Talk:Paul Ryan

Semi-Protection Status

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

Be Prepared 11 August 2012

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

Edit request on 11 August 2012

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

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

 Done NBC has finally posted an article confirming their earlier reports. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Presumptive is correct. Both Romney and Ryan are presumptive nominees until the Republican National Convention takes place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Correct. Be sure to follow Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 and join in. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom of putting gossip in the introduction

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

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

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

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

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

This "gossip" is being reported by numerous reliable sources. As long as it is properly explained, I see no reason to keep it out of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an excellent point. However, not reporting initial credible news stories can also be viewed as a problem, as Wikipedia is viewed as an adaptive encyclopedia, with up to date information, especially about a topic so potentially impactful. There is a template at the top which reads that this is a current event. The wording seems adequate to convey that, at this time, reliable news sources are reporting that Paul Ryan is the likely pick. This can be changed later, along with an explanation that the news service jumped the gun. In the meantime, I suppose, consensus should be generated. However, by the time that happens, the official announcement will already go out, and the point will then be moot. Also, USA Today is running with the story, without the hesitancy. [1].OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not reporting he is the likely pick; they are reporting he is the pick. Be cautious of euphemisms. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, the information was correct, however it could easily have gone the other way. Your information is well taken. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Negative Portrayal of Ryan's Past and Policy

Ayn Rand influence

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

I agree, and apparently someone has subsequently added information about his 2012 statement about Aquinas being an influence. This truly balances out the quote about Rand, in my opinion. I have also trimmed and paraphrased the long quotes to remove undue emphasis caused by lengthy discussion, and it now seems to cast Ryan in a more neutral light, as well as to portray his self stated views and philosophy. KeptSouth (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality. There has to be some standard of neutrality in these articles and discussions. Statements such as "so that he could stand AGAINST the secular left's persistently waged war on Christianity and religion on the whole" do not belong in an encyclopedic venue, when discussing reasons why material should be deleted from an article. This defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia being objective. It might be appropriate to take a moment to read WP:NPOV, to be familiar with the latest guidelines. If information fails to have a notable source, or is improperly rephrased from the source, or does not have extensive coverage, or suffers from a lack of anything that might fall under notability concerns WP:N, that would be a valid argument. The coverage on Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand is ubiquitous. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what an "acceptably appropriate light" might mean? Please clarify so that we can reach consensus. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 10:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi OT, it seems to me we should distinguish between statements on a talk page, and statements inserted in an article. The statement you are objecting to appears on a talk page, not an article. There is a difference, with more latitude being allowed on a talk page. Please see WP:TALK. It really does seem as though there's consensus here. Another policy WP:BLP rules here and perhaps sheds some light on what the the earlier comments re. what is appropriately included in a BLP.KeptSouth (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and further ClodSquad, your statement contains unsubstantiated claims and biased language. You do not substantiate the existence of a "secular left", a "war on Christianity and religion on the whole", nor even substantiate Ryan having a belief (however delusional it might be) that such groups or actions exist. Yet you seem to suggest such language should be inserted into Ryan's entry as if it were a "valid counterpoint". Wikipedia articles are not required to paint political figures in "an acceptably appropriate light", whether or not one or more Wikipedians agree with their positions notwithstanding. Woodrobin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.WP:BLP --KeptSouth (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Voted as best brown noser

The section claiming he was a "brown-noser" is a partisan attack on Paul Ryan's character, and needs to be removed immediately! ClodSquad (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement is neutral and merely states that he was voted "brown noser" in high school, which he was, as cited by reliable sources. It does not claim he is a brown noser. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Its inclusion is based entirely on political motivation. Why is his being voted "brown noser" as a gag important information about him? Why not include what he ate at the school cafeteria or what teachers thought of his presentations in tenth grade? No -- this is yet another preemptive attempt by his opposition to assassinate Ryan's character by portraying him as a lackey or toady. It just doesn't wash. ClodSquad (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. From that page: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we prefer to discuss WP:NPOV or WP:TRIVIA rather than making assumptions on motivation. I'm not sure how this is different from the following entry on Mitt Romney's page: He won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels". How is this any less trivial than being a brown nose? Neither are particularly unflattering, given the right audience. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that the inclusion or removal of "brown noser" will be ginned up as an issue to lock down this article to all edits. We will then have to "brown nose" Wiki admins to allow any particular edits. In my view this is a completely unnecessary discussion. Brown nose is a pejorative; there are no two ways about it. A brown noser is someone who figuratively puts his or her nose you-know-where, in order to curry favor. In addition, what a high school editor chose to put in a yearbook 24 years ago is absolute trivia of the sort that is not included in Wiki bios of political figures. I'm removing it, and pasting it here for further discussion, which really should be unnecessary. KeptSouth (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

REMOVE "BROWN NOSE" CLAIM: Even the TALK section for this article is being edited so rapidly that it might need to be watched. My rationale for the removal of "brown noser" was removed by someone without explanation. There have been many articles where the featured individual was voted something in high school. Why would this be relevant in this case? Even if this claim was true (which doesn't pass muster needed for an article like this, why is it included?

The Wikipedia articles for other celebrities and politicians do not include some meaningless reflections from high school. We don't see any such things for the opposition candidate (Joe Biden). The person who originally posted it did so with obvious intent. This is evidenced by simply by looking at his previous Wikipedia edits.

I suggest that this statement is removed since it is so irrelevant to the section. If there was a more detailed account of his life, it might be worth inclusion. However, the theme of the section seems to indicate that this thing -- beyond his own control -- was a major part of Paul Ryan's background. I would think that his high school activities, GPA or even SAT/ACT scores would be more relevant than an unsupported claim -- even if it were true -- that might be nothing more than a prank played by fellow students. It should be removed. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The following has been removed from the article for the reasons stated above:

Graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville in 1988, Ryan was voted prom king and "Biggest Brown-Noser" by his fellow classmates.KeptSouth (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me just utter that I agree with Wikipedical here. If it has a reliable source, we include it. --bender235 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone KeptSouth's edit. There's photographic evidence of Ryan's yearbook, so it's verifiable. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/the-paul-ryan-wikipedia-edits-begin-131718.html#.UCXtApXlYxg.twitter Kate Dee (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if it is substantiated. The question is whether or not it is at all relevant to this section of the article. We don't find such dubious or insignificant high school votes important enough to include in other articles. If someone tried to add a similar distinction to the Joe Biden entry, I suspect that they would be flagged for vandalism. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Exactly what makes an old high school opinion survey notable? It doesn't matter if it's sourced, if it isn't notable enough to warrant a mention in a biographical article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes it notable now is the range of coverage. Besides the original Politico article, there is: Associated Press, Slate, The Daily Beast, MSN, the Politico story already referenced, as well as overseas coverage and local US news channels.OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 13:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability is used in Wikipedia to decide whether a subject should have an article. What should be included in an article is subject to decision by consensus, in particular regarding its WP:Weight. If it has been mentioned in several reliable sources it's likely to meet the weight criterion, but is ultimately decided by discussion. What he did in high school and what his fellow students thought of him in a long article such as this should be included IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Do you also have an issue with citing the high school survey for Ryan being voted "Prom King"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written to serve a political purpose. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It looks like we should include this, neutrally and with proper citations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia had a policy on trivia in bios? It seems like pointless information to me. Coolgamer (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "brown-noser" is vulgar and should not be included in an encyclopedic article period. This goes for anything related to juvenile high school yearbook titles. A.S. Williams (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think it is worth mentioning, unless the photograph is discredited. And Politico is a more neutral source than HuffPo, particularly if it is more clearly identified there. Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Insignificant - This is nothing more than trivia that has little to do with Paul Ryan's "early life." Why include this -- even if it was substantiated -- rather than his class rank, GPA, club affiliations or SAT scores? There is obvious bias and slant at play here and the inclusion amounts to vandalism. If someone were to include something negative that classmates felt about President Obama during high school, the inclusion would be insignificant and the person who repeatedly included it on his Wikipedia article would be flagged for vandalism by pushing trivia into an encyclopedia article.

This distinction is as insignificant to the article as the number of days that Paul Ryan may have gone to school without being tardy or how many friends sat with him in the cafeteria. It needs to be removed.Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

• Remove per WP:INFO -- "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." —Eustress ^talk 01:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove I support Eustress' argument here under WP:INFO ViriiK (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It's as notable as "Rooster". To be frank, the only reason I can imagine that people want to remove it is that they're afraid it makes him look bad. If so, that's not an acceptable reason at all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove - Well also to be frank, if his high school class had voted him "Best Cocksucker" or "Ass Licker" do you think it should still be included? I don't see how insults from high school are appropriate in this sort of an article. Obama ate dog when he was a kid, is that in his wiki? This shouldn't be an article where subjective opinions on the figure are included just because some website has verifiable proof that it happened at some point. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The content was actually that he was "voted best brown noser", not that he was one. A pejorative statement would be that he is a brown noser, and would never stand on any Wikipedia page. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to address the other points I made? As it stands you are splitting hairs with the comment that "he was voted" versus "he actually is." Would it be appropriate for us to look for everyone's opinion on every political figure and include all those opinions on their pages? This is all on top of the foundational point that it is vulgar and does not have a place on this page. Maybe you don't consider the mental image obscene? Should we include quotes of protest signs from white supremacists on Barack Obama's page? After all we can surely find such images with a GIS so they are verifiable, right? A.S. Williams (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not particularly. I haven't taken the information in question out, or replaced it, unless the edit summary does not contain a valid reason. I am arguing guidelines, encouraging specificity, and preventing steamrolling in the wee hours of the night. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral, verifiable, and balanced. Not everything is posted here, so you might not be aware, but other users are being considered for blocking of editing privileges which violate the WP:3RR (three revert rule) over this topic on this article, as we write this. If you fall into the trap of edit warring, you may lose your ability to make your case. You may lodge an official grievance about a BLP (bio of living person) violation here: [2]. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 07:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well firstly, I made one change with supported reasoning, not repeated reverts, so there is no need to threaten me with banning. Clearly a high school brown noser slur is crucial to an understanding of Paul Ryan. So I yield to your superior opinion. It's clearly extremely relevant information here and definitely something that we should let everyone know that comes to wikipedia to read about Ryan. Ryan is a congressman, a VP nominee oh and by the way, his high school classmates 20 years ago called him a brown noser. Another big win for NPOV. A.S. Williams (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I think the article indicates that the student council was pivotal to his following a career in politics. If it weren't, then that shouldn't be included either, but the article makes that connection. The brown-noser reference is just a silly high school item that is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia, even with references. 72Dino (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that whatever behavior earned him that nickname might be relevant to his success as well. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It would seem that a high school senior class would qualify as a tiny minority when compared to the entire American population. A.S. Williams (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it might be a little more difficult finding a neutral, reliable reference for that connection. But that Prom King trivia has to go. It keeps coming back. 72Dino (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If the information is being removed as trivial, how does the information that Paul Ryan makes his own bratwurst pass muster? What is the reason for it being removed, officially? Is it that it is viewed as violating the NPOV rules or the trivia rules? The entire article needs to be swept of irrelevant trivia, and the official reason for removal of sourced content needs to be stated, for the record, without equivocation.OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 01:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about trivia, this is about NPOV and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines, so if you can address the point about "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I would love to read it. A.S. Williams (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That the "prom king" reference stays, while the "brown noser" reference does not, is an incredible bit of hypocrisy.Detmcphierson (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I support putting it back in, in about the same contextual way the LA Times mentions it. Churn and change (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please read the cited sources - LA Times and New Yorker, to see why the usage is not pejorative. Here is the exact words from the New Yorker indicating Ryan's own response to this:

At the end of his senior year, he was elected Biggest Brown-Noser. (“At least I didn’t have a mullet,” he [Ryan] said.)

The word has passed the editorial checks of LA Times and New Yorker. Both are highly reliable sources. Ryan himself is aware of its reporting. Also check the dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brownnose): "To ingratiate oneself with : curry favor with" That's it. There is no WP:BLP issue. Churn and change (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

To claim it is not pejorative is disingenuous. It doesn't matter that there is a dictionary entry for the term it and it doesn't matter that it is sourced. To compare it with the prom king issue is also disingenuous because being voted prom king is a traditional high school achievement whereas being called a brown-noser is not. Furthermore, the views of tiny minorities are not to be included per WP:BLP. So yes, there is, in fact, actually an issue with keeping "voted best Brown Noser" (a view of a small minority) in. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to not understand WP:BLP. It is seperate from WP:V and WP:RS. Please don't be coy, the definition of brownnose is to kiss someone's ass such that you get your nose covered with crap. There is simply no situation where it is used in anything but a perjoritive phrase. That Ryan himself is aware of it, it irrelevant. Regardless I have posted it to the [BLP Noticeboard]. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The "views of tiny minority" argument holds only if the issue were indeed put to a large group and a tiny minority of that group held the view. Otherwise the results of only world-wide elections (which don't exist) can be mentioned at all. As to the pejorative part, you are just stating it is pejorative even though two strong and reliable sources have actually used it, and the word is in the dictionary. Many words can be wielded in a pejorative sense; that doesn't make them all pejoratives. The policy part, as you mentioned, will be settled on the BLP noticeboard. Churn and change (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cocksucker, motherfucker, asshole and douchebag are all in the dictionary, too. The simple fact that a word is in the dictionary is a ludicrous argument for claiming it is not a pejorative. It also doesn't help your point that the sources mentioned are widely considered biased in favor of the political adversaries of the person the article is about. Additionally, if you count the viewpoint of a few high school students as anything other than a tiny minority, I would like to know why. There are no world wide elections for anything so to use that as the bar for minorities versus majorities is invalid on its face. A.S. Williams (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This "tiny minority" is the same one that made him class president, which you would want us to include. Be consistent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Class president is an actual legitimate position in the student body in most primary and secondary schools so therefore it should be included. How many schools have you heard of with an annual Best Brown Noser award? A.S. Williams (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the take of Random House (who should know) on the word (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990723) :

Despite the scatological inspiration of the term brown-nose, it is not considered to be
very vulgar or offensive. Some people, unaware or unsure of its origin, don't consider it
offensive at all, but at worst I would say that it is only mildly offensive. It is definitely
slang, though, so may not be appropriate in many circumstances.

As to appropriateness and notability, we take our lead on that from our reliable secondary sources. As to cocksucker and the like, they are marked as "usually obscene" in merriam-webster. Hmmm, am I really debating brown-noser . . . Churn and change (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is not debatable is that the information is verifiable from reliable sources, what is disputed is the notability and appropriateness for a BLP. While it is true that something should not be excluded simply because it is negative, that is in reference to things like affairs. It is clear to me that the reference is meant to be insulting. The reference is literally referring to someone who is kissing someone else's ass so bad they have have feces on their nose. To include this would be the equivalent of including any derogatory comment from someone who went to school with Ryan. I concur that it is slang, said to be military slang originally, from brown + nose, "from the implication that servility is tantamount to having one's nose in the anus of the person from whom advancement is sought" [Webster, 1961]. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with JS's excellent summary for BLP policy and rationale. Brown-noser should not be included. . KeptSouth (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the reference provides insight into how he was perceived by his peers. That's useful. There's nothing inherently insulting about it. If he was voted 'greatest humanitarian,' I'd want to know that too. Wikipedia hosts plenty of material that could be deemed far less relevant. Alexdi (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference simply shows how some of his peers wanted to insult him. I do find the fact that some people do not like Ryan as insightful. Should derogatory comments from anyone who dislikes Ryan also be included in his BLP? Being voted "Greatest humanitarian" is not derogatory. I would like to hear arguments about how Ryan should be proud to get this award if it is not considered insulting. --JournalScholar (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reach consensus

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

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

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

MrX, I apologize for adding it. Because I didn't know that it is under discussion here at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Ryan doesn't make me a mean person. Out it stays until that discussion is resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

SusanLesch no need to apologize and my comments were not directed at you. I was not aware that the issue had already been taken to the BLP noticeboard in the wee hours of this morning. - MrX 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, criticism of Ryan's roadmap

Criticism of the roadmap is described as Paul Krugman's point of view. It is not, Krugman cites the non-partisan Tax Policy Center's analysis found here [[3]]. Since mentions of PK lead to shoot the messenger responses it would be perhaps fair to modify that paragraph, giving the correct source for these criticisms. 85.181.3.192 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the table Krugman is referring to in his article is [4]. It shows that people with cash incomes in the top 5% are given a 3.4% reduction in tax, the top 1% are given a 14.1% reduction in tax. Although the bottom quintile would see a 1.3% reduction in tax assuming they are smart enough to choose the optimal tax option, all the other groups would see increases in their average federal tax rate: an increase of 1.1% for the second quintile, an increase of 1.4% for the third quintile, and an increase of 1.8% for the fourth quintile. I suggest that a good bottom-line figure to quote in the article is that 117.5% of the total tax cut would accrue to the top 1 percent. By contrast, 2.2% of the total tax cut would accrue to the bottom 25%. Hope that helps. 109.156.119.136 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the edits, much better now. Now if one pointed out that Krugman adressed the same CBO estimates used to respond to him, then this would be truly fair and balanced. The CBO estimates are based essentially on Paul Ryan's estimates of government reduced to 3% of GDP (edit: and more importantly an assumed 8% growth rate 85.181.29.249 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC))-- the CBO has to abide by the framework defined by the congressmen requesting estimates, so in general these estimates have to be taken with some caution as they can be highly conditional. I don't think there is an encyclopedic way of pointing out how much of a fraud the plan is, so just for your amusement, I'll point out that Colbert did so very nicely attacking just one of its weaknesses [[5]].85.181.29.249 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request: Change heading on budget proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought about it, and I think "The Ryan Budget" is the most apt title. That's what the section covers. If anyone else disagrees, chime in.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be noted that on the day of VP-announcement, Democrats started calling it the Romney-Ryan plan. Romney can modify it, as can Congress, if Romney is elected president. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

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

 Done Changed to the 11th. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 16:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It still says "the presumptive Republican Party nominee for Vice President..." It's not presumptive. It's official. Please make the change. Thank you. 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.105.166 (talk)

Both Romney and Ryan are considered presumptive nominees until it's made official at the upcoming convention. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Paul Ryan on Ayn Rand

Paul Ryan told National Review that he rejects her philosophy:

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

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

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

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

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

"On September 18, 2008 ... "

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

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

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

Prom King

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

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

Early life and education

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

If you question the source, add a or similar tag. Don't change the wording to "it is reported that . . ." which just makes things worse. Churn and change (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tagged it. The New Yorker article actually says his mother went back to school to prepare for a new career to pay the bills. It doesn't mention social security. If a reliable source cannot be found in a day or two, feel free to take it out. Churn and change (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be Miami University, not 'Miami University of Ohio.' I would write 'Miami University (located in Oxford, OH' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.31.160 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

More Info Personal Life

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

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

Women's Issues

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

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

Expand on issues

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

Here is link with info/details regarding Ryan on various issues: Paul Ryan On the Issues LeahBethM (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Often, a politician's bio has a section on his or her political positions. Generally, when a politician attains national prominence, enough information is generated (detailed expounding of positions) that it would swamp the main bio article; therefore, we create the daughter article "Political positions of ___" and put the detail there with a summary in the bio article. For example, Political positions of Sarah Palin was created in August 2008.

With Ryan, the "Tenure" section now mixes votes (which illustrate positions) with other events of his tenure as a Congressmember, such as his leadership role. Positions not embodied in specific Congressional votes are generally omitted.

I've started Political positions of Paul Ryan with the voting information from this article. It can be augmented with more votes and with position statements not embodied in votes. Along with adding more material in the "Positions" article, we should have a "Positions" section in the bio article, with the most important points per WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how HuffPo is not a reliable source

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

I think your assessment is correct OliverTwisted. Huffington Post is sometimes considered a non-reliable source because of perceived bias and because they generate a fairly large volume of opinion pieces, commentary and blog articles. - MrX 04:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC

For future reference, if news agencies have been determined as unreliable by consensus, they would appear here: [6].OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 04:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In cases where HP is a reliable source, the news item appears in an established news outlet as well. In this case, LA Times did have the story; using that as the ref. instead of HP would have avoided the issue. Using LA Times also automatically establishes notability; what they, a reliable and reputed secondary source, found notable is notable for WP too. But having that in with just HP as the sole source was not acceptable. Note that WP:BLP standards are high, and are not necessarily driven by consensus or even discussion. Churn and change (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please include a link to that guideline on Wikipedia, specifically. WP:RS and the [7] are the established venues on Wikipedia for determining reliability. The LA times has blogs, and thus not all information would be considered reliable, as is stated clearly in the Wikipedia guidelines, as expressed here: WP:RS. For future reference, the exact quote in the WP:BLP guideline is expressed this way:

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

As I stated above, each article should be evaluated on its own merit, by the authorship, origination of story, and relevancy. The Huffington Post is not classified as a tabloid journalism organization. But, here's a tip: when I have questions, I like to read the articles for the subjects in questions to see if they might contain helpful information. When visiting the article for the Huffington Post, I ran across this in the intro: "In 2012, The Huffington Post was the first commercially run, United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize." If you still have a need to pursue the subject of the Huffington Post being an unreliable source, please open a new case, here: [8]. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check WP's "Featured Articles" or "Good Articles" and see how many of them use Huffington Post as a source, as opposed to New York Times, LA Times, and the various local newspapers. That is one indication of how reliable a source is. Churn and change (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Show me. It is my understanding that when using aggregate news sources such as the Associated Press and The Huffington Post, the source of the information published needs to be evaluated for notabilityWP:RS, rather than strictly deleting all edits just because they were published in The Huffington Post. If the information is an opinion piece by a not notable Huffington Post employee, or by Smokey Bear [9], it should be treated as any other potentially not notable source. If the article is written, for example, by Howard Fineman[10], or Robert Reich[11], or Norman Lear[12], or Greta Van Susteren[13], are we to dismiss it as unreliable and not notable strictly because the publisher started as a blog 4 years ago? OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct (edited) I believe what was being stated at the notice board was that the originator of the information was not The HP, but was the AP. That was the actual source and they are who should be referenced ...but the community decides through consensus what is or is not a reliable publication for use on Wikipedia. I will provide the links. Give me a moment please.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also..The Huffington Post is still a "Blog", a political blog. It's main function is biased political ideology in the form of opinion pieces. You may be a notable celebrity...but if it is an opinion piece it should probably not be used on a BLP unless it is their own.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, people say there is no consensus, and the organization has changed significantly since the last official discussion. The organization was apparently purchased by AOL, has new editors, and won a Pulitzer prize. Now that a reliable source case is open again, I think it might be a good practice to await feedback from a variety of editors, over a time period longer than 24 hours. In the meantime, I will proceed with what is actually stated, and that is that each individual source, not publisher, should be evaluated for being reliable. Simply stating that "the Huffington Post" is not reliable", and deleting an otherwise notable, and verifiable piece of information strictly because it was published in the Huffington Post is not actually supported by any clear consensus readily available. Even if it were, notable authors who publish on Huffington Post would still be eligible for an exemption from the SPS rule, if that is what is being invoked as the cause for concern. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

You are extrapolating intent where none is indicated. We need to lighten up. This has been a rough weekend. I feel like Mini Me pushed into a shark pool. The issue that preceded this has been dealt with by finding an alternative source. The further topic is being discussed on the noticeboard, to which you have already been contributing your welcomed opinion. I have not, either implictly or explicity denigrated anyone's years of work on Wikipedia. I have not seen a resolution. You are not providing one yet, and instead are just stating "just take my word for it, it's there and will never change." That argument isn't sufficient. I have spent hours looking over the noticeboard archives. 4 years have passed since the last discussion which seemed to have any semblance of consensus, and even then it was 4 people who seemed to have an opinion. The 2010 conversation barely got started. Please don't escalate this past what has been said. If Joe Biden writes a story for this publication, which he has, there is no argument I have seen which convinces me that it would be rejected, solely on the basis of appearing on HP. That is my point, nothing broader. If you are referencing my comments on the board, which aren't here, that isn't exactly skippy. Also, how do you know I'm a man? Why are you calling me sir? Are we going to duel. ;0) OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 10:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

break

Here is what I am finding so far:

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

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

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

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

Not reliable forever, and ever, amen, regardless of author. And then some. Got it. Thanks. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I could not locate any reliable sources for these points. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ryan's second-budget plan section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"social" fraternity

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

There are social fraternities and academic ones (e.g. Phi Beta Kappa)76.199.10.24 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Academic ones are referred to as societies not fraternities. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It does sound awkward, and an unnecessarily detailed distinction. I think we should drop "social", and trust that if the reader needs to understand the distinction, they can click on Delta Tau Delta. - MrX 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

From a purely rhetorical perspective, there may be perceived problems with this. Catholics generally assume (bear with me) that membership in a secret society is forbidden. There have been Papal editcs about membership in secret societies, most notably Freemasonry. However, when challenged, the official doctrine remained: membership in a secret society is not consistent with Catholic teachings. If you view the article on Fraternity, you might be surprised what you see, and so might some Catholic users. However, using the phrase "social fraternity" and using the wikilink for Fraternities and sororities in North America might bypass any potential issues levied by Catholic users. "Social fraternities" in college aren't really "secret" and get a pass from most Catholics, although not all, and no I don't have a source for that particular statement. It is only a personal observation. This is strictly rhetorical, mind you. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The current wikilink goes to Fraternities and sororities in North America. I've known Catholics extensively for my entire life and have never heard of any such concerns as many of them who went to college were in fraternities. I would argue that most Catholics (especially the ones I know) do not concern themselves with every nuance written down about their religion. If this was a problem I am sure someone would have raised it by now. --JournalScholar (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so we change things that sound "weird" but we dismiss Papal edicts. I'll leave this trivia for others to debate at this point. I was only adding some info to the conversation. I'm not sure you were actually disagreeing with my point anyway. Also, the wiki to Fraternities and sororities in North America would appear to be fairly new, because initially I clicked on it to view the article. Either way, moving on. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 08:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page for Delta Tau Delta it is described as a "secret letter college fraternity". Now either that is true or that page is violating Papal edicts. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible POV issue

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

Please be more specific. There are two sections for budget plans.OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about The Ryan Budget.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I might recommend searching for more sources which discuss support of Paul Ryan's plans. Normally, you would visit the user's talk page and discuss the matter with them there. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was only providing context, not making serious "accusations", as you previously intoned before revising your language. I have no doubt that all of GoThere2000's edits are well-intentioned. I explicitly stated that his "summarize" approach is quite possibly the best way to go--I just think it should go both ways. I used a comparison to demonstrate potential bias--my desire is to trim excessive editorial quotes, not to add more of them. The issue of condensing the paragraph in question, if neccessary, is relevant for discussion here. I could have also reminded GoThere2000 to use edit summaries on his TP--but I noticed that you already had, twice. I would appreciate if you addressed my concerns directly, even if you disagree with my conclusions. I'm sorry if my allusion to the poor practice of not providing edit summaries confused you as to my purpose.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. If you try to contact them on their talk page, you could potentially have your question answered about why they might have removed the information. By doing so, you can also have it documented that you requested information and if/when it was not provided. Then, if the behavior continues, you or someone else can report it. If the user doesn't happen to check this talk page immediately, there will be no immediate results regarding your concerns on their editing pattern. If they are contacted via their talk page, they get a message banner when they log in, and some users get emails. As for the content, I agree completely that a balanced view is essential. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not upset that he paraphrased the quote. I'm asking if there are other spots we could trim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think we should go the other way on this; make the Ryan budget plan(s) a separate article. Clearly there are enough details. The plan is also one major focus of at least the Democratic campaign, and hence notable. We could then include both views in some detail. Churn and change (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, looks like there already is one: Path to Prosperity. Looks like we don't need such a lengthy section here. Churn and change (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the user's talk page for more information. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP doesn't work by user-to-user talk. GT2000 should be discussing here; we shouldn't all have to separately go to GT'2 page and discuss things one-on-one. Churn and change (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show me that guideline. We appear to be reading a different set of guidelines and rules. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TALK There are good reasons for having these discussions here. Think of an editor coming here for the first time; the talk page is supposed to archive the previous discussions on the article. If we go discussing contents in separate user talk pages, it would be impossible for anybody to track what the previous discussions were. In fact, it would be impossible for, say me, to track what discussions you had with GT, what conclusions you reached, and modify my edits accordingly. You can't impose a requirement that everybody go check GT's talk page before editing things here. And, no, GT2000 hasn't responded to requests for adding edit summaries. Churn and change (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a specific guideline referenced. I don't disagree with how things should work for experienced users. In this case, it would appear to have degenerated into an edit war. Have you filed a grievance at the BLP Noticeboard about a topic on this article? Have you warned the user about their editing behavior? If not, with these edits, [14], [15] and [16], you have allowed yourself to become actively engaged in an edit war over this topic, and there is a guideline specifically for that too: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor Organizational Issues

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

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

Edit request 8/12/12

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

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

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

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

Should the Ryan budget plan be a separate article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 12 August 2012

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

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

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

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

Presumptive nominee

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

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

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

I added some hidden text explaining why he should not be called the nominee/candidate, and why this page should not be added to the "2012 Vice Presidential Candidates" category. Churn and change (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well he is the nominee as even the RNP Chairman talks about in this official RNP statement.[[17]].TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Where does that statement say he is the nominee? Likely nominee, yes. Churn and change (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither Romney, nor Ryan have been choosen by the Republican party. The convention is just around the corner and this may be changed when the official triggers have been made. To be the nominee...they have to be nominated. That happens at the convention. What outside political pundits and politicians may say is not what makes the claim accurate. Being actually nominated...does.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I reversed myself and put Ryan in the "US vice-presidential candidates, 2012" category since Romney is in the corresponding presidential category. Looks like it holds whoever says they want to be president/vice-president in 2012. Churn and change (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe being "Presumptive" allows that categories use.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rick Perry is in there, and he is presumptive nothing. Churn and change (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that is not an argument for this. Just remove the category from Perry. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be imposing your definition for the category. In the media the word "candidate" is used for everybody who runs, even if they drop out well before the election or nomination. That seems to be the definition used by the category too. Churn and change (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the category has traditionally included all notable persons who declare themselves candidates, as reported in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing?

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

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

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

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

Ezra's statements on budget proposal

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

Expert on what? He is a journalist.GoThere2000 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't include every journalist's "opinion" here. We include only facts that journalists "report". Churn and change (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We can report facts about opinions. His opinion is fine, unless you feel it is a fringe source or is being given undue weight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, he was aleady being cited for this factual claim: "Ryan's budget seeks to reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050." That suggests he is a relevant and reliable source, even for criticism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But that part is there in other citations too. The spending percentage is not Ezra's opinion or original research. The statement in question is Ezra's original research, and he seems not a notable-enough economist, politician or official for us to include his OR. Churn and change (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ezra Klein's notability (from Wikipedia): In 2011, Klein's blog was the most-read blog at The Washington Post.[14] In 2011, he was named one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington by GQ.[15] In 2010, he was named Blogger of the Year by The Week magazine and the Sidney Hillman Foundation.[16][17] His blog was also named one of the 25 best financial blogs by Time Magazine in 2011.18 I'm not sure I see a valid argument against a sourced citation from Ezra Klein. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in Ezra's notability as an economist, since we are quoting original research from him. The above just show he is a notable journalist. Don't we have enough Nobel laureates, Wall street honchos, what not who have commented on the Ryan plan, without our having to quote a journalist's synthesis? Churn and change (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no valid argument against Ezra Klein as an expert on economics or as a journalist. Get over it people, his bio at MSNBC is clear he focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system. He is a notable figure and journalist and "Blogger" in this case does not mean someone who writes recipes in their spare time. He does have credentials.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think we can include the responses of everyone with as much economic credentials as Ezra, or more, in this article? How many such people do you think there are who have commented on the Ryan plan? Shouldn't we start with the top and work down (yes, Krugman is notable). Churn and change (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We may add or include as many responses as we wish as long as they follow policy and guidelines and even then...if it improves the article..we can ignore that rule. Simply put, you cannot claim one is better than another unless you intend to exclude one or the other and we need not do that. There is room for both...DEPENDING on content and its relevence.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He's one of the top financial bloggers and I believe that his work is popular among critics of Ryan. He was already deemed a reliable source for information. So little space is devoted to his criticism that it could not possibly be given undue weight. Why do you call him Ezra? Do you know him?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Caution: WP:3RR Three revert rule on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even honestly believing something is a BLP violation does not guarantee protection against being treated as edit-warring. Trust me on this one. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of these issues can be avoided by not adding anything without first properly sourcing it. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Most, but certain editors commenting in this thread have been known to editwar to include irrelevancies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me to harass me with false allegations? --JournalScholar (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm stalking Still-24-45-42-125, but the statement is still correct. You [any Wikipedia editor] can be blocked for edit-warring for removing sourced information, adding sourced irrelevant information, or making any changes at all, not required by policy, which are opposed by multiple editors. And, back to Still-24, the guideline was supposed to say that only clear violations of the WP:BLP policy are exempt. Apparently, WP:3RR hasn't been updated to reflect the actual policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Stylistic/word choice/potential bias

A few proposed changes:

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

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

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

Political positions of Paul Ryan

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