has made several proposals regarding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Mesconsing (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Above, Amadscientist makes a proposal, but that "proposal" is already on the article? Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And I believe, the previous version is far superior as a summary. See WP:LEAD Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

That seems like a more appropriate summary for the lede. But we'd need to make sure that the info now contained in the lede is represented elsewhere in the article. Mesconsing (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is.... Also, the longer version does not cover many other aspects, such as the repeal all taxes on corporate income, inherited estates, capital gains, and dividends, and the fact that his plan is the most regressive federal tax code in in the history of the modern USA. Cwobeel (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

What consensus? There is no such consensus. The lead as you editied, with two long paragraphs, is way too long and makes it very difficult to understand and does not include ANY of the controversy as presented in the article. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ". Please point out where are the prominent controversies in your edit. Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel has made a proposal and asked for discussion, which some of us have engaged in. Amadscientist, please respond to Cwobeel's proposal, instead of issuing ultimatums. I see no consensus here. Mesconsing (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you saying...that controversies must bewritten in a amanner that states they are controversies? Please all of it is controversial to some. What do you specificly see as being left out. Why do you say it is too long and what should be removed. The section has no consensus to remove it as it was even copy edited by another editor and that constitutes agreement on the inclusion. If there is no consensus to to revert, it stays. I made the thread to discuss the changes and indeed did, now you see it and object. I can understand that. But what is you objection as your policy interpretation doesn't add any support for this being innappropriate. No ultimatum was issued. Please state what is innaccurate and why it should be changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you obviously did a lot of work to disentangle the nuances and chronology of Ryan's budget proposals, and it is appreciated. As I said above, my issue is not with the content, accuracy, or wording of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede; it's with their appropriateness for the lede. They're too long and too complicated for the lede. I think they would make good overarching intro paragraphs to the 2008 and 2012 budget subsections, as wading through those can be confusing. But the lede should contain just a summary of his work in the House, e.g., he's Chairman of the budget committee, he's proposed privatizing Social Security and replacing Medicare, he's a pro-lifer, he supported Bush's foreign policy initiatives, his stands have been controversial, etc. The details of his positions and strategies belong in the article, not in the lede. Mesconsing (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Mesconsing, I didn't see this immediatly. One thing is certain, a good portion of the article is devoted to the budget stuff, so adding something to the lede is appropriate, but I feel your concern about brevity is important as well. I will make a copy edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I saw that. That was changed to the statement "though it would arguably result in an increase in out-of-pocket payments by seniors for prescription drugs and wellness visits." by another. I thought it oddly POV. That should be changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that was changed back to how it was written as supported by the reference. But there is surely more that you are concerned with or you would not have added the tag on the page. Please dicuss what other concerns you have. I do not care that this be my version, just that the information be accurate and supported by the reference. lede length is not a concern at the moment and the lede does accurate cover the article in summary. I disagree with the use of tags in this manner over a dispute that is being discussed. I suggest that tag be removed, but will not revert it and will allow it to stand if others agree even in silent consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead - discussion for consensus

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

Hey...please be more accurate with your posts sir. I have no problem with the inclusion of the tag IF consensus agrees to it. Tags are no different than any other content and require the consensus of editors. I did not remove the tag. it was removed by an uninvolved editor because the dispute is being discussed. Again, if the tag stays I will not remove it, and DID NOT remove it...however I do support its removal but have no plans to question consensus if it is for inclusion of the tag....but you are edit warring by placing it back when we are discussing and I am still not in agreement that the tag is even accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment. tags are there for a reason, and should not be removed until there *is* consensus to remove it. Otherwise, what is the point of these tags? Having said that, let's focus on my request to you above: please propose a compromise version that is (a) shorter, and (b) that summarizes the two sections it represents, and that includes some mentions of the opposing views and critique. Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs to include summaries of other important sections in the article. Now, it is more than half about the budget proposals. We need mentions of his views on , his philosophy, Social, environmental, and science issues, and some personal life stuff, for a lead that is concise and informative. Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that can be added. So why censor the rest of the information. Why do you not just add what you feel is missing or discuss how to add it?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: keep plan specifics out of lead

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

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

I did. Be concrete. But, first, revert and stop edit-warring. When your bold change is reverted, your job is to discuss it, not revert some more. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

When you edit against standard WP policies the guideline is to discuss first and then get concensus. The lede is a short summarization of the article, if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up on the WP:MOS discussion boards. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be short and concise like the current version [4]. The rest is unnecessary and repetitive. It should avoid anything contentious for a NPOV. Too many are trying to POV bias the page. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've read through the threads above and consulted the current iteration of the lead, and I too think the lead is too long. WP:LEAD calls for a summary, with details in the body of the article. Here is what I propose:

Proposal

Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970) is a United States Representative and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States in the 2012 election.

Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio and spent his early political career as an aide to legislators Bob Kasten, Sam Brownback, and Jack Kemp. Ryan won election to the U.S. House in 1998 representing Wisconsin, and he is now in his seventh term, serving as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. During his tenure, Ryan served as the primary author of The Path to Prosperity, a budget plan for the U.S. government.

On August 11, 2012, Mitt Romney announced Ryan as his running mate. Ryan is married to Janna Little, and the couple have three children together.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 03:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Several editors (via edit summaries) seem to be in favor of a more concise lead, in addition to the editors above. I have implemented the text above. Any modification ideas welcome here. —Eustress ^talk 05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing here that could be mistaken for a consensus. On my monitor, Mitt Romney's lead takes 27 lines. Paul Ryan's, above, takes 8. Prior to the edit war, it used to be 21. All of this shows that the lead was not larger than is typical for politicians with extensive articles. On this basis, I propose restoring the original lead. If you disagree, please explain with something other than a link to a policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Lead#Length states, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." This article has a little less than 30,000 characters, Romney's has over 73,000. —Eustress ^talk 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Lead#Length is also a general guideline that this article was within the bounds of. At best, it may be an argument for combining some of the material in the last two paragraphs into one. It's not an argument for removing all of the material that was lost. That has to be justified on its own merits, not a gesture in the direction of a general guideline that it's following. I'm going to give you a decent period of time to come up with a response, but if you choose not to, then I have to assume there's not going to be a response, so you don't actually have any basis in Wikipedia policy for this extreme move. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I first argued that excessive detail does not belong in the lead, with which many editors concurred (see above and edit summaries); hence, the immediate consensus seems to be in favor of brevity and an editorial action seemed prudent. Then you offered an argument regarding length, to which I responded with character-count evidence. I think we should allow others to chime in now (will probably require a little bit of patience given the time of day). —Eustress ^talk 06:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Ledes are summaries intended to give a broad overview of an article. Excessive detail, by definition, does not belong therein. As for your being "forced" to do something - pray do not use that line again - coffee on my keyboard is not great! Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to look up "therein" in the dictionary, but I'm still having trouble understanding you. Yes, it's a summary, yet it's smaller than Romney's by far. You'd need to be somewhat more specific about why you want to remove these details. It's important for you to explain your reasoning rather than simply expressing a preference. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have to agree. With these deep cuts, it no longer stands alone. It barely stands with the rest of the article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the lede is fully in contention and not just between Cwobeel and myself. The tag should stand in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a word of support for the version Eustress gave above. The chief problem with the lede we have now is that it doesn't give proper weight to his comprehensive budget plans, which are the reason he rose to prominence in the house. It's not enough to mention them in a subordinate clause in a sentence that focuses on Medicare. I can see mentioning the Medicare cuts in the lede, but we should swap the order and make it clear he's better known for the budget plans. Mforg (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Current lede

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

In my experience, DRN is basically useless. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, DRN is basically useless because they never favor his way (0-3). As for myself, I do support a DRN if there is indeed an issue going on here. ViriiK (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen DRN produce useful results exactly once, when an exemplary volunteer went past the minimal requirements of the DRN process by actually trying to resolve the underlying dispute. I've also seen it fail over and over again in the hands of volunteers who basically perform a WP:CLOSE, except without discounting views that violate policy. In short, it turned into a vote, plain and simple, which is useless and contrary to Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't been around here that long. You've started 3 DRN's yourself and you lost all 3 DRN's all of which had consensus. Let's get your definition of consensus here. I want your interpretations of what the rules are regarding the term "consensus". Not everyone will always be satisfied with a consensus result so people do get left behind. Rather, you engaged in tendentious editing in those DRN processes because you refused to cooperate in all 3 of them. ViriiK (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a matter of public record that your summary if false and misleading. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked you a question and all I got was derision. Typical for a tendentious editor. ViriiK (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that needs a specific response. Instead, I encourage anyone who's curious to go see for themselves. Thanks. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My experiance with the dispute resolution notice board is that it has drasticly changed in just a few months and the number of volunteers growing and better understanding the process...which itself has also been updated to reflect recent survey. Even the opening form has been improved on. It is only one form of the dispute resolution and we can always try another approach first if that is a better choice. We could ask on one of the Project pages about the lede or make further attempts to discuss the dispute here. I say we ccould at least give this another shot here before we seek assistance. Perhaps among the varying opinions there is a way to form a lede that at least everyone can live with. I edit articles with the goal of improving them. A tag shows that an article has a long standing dispute, and it is holding back improvement. Mitt Romney is a GA (Good Article) listed page. I always edit with the aim of improving towards GA or FA (Feature Article) regardless of the subject. One day this article could be nominatted but it needs a good deal of work. There is no reason the editors here cannot make these decisions if they wish. Let's try a little more. I think we may need to begin a new section as this is getting buried and it may well be a dispute worth re-booting at the bottum of the talk page for the attention of all who may see it easier.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Why? tradionaly when a dispute is made you don't revert it back to your prefered version. You leave what is there to avoid an edit war and go to dispute resolution. It gives the impression that you want your version to stand and I believe it is making innaccurate statements, but another editor created a shorted version that avoids the subject for now until the dispute is decided and that has worked on other articles. We should not be editing the lede while a dispute is going and Cwobeel, it really isn't helping your case when you take it upon yourself to make such a bold edit in the middle of the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's a tradition, I can point to a few related articles where it's being ignored.

In any case, the logical thing to do is restore the last version that had some consensus while we work to build a new one. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it had the most consensus towards moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not restore "my version". I restored the version that was stable before this dispute began. Cwobeel (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you see an edit you are disputing and there is a talk page discussion and more than one editor, editing the information over an extended period of time and that information is accurate and referenced and you raise your concern on the talkpage and it doesn't gain a consensus, changing it under those circumstances could be seen as edit warring. It is always best to either adapt the changes and work together or...if you do dispute the information just stop and begin the DR/N process. Being the major disputer and continuing to edit a version you prefer back in (and remember the version myself and another editor added was already removed for the shortened compromise) is not the route to take. So right now I say either we put it back to the last agreed on version and begin DR or go back to editing the page and deal one on one with issues as they come up.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So, restoring your version is not edit warring? In any case, this is becoming too tedious and boring, so I am stepping back for a while. But it remains the fact that the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD. Cwobeel (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are reverting and are at 3RR. An adaption is not a revert. And I have not done either. I am saying flat out, stop kicking and screaming and cooperate or take it to DR. I have not edited the article and am saying that we should return the lede to what currently has the consensus- the short version.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I have adapted the lede and if anyone else feels that another adaption is needed, another source or just expanding, they should feel free to do so and everyone may discuss concerns here as normal. If there is still a dispute it should be filed appropriately and we can go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has many problems but if all you are saying is that it doesn't comply to WP:LEAD then I should probably point out WP:IGNORE at this point it is best to ignore WP:LEAD until we can get accurate information and aggreement on an expanded introduction.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed childhood nickname

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

I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. But if he were to be elected, would we want to put it back in? I believe Reagan's childhood nickname is his article, as are other presidents. And what have you got against bratwurst? ;)   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, in fact the article's subject and I share the exact same ancestry. However, if and when I were ever to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, which is doubtful, I'm not sure I'd want to be remembered for my choice of cuisine or a family nickname (which for me was "twerp"), especially if I hated it. As for the wienermobile, that is just too surreal for me to even discuss right now. ;0) OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Post the link to the thread where this consensus is reached, as should always be the practice when stating there is consensus from a previous thread. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I wont debate that, but it is also best practice to check the archives on such things before you make the edit and if it is pointed out in such a small archive it is not unreasonable to expect editors to look without being linked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:BRD. This is useless trivia. The only people who would ever come looking for this information are childhood friends or family, and they already know the story. This is not a political nickname, a nickname the media uses regularly, or a voted upon nickname. Therefore, it does not add information to the article which is useful, nor does it improve the global view of the subject. It will be impossible to maintain every last bit of trivia about the subject of the article. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(Not really understanding why you are citing BRD but...)BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. You have explained your reasoning but it is based on it not being a political nickname, media related or voted upon, none of which is a logical basis for exclusion from a biography of a living person. It is not contentious or controversial in nature and is simply a personal bit of information that many editors feel has encyclopedic value. I disagree that we will be unable to maintain "every last bit of trivia" as first we must determine by consenus what we think to be trivial.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia, regardless of whether it is included or not included. I removed information from an article I found to be trivial. Show a link to a recent discussion where more than 3 people have agreed that this is useful information that any "common sense" person would think wouldn't be trivial as a potential vice presidential candidate. What was considered trivial, but not contentious for inclusion before he was selected as a potential VP pick has changed. Consensus can change WP:CCC. The article was one quarter of the size before, than it is now, and any information which was biographical in nature may have been considered relevant and welcome, such as the item about being voted the best brown noser, and the name of his great-great-great grandpa. Now that the article has increased in focus, and has more participation, a childhood nickname is trivia I believe is irrelevant to the article and encourages more irrelevant personal trivia. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussion to this one was no consensus and it was not removed. I thought there was something else beyond that but cannot find anything. Still have not explained the BRD comment, and the Brown noser was removed per consensus at BLP/N, but your removal is your own point of view on what is trivial. Removing content requires more than just the whim of editors to remove what they don't like for whatever reason. I have raised issue with the removal. I would ask you return it until you can establish consensus to remove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning, and I see no consensus. The reason I gave you the BRD template, is to remind you of the process allowed on Wikipedia for challenging information in articles. No other guidelines have been superseded, that you have demonstrated. Also, this isn't really "content", it's trivia. If you want to take a stand on something so incredibly trivial as a childhood nickname with one source, with no further coverage in the media or by the subject himself, be my guest. Insert the information yourself, with your own edit summary about consensus. No other editor has seriously challenged this besides yourself. The other comments were merely questions and speculation. My comments above stand.OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Duck. Megaphone. Quack. You've proved nothing other than you aren't able to admit when you are mistaken, over trivia. Your comment regarding genitalia is childish. Put the information back yourself, take it to a board, or make a better argument. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Except for where I admit to where I was mistaken above. You do read the posts right? I said there is no consensus. Now...do you understand you are engaging in the very discussion you began or was this just for show and you are just wasting time attempting to push POV with your edit? You made the edit, you made a discussion. There is a dispute to the deletion. Gee...can you figure out where it goes from there? Your definition of the content is not relevant. It is the opinion you used to remove the content but is not based on any policy or guideline. From Wikipedia:Consensus:

• In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
• In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of contentious matter.
• When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.

• In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
• In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Since this is not contentious I recommend returning the content. All child like comments about genitalia aside, you really do have a lot of gawl to bait an editor into a revert while discussing BRD in my opinion and this is disruptive as WP:CCC states in regards to changing consensus:

"On the other hand, if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again."--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me apeal to your WP:RETENTION beliefs. Deletions discourage editors from editing when relevant content, well sourced and cited is removed without proper procedure. While I understand your opinion it is not one I share for various reasons. Mainly it really isn't trivia because it relates directly to the biography of the person. Its level of importance should be determined by collaborative editing. There is no trivia action needed that I know of besides the cleanup efforts to remove trivia list and no policy or guideline that I can find besides Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even the unofficial Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Handling trivia, the opinions of various editors, states:

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all."

The information is not sufficiently tangential in my opinion to be excluded.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Based on the discussion, I feel comfortable that there's no reason to keep any of this trivia. Given that it's a BLP, when something is challenged, the burden is on those who might want to keep it. It's been challenged but you haven't offered sufficient reason to retain it. In fact, I'm not sure that you offered any. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, per explanation by an admin on another page recently over the very issue you raise, it has been clearly stated that "WP:BURDEN specifically applies to verifying unsourced material; WP:BURDEN does not apply to other content challenges", "Once reliable sources are provided for content, then WP:BURDEN is satisfied." "The challenger should really explain exactly what the problem content is".--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing isn't the issue, so none of this is particularly relevant. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

We have a limited amount of space for this article. As it gets larger, more details will be shuffled off onto sub-articles which are unlikely to ever be seen. Adding useless detail to the main article therefore pushes useful detail into the fork ghetto. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, again, there is yet no clear direction for removal of content for size of article (currently under discussion). Generally speaking when articles become ungamely large they are split.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called WP:UNDUE. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

One loud persistent voice does not consensus make. The first comment under mine is a question: attempting to state that it is support for your position, or a serious challenge to my removal of trivial information is disingenuous, at best. Filling up a page with policies and guidelines regarding trivia, when no editors have come forward with valid reasons for inclusion to support any of your arguments, is not consensus, now matter how much you would like it to be so. No consensus exists that has been demonstrated. Make your decision and do it. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I must agree. Not only is there no consensus to keep, there's been nothing stated that could potentially form the basis of a consensus. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No consensus is being claimed to be present. That is where we are here. One loud voice may be your opinion but your voice was equally loud so please don't sound so much like your voice isn't being heard. Policy and guideline is for those to see that with no consensus we would leave the information in. As you yourself actually state in the initial post you say anyone may revert it, but I decided to discuss it using policy and guidelines, the opinion of editors and the clarifaction of an administrator. No matter how much you repeat it, I am not claiming there is a consensus yet, just that you don't have one either and the information should stay untill a consensus is established. This isn't two editors and I have argued the points. Consensus determines inclusion or exclusion. Seek further consensus to remove it and I certainly can live with that consensus. Can you live with the no consensus/no change until you convince editors that it should be removed?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

With BLP's, we err on the side of removal. If a couple of editors see something as trivial and undue but there's no consensus against them, that's reason enough for removal. In fact, I don't see any actual reason given for inclusion. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is innaccurate. I see no such policy or guideline at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which links back to burden in the lead and says nothing of erring on the side of caution with reliably sourced non-contentious material.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

If you feel you have a basis to have me excluded from the discussion you may bring this up with any administrator at anytime, either on their talk page or by posting to AN/I. Policies are "picked" for the situation it entails and is brought up as part of the basis of my argument. Now, let other editors weigh in and form consensus and stick to your original post here stating anyone could revert the information. I chose to discuss the deletion first befor I acted and only after I had established how Wikipedia editors are expected to handle the situation per policy and guidelines. I suggest letting a consensus form for either it to be deleted or still no consensus, in which case the information shoul stand or an out right consensus to keep. It may just be best to take this to the BLP/N for an outside opion from that notice board to just sort it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If taking a childhood nickname to a board is an effective use of your time, there is nothing stopping you from doing so; in fact, I encouraged the very same course of action above, to avoid further disruption of this page. I believe you have become personally invested in the content of this page. You have not achieved consensus on this topic, you are not arguing that this isn't trivia, and I have not violated the 3RR rule. My contributions to this topic stop here. You do what you feel you must, but the facts presented show: no clear consensus at the time of this posting, the edit I performed was not seriously contentious, and most "reasonable people" would not believe that removing a childhood nickname was worthy of even this much discussion between experienced users. As the 2012 Wikipedia research study concluded on dialogues such as these we are having: WP:CONS, Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group. Glad to see the money wasn't wasted on hypothetical situations. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing on this argument about 3RR. That was on your talkpage. You became so personaly invested in this article that you left uncivil threatening posts on my talkpage using an analogy and posting the title from "Kill Bill" and my "having it coming" so, if you want that discussion the open door allowed that reply from me. Any further chat not directly involved with improving this article is not helpful. If you feel that I have become personaly invested over the page with what you see, again, you should seek assistance and not make accusations on the talkpage. You sadden me greatly with your attitude and have been uncivil and outright confrontational over issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussions. So back to it. You said revert, basicly, even with an adaptive edit I did. You didn't like it, even with the full discussion before I took action, now you complain about my behavior and you think I am bullying you? Please. Stick to the discussion and if you are not able to handle it without edit warring take a break. Regardless of not vioating 3RR on other pages you did edit war your version back in when no consenus exists and you have not gained consensus for the change.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Amad, your summary does not seem at all accurate. Worse, it comes across as rather uncivil. Maybe now would be a good time to drop that stick and back away. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is. Your judgement may not be the best (Edit: why not. Seemed impartial enough elsewhere so) to go by in this situation. What stick do you feel I have carried? I think we are done here. No one really cares enough to add it back in...including me and I am for it as biographical information directly related to the figure.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:STICK, which is good advice about recognizing when a discussion has reached an end. It looks like you're doing that right now, so there's nothing more to discuss. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I understood. I just didn't think the discussion was dead and over it was dragged into a barn and the doors closed....but it is still breathing just waiting to be brought up again by another, only because no real consensus has formed. A silent consensus of no one removing it is the weakest form of consensus so it can still be readded. I just won't do it. At least not right now and not until a clear consensus exists.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Larry Sabato?

This was removed because it is of no value:

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

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

Um... the useful information is that Ryan is typical of Republicans on foreign policy. The informative value seems self-evident to me. Neutrality^talk 07:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, what should be self-evident is that Larry Sabato's editorial opinion is of no special relevance. We have here a single-sentence paragraph that contains no facts about the subject of the article. If you or someone else can't show us why Larry Sabato's opinion is so special that it deserves inclusion, it should go. Belchfire-TALK 07:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He's a commentator, and a very well-known and well-respected one at that. We use Wikipedia:Secondary sources here. I have no idea where you get the idea that anyone needs to show that Sabato's opinion is "special" (whatever that means).

In terms of "facts," it is a fact that Sabato has made that statement. We appropriately cite Sabato's statement and attribute it to him. I would agree that it would absolutely be incorrect to simply state "Ryan is typical of Republicans on foreign policy" as a flat assertion. But when coupled with the source, it is absolutely appropriate. You cite no policy that says it is not. Neutrality^talk 07:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It would only be an interesting fact if we could say, in the (Wikipedia) editorial voice, that Ryan is typical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The quotation does not say that Ryan's views are wrong. It makes the factual assertion that his views are typical of the Republican Party. We have a reliable source asserting that fact so we can report it. If there's a good-faith dispute over it, then we can also inform the reader about any reliable sources that characterize Ryan's views as being sharply different from the Republican consensus. As it is, it quickly tells that reader that, for example, poring through the details of the section will not yield any unusual positions of the type that Republicans like Ron Paul would espouse. JamesMLane t c 17:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

While you may find Sabato's opinion convincing enough to consider it factual, it is still nothing more than one person's opinion. Earlier comments are 100% correct in that this sentence can't be in the article at all without proper attribution, but the original question has not yet been approached: Why is Larry Sabato's opinion important enough to merit a special mention? If the only answer is simply that Sabato is well-known, I remain unconvinced that his authority is dispositive enough to be the sole commentary on Ryan's foreign policy chops. Belchfire-TALK 18:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to a site called Wikipedia:

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

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

There a many notable people, should we include every singles person's opinion on Ryan in his BLP? Arzel (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We should include the ones that say something useful. Sabato allows us to say that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans, without any sort of synthesis. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Saboto is not a source with editorial review, which is required to make a statement about living persons. That Saboto says that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans is sourced, but probably not of any significance. We cannot say that Ryan's views are typical of Republicans. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We can report on his statements, attributing them to him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem, Arthur. What does "typical Republican" mean? It's undefined. It's not empirical. One person would say it means "just like Jesus," the next person might think it means "puppy-eating baby-raper." And both might be right! The whole purpose of including it here is because there is a perception that it's unflattering, which might be OK if it actually meant something, anything at all, but it doesn't. Belchfire-TALK 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Do we know that Sabato's means the same thing by "generic republican" as an unbiased person would mean by "typical republican"? If not, we need to credit and quote Sabato. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with attributing this to him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement, as written at the top of this section, is adequate sourced—and has absolutely no indication why it's there. We would probably need another source commenting on Sabato. The modifications StillStanding has been suggesting, however, are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I suggested modifying any statements, and since you don't bother giving a reason -- "it's just wrong" is an unsupported conclusion -- I find myself unable to comment further. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Supporter of stimulus spending

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

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

As with Mitt, we need to cover all of this views on the topic as they changed over time. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually - we don't. We onl;y report what we find important and fully and properly covered by reliable sources - we are not a political GPS tracking system for anyone. Collect (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that's so, therefore I must politely disregard it as an unexplained preference with no basis in Wikipedia policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, I think what Collect might be referring to is found at "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which relates to notability. However, drawing the line can be kind of tricky, and ultimately is decided by consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, maybe, but there's no indication of it in his words. And, to be frank, it's not much of an argument, since WP:NPOV prevents us from biasing the article by selectively hiding his views. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question... we're not "covering it up". We're being a little bit discriminate to avoid comparing apples and water buffalo. The "stimulus" incorporated into the Bush tax cuts does not in any meaningful way compare to the 2009 stimulus, and it is a gross failure of editorial judgment to say so without expounding the massive differences between the two. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 00:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

We don't have to make any editorial judgment. Paul Ryan has spoken out on the floor of the House in favor of stimulus spending and all we have to do is use his exact words. Hcobb (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Ryan has spoken out in favor of retaining and continuing the Bush I stimulus package; there's not a shred of evidence he supports the Bush II or Obama stimulus packages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Reading the article, you are assuming that what he meant in 2002 by "stimulus" is the same thing that is meant today by "stimulus". Unless a BLP-reliable source makes the connection, that's not allowable. You can quote his words in 2002 without making the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the context of this article, that would mean not using the word "stimulus" in any other context, including his opposition to the "Bush II" and "Obama" stimulus. It's not at all clear he has "flip-flopped". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gay Adoption

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

Try http://www.thegavoice.com/news/national-news/5060-romney-vp-pick-paul-ryan-backed-bans-on-gay-marriage-adoption StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I did see that, but I put it in the same category as the HRC press release. It's an LGBT advocacy paper, so they have a bias in this area. They're also attributing the claim to the HRC press release. Given all that I'm more comfortable with the circumspect language the Post chose. Mforg (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a relaible source. Just being partisan does not exclude it but should be used with caution like using Forbes on bussiness information. They have a bias. So does the National Review. LGBT publications have no more restrictions of use than any other publication.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Business Career | Private Sector section?

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, in the United States, professional politicians rarely hold real jobs like average working people who pay 90% of the taxes. They tend to hold few qualifications for any actual duties involving decision making, and instead rely on trusted advisers to help them reach decisions. They are really just professional politicians who specialize in running for office, nothing more. In the United States, it is a prerequisite for the job that you must first be completely out of touch with the average person who must work for a living. Anyone who has ever held a real job or has made money from providing a service or creating a product that has helped contribute to their country is generally not eligible for office. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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?

• Weak Support - I can see this go either way but I am inclined to support 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: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

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)
• 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)

Op-ed

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

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

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

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

I meant, columnists are allowed "free reign" in traditional media (newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering...actually I was more like WTF?!! =) Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the term is "free rein" - giving a horse "free rein" means you are exercising no control over the horse by that means. And is a very old term even if Wikipedia only dates it to the 1950's <g>. [14] 1928 usage - and it was old then. [15] 1790. Oops -- Chaucer used the term! [16] I doubt that the 1950's claim holds water. Collect (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex Adoption

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

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

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

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

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

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

You need a better source for that. That one is not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You think so? I assumed the direct quote from the text of the legislation itself is sufficient. It contradicts the Post report. Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the merits of the legislation (which is a primary source), but the source you linked does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as a questionable source. Looks "self published', with no editorial oversite and no authorship information. Use it as a starting point for research, but it can't be used to reference the information as a secondary source in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that website can't be used as a reliable source, as it's self-published and its authors are anonymous. The vote in 1999 that your source is referring to is actually the Largent amendment to the appropriations bill, which is here.[17]. That amendent would have excluded any unmarried couples from adopting from the foster care system, as per this Washington Post article from the time.[18] To quote, "the amendment ... would have prevented unmarried couples from adopting any of the 3,100 children in foster care in the District." That's a reliable source that I think we could use to clarify the adoption vote. Mforg (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist, noted. @Mforg, lead the way.--Misha Atreides (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mforg, incidental. Doesn't support the assertion that it's related to "gay rights". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, while we wait for the media to correct itself and get a new source, shouldn't we take the portion out at least? After all, we know it's incorrect, based on the actual legislation itself.--Misha Atreides (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we change "has opposed allowing same-sex couples to adopt" to "supported a ban on unmarried couples adopting within the Washington D.C. foster care system"? Mforg (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But the H.R.2587 did not mention anything about banning, mate - only withholding the federal incentive. Same sex and unmarried couples could still adopt children as per usual, but they do not get the five grand.--Misha Atreides (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)