Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 8

Intro

Why is the following statement significant enough to be included in the intro?

"Ryan has developed budget plans that propose privatizing Medicare for those currently under the age of 55,[3] funding Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through block grants to the states,[4][5][6] and other changes. Ryan introduced these proposals in his spending plan for the House Budget Committee in April 2011 and in an updated version in March 2012."CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are they not? Ruby Murray 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They look significant to me. I didn't revert the deletion, but it should probably get reverted. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the intro for living politicians are typically devoted to milestones in their careers, not a specific bill or plan.CFredkin (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I would agree that calling that a milestone in his career is recentism, so I'd be OK with moving the references cited in the intro down to the "Budget proposals" section. But please be careful when removing content from intros, and do a page preview before saving, to check that you're not removing references that are used in repeat citations elsewhere in the article. Thanks, Ruby Murray 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Debt Ceiling?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359818/paul-ryan-cr-fight-will-inevitably-roll-debt-ceiling-fight-jonathan-strong

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/15/paul-ryan-debt-ceiling_n_4449213.html?ir=Politics

Ryan keeps bringing up the issue over and over again. Why are we silencing him? Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And again the subject is reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&action=historysubmit&diff=586528268&oldid=586501605

Ryan keeps bringing the subject up in the context of the budget. Who are we to censor the congressman? Hcobb (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the context for your statement? Concessions for what? When did he say it? CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Added in a little more of the context, but he's said volumes on this subject over the years and it's never been allowed to be entered. So there is a lot more to add it. Hcobb (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And once again you have silenced the man who said "Default is the unworkable solution." Hcobb (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The intro to this article currently contains a number of statements that I believe are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead:

1. Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, and is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio. He worked as an aide to legislators Bob Kasten, Sam Brownback, and Jack Kemp, and as a speechwriter before winning election to the U.S. House in 1998.
2. Ryan has developed budget plans that propose privatizing Medicare for those currently under the age of 55,[3] funding Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through block grants to the states,[4][5][6] and other changes. Ryan introduced these proposals in his spending plan for the House Budget Committee in April 2011 and in an updated version in March 2012.[7]
3. On December 10, 2013, Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray announced that they had negotiated a two-year, bipartisan budget, known as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.[11][12] Although the deal was controversial among conservatives in Congress, other Representatives said that Ryan's support for the bill was a major reason why they were considering the deal.[11]

If you disagree, please explain their significance. Thanks. CFredkin (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

#1 sounds like normal main stuff for an article on a person Suggest keeping

#2 Is older, dead and superseded. Suggest leaving out.

#3 is gigantic, assuming that it passed. Suggest keeping.

North8000 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 should go to life and ed. #2 goes under policies or history. #3 is not a done deal, but would be more or less expected of somebody who held his job. So trim the lead down to name, rank, and affiliation. Hcobb (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Leads should be "a summary of [the article's] most important aspects". His "Path to Prosperity" budget plans are, along with his vice presidential candidacy, what he is best known for and should obviously be mentioned in the lead. As for the 2 sentences on his background, that's standard and I see no reason why that should be removed either. The Bipartisan Budget Act I'm not sure about. I'd suggest wait and see what happens with it. It may turn out to be very significant, or it might not. Tiller54 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove 1 or 3. As I understand it, the lead section is a summary of the key details of what the rest of the article is about. Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation? The last - the budget - is also extremely current, so a lot of people looking him up will be doing so because of that detail. Three years from now, maybe his budget deal won't be one of the most important things about him. Right now, it is. (Oh, the the budget passed the House, it will probably pass the Senate today or tomorrow). Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article, not just the middle of the article. The first 28 years of someone's life are obviously significant in a biography. —Designate (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect what appears to be the consensus above: Leave #1 and #3, remove #2. I've also edited #3 to make the significance more apparent. CFredkin (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Tiller54 is the only editor advocating keeping paragraph #2 in the intro. CFredkin (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO it is older, dead and superseded and better left out. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Did you read what HistoricMN44 and Designate wrote? Tiller54 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe HistoricMN44 indicated that he thought 1 & 3 should stay in, which implies that 2 can go. That would mean 4 editors agreed that 2 could be removed, while 1 (Tiller54) wanted it to stay. Designate agreed with the previous posts, which would presumably support the consensus. CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, did you actually read what they said? "the lead section is a summary of the key details of what the rest of the article is about. Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation?" does not "imply that 2 can go" and how does "The lead is a summary of the entire article, not just the middle of the article. The first 28 years of someone's life are obviously significant in a biography" mean that he supports removing three-quarters of the lead? Tiller54 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There are thirty or forty areas / items in the article that could be selected for the lead. And only a few actually get into the lead. IMO there is no reason to select an old, dead, superseded proposal for the tiny fraction that gets into the lead. And Tiller, you are the only one who said "keep it in the lead". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And how many of those areas/items are significant pieces of legislation? His budget plans clearly meet the criteria set down by WP:LEAD. You constantly refer to them as "old, dead and superseded" but the single largest section in the article is the one dealing with his budget proposals. They are, along with his vice presidential candidacy, what he is best known for, and the proposals he made in the plans were a key issue of the 2012 election. Tiller54 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tiller54, you are clearly in the minority here, perhaps a minority of one. CFredkin (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) The budget referenced in the paragraph in dispute did not pass Congress and become law. The remaining paragraphs in the lead do describe the notable points in his life. CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you refusing to read what other users have written or are you just ignoring them? As for his Path to Prosperity plan, no, it didn't become law. That doesn't make it any less significant or notable. Like I said, along with his vice presidential candidacy, his budget plans are what he is best known for and easily meets the criteria in WP:LEAD. Tiller54 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep implying (IMHO incorrectly) that something in the the other posts weighs in on your view (e.g to include that material in the lead) but you are never specific in pointing out what they said that supports inclusion in the lead. IMHO this is because it is not there, but either way if you are going to carry on with the claim that others support inclusion in the lead, please point out specifically where they said that. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not specific? Are you ignoring my posts as well as other users'? I'll quote them again. HistoricMN44 said quite clearly (emphasis mine): "Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan? Early life, policies, vice presidential candidacy, potentially signature legislation?" And Designate (emphasis mine): "I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article." And as I've pointed out to you several times, his budget proposals are the largest single section in his article! But no, let's completely ignore 1/2 of what he's best-known for and remove from the lead any mention of what policies he proposes because there are "30/40 other things" that aren't in the lead as well. Is it really more worthwhile mentioning that he was a speechwriter but ignoring his budget proposals?

You said in your edit summary: "it has been clearly decided / a strong consensus." Where is this "strong consensus"?!? HistoricMN44, Designate and myself all disagreed. There is no consensus to remove any of the lead. Tiller54 (talk)

I think that you are creatively interpreting what they said as being a statement of agreement with you, and I don't see it there. Maybe they could be asked (in a neutral fashion) whether or not they intended their comments to be supporting retention of that paragraph. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly have I creatively interpreted then? And after you've explained that, could you point out where either of those users agree that the paragraph in question should be removed. Thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question, it is interpreting their comments as saying to keep that item. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly am I "creatively interpreting" the comments "Don't you think the four paragraphs as the exist effectively summarize Ryan?" and "I agree with the above replies. The lead is a summary of the entire article."? What am I "creatively interpreting" there? Both of the users specifically said that the content should be kept. Tiller54 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not accurate. I'll do and present a more thorough analysis/summary.North8000 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a she (not a he - female editors represent!) and I went on vacation. I said I thought there was no reason to remove 1 and 3 because I strongly felt they should remain. I did not mean to imply that 2 should be removed, just that I did not feel as strongly about it as 1, 3, (and 4, which I added).

This argument seems to be about one tree in the forest. Editors are unhappy with the lead section of the article, right? Why not expand it a little more? Are there other policy positions or events we could add to the lead to flesh it out more? Something like "He has served eight terms in the House." or mention what Committees he serves on? Is there other content from the article that anyone would propose should be added to the lead?

Or what about rewriting the offending paragraph? Ryan has a history of being introducing his own budget plans, he is the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he negotiated the recent budget deal. Maybe it would be better to rework the paragraph to cover his general involvement with budgets plans. A statement about what types of policies he likes to include could still be part of that.

So, I guess my actual response is rewrite the paragraph to create a general paragraph about Ryan's budget policy activities. Does that make sense? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that that would be a good idea, and different than the text in questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied, I've mostly been off-Wiki for the past week. Yes, I agree with HistoricMN44 as well. Tiller54 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of results

Editors

Clearly against inclusion: CFredkin, HCobb, North8000

Clearly for inclusion: Tiller54

HistoricMN44 seemed to make statements leaning in both directions. Saying "I don't see any reason to remove 1 or 3" somewhat implies that they do see reason to remove / exclude #2 (which this is about). But they also expressed that generally the lead looked OK (while not commenting on #2 specifically, I believe that #2 was in at that time) I'd call this no clear statement to include or exclude, and also the net effect as 50/50.

I'm now in favor of rewriting it to create a stronger paragraph about Ryan's general budget activities. My original statements were correctly interpreted as ambiguous. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Editor Designate explicitly weighed in on keeping the "early life" section. Other than that, they just said that they agree with the "above replies" which are the replies by the above 5 posters. And of those 5, 3 were clearly for exclusion, one clearly for inclusion, and one unclear. I'd call this somewhat indicating exclusion, but uncertain.

Designate subsequently clarified that they have no opinion on the item in question. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, two made no clear statement for either. With respect to general leaning, I'd call HistoricMN44's 50/50, and Designate's somewhat indicating exclusion. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being vague earlier. The early life part should be included. I don't really have an opinion about the budget plans. —Designate (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Updated summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, one has said they had and have no opinion on the item in question, one made no clear statement for either. With respect to general leaning, I'd call HistoricMN44's 50/50. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated summary: 3 clearly for exclusion, 1 clearly for inclusion, one has said they had and have no opinion on the item in question, one supported "rewriting it to create a stronger paragraph about Ryan's general budget activities". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguments

There were not many arguments regarding the content itself. IMO plausible points were made in both directions. An important context to remember is that this is not about what is going in the article, it is about what is going into the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point unrelated to the analysis of the results

I just noticed that the item which Tiller seeks to insert has a claim that the 2012 plan has all of those described provisions from the 2011 plan. This is NOT in the source, it's not even in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Undid the addition

I undid the addition, citing the three issues:

1. Clearly not supported by the results in talk. And reasonably clear that it conflicts with the results in talk.
2. The second half of the statement is not in the source. Namely that all of those described provisions were in the 2012 version.
3. The second half (that all of those described provisions were in the 2012 version) is not even in the article.

Any reinsertion would need to clear all three of these issues. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Huge wikipedia violation...original research, especially political positions

The whole section is a disaster and original research. I do not doubt that people spent a lot of time writing, but effort is not a criteria for content.

What document says "I am Paul Ryan and these are my political positions"? None.

How do you know that his main position is a topic that is not covered. Another problem is differentiating his true opinion and a generic Republican platform. How about his position on Kenneth Bar, trapped in North Korea? All members of Congress are for him. For some, the issue is more on the back burner than others.

This whole section, sadly, should be removed to the sandbox.

Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It should not be up to us to demand a coherent position platform from Paul Ryan. All we can do is report what he has done and said. What would be helpful is to split things he's done as a Rep. from things he's done as say a VeepCan. This is what Tenure sections are for. Hcobb (talk) 10:25,

10 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire section claims it is his political position even it may not be. That is OR. Also, was it his position or was he just repeating Romney's? Other times, politicians do different from what they say and, if so, which is their position? Wikipedia needs to grow beyond an amateur project and self reflect, like I am prompting. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we seem to be in violent agreement, I'll start moving bits out to the different lifestage sections tomorrow so we can split what he said as a Rep from what he said on the ticket, etc. Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

War on Poverty

• http://swampland.time.com/2014/03/03/paul-ryan-critiques-war-on-poverty-in-new-report/
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/paul-ryan-sees-799-billion-war-on-poverty-failing-poor.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-budget-will-focus-on-reforming-welfare-overhauling-social-programs/2014/03/02/26b17b78-a23e-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

WOP is Ryan's big thing this year and the focus of his budget. Why not mention it? Hcobb (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. This is new News. There is no point in filling up a bio with everything bit of news you come across. WP:NEWSPAPER Arzel (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is not not just "news". This is a report by Ryan on one of the most significant aspects of US politics, and worthy of inclusion even worth to have its own section. Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It already has a section. It's all part of his budget plans. This is simply the start of the Paul Ryan Budget Season this year. Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. You add a WP:RECENT blurb using Rachel Maddow as a source. It is quite clear what you both are trying to do. Please stop using WP to push your political view. Arzel (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: I just read your comment, and given the recent RFC about your behavior, I'd suggest you cool it, take a break or something, and come back refreshed to collaborate with others rather than attempting a Don Quixote. If you want to safeguard the neutrality of articles, work with others, or even better, try WP:ENEMY Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How very hypocritical of you since you don't seem to practice that yourself. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So an official House Budget Committee report is not notable?

http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

Hcobb (talk) 18:03, 5

This statement is not notable. It's just a POV attack on Ryan. It definitely does not belong in his WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The fix it, don't delete it! There are numerous sources that describe his plan, and many of them are critical and should be reported. As I can see that it seems no one is interested in fixing it, I will. Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Y It was not that hard. Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like another chance to push your anti-Ryan POV. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What I have added is just factual information and devoid of any anti-Ryan POV [1]. If you think otherwise you may need to take a breather. Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

War on Poverty Con't

I think the discussion got off track, it seems to me that a section, or at least a mention of Ryan's effort to reform poverty reduction programs, should be included. There is a lot of coverage in the last few months on both sides - it can be done without POV issues. TheWarOfArt (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the point is that there's a huge difference between the original edit by Hcobb and the proposed revised draft by Cwobeel. The initial response was based on the original edit. There was no dispute over the subsequent revisions. From my perspective, it's reasonable to expect other editors to revise (rather than revert) edits which make a reasonable point and which may only require wordsmithing to come to mutually agreeable content. However, when dealing with POV-pushing nonsense, I don't think it's reasonable to expect other editors to try to polish that into something different.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as the subsection is concerned, I think the page created for the the report itself would be a better place for responses to the report, i.e. "Several economists and social scientists whose work had been referenced in the report said that Ryan either misunderstood or misrepresented their research."TheWarOfArt (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it's part of this year's budget, why not trim down to a single mention of the report here? Hcobb (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as the summary is balanced, I have no issues, as we have to report what sources say for NPOV. In re-reading what we have there it is already a good, well balanced summary. Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I am trying to say, that a biographical article (and on a politician in particular) can't just contain what the subject said or did, but also what reliable sources say about him. It is always good to re-read WP:NPOV to remind us what our job is here (highlight is mine): Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to me that the inclusion of the opinions of the economists and social scientists, while a fact, does trend it towards a negative POV. At least that's my take. If the consensus is to keep it in, that's fine. But as far as expanding on any reception, do we agree that it would best to add it to the report's page?TheWarOfArt (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We report positive and negative POVs, as long as these POVs are significant and based on reliable sources. That is the the way of this land. Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This report was just released and some on the left were instantly critical, which is what you added. You don't seem to understand long term significance. I am not surprised. Arzel (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I added substantial materials that was factual, and also added a counterpoint by the researched cited in the report. Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel:Removed WP:NOR [2]. We don't get to decide what is "one of Ryan's main issues", and the source provided does not assert that it is. If you want to add material about what the report says, edit the The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later article Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That was one of the main things he pointed out in that source. Apparently only negative POV meets your definition of significant. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what the Business Week source says. For Ryan, federal antipoverty programs suffer from two main defects. The normative problem is that many programs “penalize families for getting ahead.” Financial aid is withdrawn, sometimes abruptly, as family income rises. “The complex web of federal programs and sudden drop-off in benefits create extraordinarily high effective marginal tax rates,” the report notes, “which reduce the incentive to work.” Practically speaking, there is a confusing maze of programs with too little evaluation of effectiveness. I summarized the two into simply main. There is no original research. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To my point about NOR: What you wrote is: One of Ryan's main issues is that many programs penalize families as their incomes rise; reducing the incentive to work. You don't get to decide what Ryan's main points are Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The source says "For Ryan, ....suffer from two main defects." Ryan stated his main points. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have refactored to avoid NOR. Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WH Press Release

A press release by the White House is not necessarily notable for Ryan's BLP. Please provide a reliable secondary source to indicate significance. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not notable? This is not a "press release", and it is published by the Office of Management and Budget of the executive branch of the US government. Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you need more sources, here are some:

* NY Times Editorial [3]

* Fox News [4]

Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The OMB is a department of the WH. The NYT reference is to an editorial. And the Fox News article predates 2014. That's not justification for including this POV statement in Ryan's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(a) It is the same budget than 2013, (b) editorials are reliable sources (to assert the opinion of a major newspaper), and (c) the OMB is a reliable source as well for the opinion of the Executive branch. If the text was not attributed, I would agree. But it is clearly attriuted to these sources so it is 100% WP:V and in compliance with WP:BLP. I will dig more sources for you (you can do that too, you know?)Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few more: [5], [6],[7] Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, everything is "POV". But as long as we attribute the POV to these that hold it, and we reference it to a WP:RS, and the source is notable, we are in full compliance with WP:BLP. If you don't agree, it is because you may need to refresh your memory on what the WP:BLP policy states. Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it notable that Sylvia Mathews Burwell got an appointment days after after writing her attack piece? Hcobb (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

repeated claims of insider trading by user:Cgersten

I am posting this because Cgersten has made this edit several times now. Once un-sourced, once with a poor source, and now once with a source that completely blows apart the argument. Below is the section with the last source.

On the same day of Ryan's acceptance as Romney's running mate, accusations were made of Ryan using inside information to sell stocks. The accusations were immediately refuted by the Ryan campaign staff.[8]

It is interesting that the Huffpo source takes the following stance. "The impression I get from these 27 transactions in individual bank stocks in 12 months, 17 of which involve not net injections or withdrawals but rather switches between banks, is of a guy who simply does not know what he is doing." I would ask Cgersten to present some far better sourcing if they are going to allude that Paul Ryan was involved in insider trading as the best source they have provided thus far indicates that he is a terrible trader. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This would not be a reliable source, but it gives a good explanation. Interestingly this whole story is a feedback loop due to some stuff that was in WP back during the 2012 election. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Current elections

I'm unsure why this page doesn't reflect Ryan's current election, which presently has two candidates vying for the democratic nomination - Rob Zerban and Omar Kalecka. I feel like that's important to include and I encourage somebody to do so. --216.56.8.244 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

TALK page

Doesn't this article deserve a TALK PAGE for discussion? Since I will now be 'watching' I'll have some things to say to improve the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) The first is to start this auxiliary page for discussion.

New NEWS today

It may not fit into the article yet, but will become interesting as elections approach and Paul Ryan participates. Also, his work in Congress is not reported in the article at this point, two years after the failed run with Romney. His current activity in Congress can be selectively summarized in the article.

Headline-1: Paul Ryan to IRS Commissioner on "Lost" Emails: I Do Not Believe You, No One Believes You

• http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/20/paul-ryan-to-irs-commissioner-i-do-not-believe-you-no-one-believes-you-n1853891

QUOTE: "During a contentious House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill Friday, former vice presidential nominee and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, "Your problem is, no one believes you." Koskinen tried to assure lawmakers the IRS isn't engaged in a cover-up and isn't misleading Congress, despite failing to disclose massive data loss and a "hard drive crash" until asked about where emails belonging to IRS officials and officials outside of agency were located." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: 'I don't believe you!': Paul Ryan levels blistering attack against IRS boss over 'lost' emails explanation

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/20/irs-boss-faces-cover-up-claims-ahead-hill-hearing-on-missing-emails/?intcmp=populardiscussions

QUOTE: "WASHINGTON – A congressional hearing Friday into how the Internal Revenue Service lost thousands of emails from an ex-official accused of targeting conservative groups turned into an angry shouting match, with Republicans accusing the IRS commissioner of lying to Americans. “This is unbelievable," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., angrily told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. That’s your problem. Nobody believes you.” Koskinen responded, “I have a long career. That’s the first time anyone’s said I don’t believe you.” "I don't believe you," Ryan shot back again." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

WP:NOTNEWS, but could be useful material at 2013 IRS controversy, not here - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Chair

Ryan is chair of Ways and Means, not Budget. Page still says Budget (Chair). 66.67.32.161 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

First profession. From article (with two refs)

"position as a staff economist attached to Senator Kasten's office, which he did after graduating in 1992." Capitalismojo (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

That is not his profession. That is a job he did after graduation. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See related discussion at WP:BLP/N#Paul_Ryan - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

Questions of insider trading. On September 18, 2008, Ryan, and other leading congressional leaders, were called to a closed meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to discuss the imminent financial collapse of a number of leading banks. That same day Ryan, and coincidentally other congressional attendees, including Senator Dick Durbin, sold shares in various troubled banks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryjones422 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Name

He has requested that he now be referred to as Paul D. Ryan. The article should be changed to reflect this. http://www.politico.com/blogs/the-gavel/2015/10/paul-ryan-changes-name-to-paul-d-ryan-215248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.216.185.157 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For official business, yes. For WP:COMMONNAME, this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Links in Electoral History section

Anyone aware of a reason the Electoral History section does not have links to Wiki articles on opponents or other candidates? They are sparingly used on the "Main Page" entry as well, although some non-linked names in this section are linked to on the detail page. Is this a helpful task to undertake or is there a technical or editorial constraint that links aren't used? Iowajason (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

Edit to reflect in introduction paragraph that Ryan is no longer on the Ways and Means Committee. This is fully covered in Tenure section and seemed misleading in implying he was currently serving on the committee. As noted later in article, as Speaker, he serves on no committees.

His tenure on Ways and Means does seem important and might warrant inclusion in some form in the introduction. I added to following sentence in subsequent edit.

Iowajason (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A first?

He initially wanted to be the presiding officer of the US Senate, but has become the presiding officer of the US House of Representatives. I wonder if this is a first & should we add it to the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

John Nance Garner and Schuyler Colfax were both Speaker and became Vice President. Henry Clay was Speaker and was twice offered the Vice Presidency, for both Harrison and Taylor (would have become President either time). I think the fact for Ryan is implied be extant information, and doesn't really bear significant mention, as many people run for many offices, winning and losing in many interesting combinations.   Spartan7W §   18:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You certainly need a section on the astounding omnibus spending bill with which Ryan opened his tenure. The White House and Pelosi were delighted with it, and Ryan helped in it to fund amnesty, Obamacare, uncheckable Syrian refugees, H1B expansion, Planned Parenthood, and pretty much every aspect of the Democrat agenda. Because of this, Ryan was targeted by conservatives for future defeat. In other words, Ryan bids fair to become the fastest failure as a Speaker in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.238.77 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

54th or 62nd?

Wikipedia has Speaker Ryan listed as the 62nd Speaker of the House. But the Associated Press is reporting him as the 54th Speaker. The Armchair General (talk)

It appears they don't count speakers (who've served non-consecutive terms) more then once. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Should that differentiation be noted in the article, or is that too nit-picky? The Armchair General (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, if the major sources are counting the speakers that way (individual only), then we should abide by it. If given the word, I'll easily change the numbering of all of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be changed! But, I'm still new to wiki-editing and think someone with a bit more tenure than me should perhaps make that decision. The Armchair General (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead & fixed the numbering at Speaker of the United States House of Representatives article, FWIW. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

According to House.gov, he is the 54th. He himself is the 54th speaker, while the office he holds is the 62nd Speakership. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the numbering in all the bio articles of the Speakers. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If we've done this renumbering for Speaker Ryan, shouldn't we do the same for President Obama? Due to President Cleveland's non-consecutive terms, Obama is the 43rd person to be President of the United States... Do you see what I mean? -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

... Just as with the Speaker of the House position... there have been 54 people who have been speakers, but 62 positions. This is the same with the US Presidency; there have been 43 total men who have held the office, but 44 positions total. Just as Henry Clay had non-consecutive terms as Speaker of the House, Grover Cleveland had non-consecutive terms as POTUS. I can't be any more clear. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the House speakers are numbered though, according to reliable sources. The sources have Ryan as the 54th Speaker, thus the speakers who've served non-consectutive tenures, are numbered only once. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Award Update

Paul Ryan received the Manhattan Institute's Alexander Hamilton Award in 2014. Appropriate section should be updated to reflect this. ArsDiscipulus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect choice of words: "reticence" vs. "reluctance"

In the section labeled "Elections," the last line refers to Sarah Palin's endorsement of a Ryan opponent because of Ryan's "reticence to endorse Donald Trump...." The writer should have used the word "reluctance" here. "Reticence" means unwillingness to freely reveal one's thoughts or feelings. "Reluctance" means unwillingness to perform an action. Since there is a specific action identified - that of endorsing a candidate - the correct word to use is "reluctance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8A02:5A00:F47D:43E6:9334:6519 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

While Paul Ryan stated that Donald Trump is racist during Trump's campaign for President, Ryan himself has also been accused of being racist by CNN's Jeffrey Lord, noted the Huffington Post.[1]

Surprisingly, for Ryan, that is not the first time that he has been accused of racism in the past. And there seems to be some substance to such claims, according to various reports.

In 2012, Ryan started a scandal when he reportedly referred to "Judeo-Christian values," reported Buzzfeed.[2] The concept here is that other faiths lack values--or not the values espoused by 'real' Americans such as Ryan.

Not too long thereafter, Newsone reported that Ryan again made some racist comments about "inner-city" people, referring to such as just plain "lazy." Whites certainly don't fill up the inner-cities, so there is little question to whom he referred. Newsone noted:

"Ryan went on to cite the work of Charles Murray, a conservative social scientist who believes Blacks collectively are less intelligent than Whites due to genetic differences. As outlined by Think Progress, Murray believes poverty remains a problem given 'a lot of poor people are born lazy.'"[3]

Politico ran an article, which echoed many people's sentiments at the time, headlined, "Is Paul Ryan Racist?" The article cites Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who decried Ryan's comments as 'a thinly veiled racial attack.... [W]hen Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says, 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black.'"[4]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeffrey-lord-trump-ryan-racist_us_5756d8d6e4b07823f9514271 [2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ryan-obama-plan-compromisesthose-judeo-christ [3] http://newsone.com/2967515/paul-ryan-poverty/ [4] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/is-paul-ryan-racist-104687 50.5.139.177 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Please review the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. GAB^gab 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think realistically it won't be possible to include everything that everyone has ever said about Paul. Alicb (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is "Ayn Rand Affiliation" the 2nd section of his biography? Polemicizing?

This sort of category should come at the end of his biography not toward the beginning. It doesn't make sense for it to be the first section after "early life" and before "early career." It doesn't make sense even chronologically since his public comments on Ayn Rand come long after his "early career." Whoever put this section there seemed to want to polemicize him from the start! If this was not his/her intention, that is surely the outcome either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.46.40 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"a native of Oklahoma"

Is it just me, or does this seem like a not-entirely-PC wording for "she is of First Nations extraction"? Of course I know it doesn't mean that, but is there no better way to write that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - Not sure what you mean. When Americans use the word "native of [X]" they usually just mean that they are from a certain state or city. (For example, you might say that Paul Ryan is a 'native of Wisconsin' or that Barack Obama is a 'native of Chicago'). If you Google the phrase 'native of' and the name of a city or state in the U.S. you can find hundreds or thousands of examples of this being used without suggesting or implying anything other than they were born in or a long-time resident of that place. We can definitely change the wording if you want but I think it's not really accurate to suggest that the phrasing there now has a connotation of First Nations or Native Americans because it really doesn't. Alicb (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

• • Add paragraph at end of "2016 presidential election" section:

Ryan criticized Trump on multiple occasions prior to and after announcing his support for Trump on June 2, 2016 but did not withdraw his support for the candidate. On May 27, 2016 after Trump suggested that a Federal Judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, was biased against Trump because of his Mexican heritage, Ryan stated, "I disavow these comments — I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment." On July 31, 2016 after Trump had criticized the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq, Ryan responded, “Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.” On October 7, 2016 when a lewd recording of Trump was released, Ryan released a statement saying, “I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” Ryan also cancelled a joint appearance that had been planned in Wisconsin for October 8, 2016 and invited GOP Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence to substitute for Trump.

Rrobbins12 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is Congress talks the talk but can not walk the walk for US citizens in health, housing, employment, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans. All Congress is to stall each and every thought or process that would benefit the citizens of 50 US states.

We are living in 2017, but nothing is getting done for health, social security, medicare, Veteran's issues. You all in Congress have your own ideas-philosophy and never will comprise occur as you don't give a dam about each and every citizen in the USA. One reason is that once elected you don't have a foggy idea of what is best for the citizens of the US. But, you do know what great benefits you will receive while in Congress, from health, housing, salary, vacation, retirement etc. Must be great to do nothing in Congress but get all those benefit. Those hearings on Trumps cabinet are a joke. Common horse sense any of those billionaires are not interested in the average American or the poorest. They have it made and challenge anyone who attemps to climb to the top of the mountain. The two parties (Democrat & Republician)will be the down fall of the USA, for their are too many that don't have the KSAs to run a federal government for the benefit of all its citizens. America is falling by the wayside and we are losing many of our neighboring countries with the advent of a new administration that doesn't have a clue as how to run a federal government. Plus, they have no incentive or desire of to work for the people, because they are at the top of the mountain and don't have a worry on their mind. They are thinking how can I make more money while in the US Government. Our relations with foreign powers is sinking like a battleship. China is slowly by up land in the USA and our government doesn't give a dam. Russia has hood winked us and will continue to do so in the coming decades. We really need leadership like it was in the 1950-80s, where regardless of party affilation they sat down and talked and worked and came up with things that were for their US citizens, something that Congress & executive office can't do in 2017. We are falling apart when some laws get passed: such as allowing any citizen to carry a gun on plane, train, boat, or take to church, school, college, supermarket, theater, admin buildings, shopping malls, etc. Hope you are real proud of yourselves in not doing anything for all US Citizens.

George w agnew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.108.29.231 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for twitter

In the article, there are numerous references to twitter announcements that are not linked, but still included. This doesn't make sense to me, as I feel there should be a referenced tweet, a verified image of a deleted tweet, or no reference to said tweet at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaspoontom (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Please add template message to section Paul Ryan#Political positions:

{{Bad summary|section|Political positions of Paul Ryan}}

Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: Hello Becky, thank you for your careful consideration of this editorial issue; do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This edit request is an improvement to the article unlikely to be controversial. The concern expressed by the proposed template message follows straight-forwardly from guideline WP:SUMMARY. The template will function to draw the attention of editors to collaborating on improving the summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan here at Paul Ryan#Political positions as per WP:SUMMARY. Meanwhile, the template message is necessary here to notify readers that the current content of section Paul Ryan#Political positions may be inadequate, even to the point of non-neutrality, in its coverage of the subtopic. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Comments? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Objections? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

One week hearing no objection to a simple section hat WP:SILENCE; seeking collaboration on an obvious shortfall with respect to WP:SUMMARY; the edit is an improvement unlikely to be controversial WP:SNOW. Please add. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• There wasn't silence. An editor above said you should gain consensus for that. You haven't suggested what in the section needs improvement. Why do you feel the section is inadequate? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The inadequacies of the section are discussed in the immediately following section, below; this section is for discussion of the proposed edit: the addition of a section template which will serve to invite collaboration and meanwhile informing readers of a potentially non-neutral summary. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Do you think the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this issue. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 00:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. With reference to editing guideline WP:SUMMARY, do you think the Political positions section of this article Paul Ryan is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, haven't looked and don't care to look. - GB fan 00:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Ok, I guess. Would you perhaps at least agree that a section hat is a simple legitimate non-controversial approach to drawing the attention of editors who do care to collaboration on a possible editorial issue? BTW go Pack. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it is a non controversial approach to draw attention to what a single editor believes is a problem. You haven't had a single person who agrees that it is a problem. An RFC would be a better way to get others to look at it. - GB fan 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ten days without objection to a simple, straightforward, guideline-complaint improvement. Please accept the proposed edit. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful, P&G informed consideration of this proposed edit. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thank you for your thoughtful response to this edit request. Based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please accept this edit request. Three weeks with no objection to a simple, non-controversial, policy-based improvement. Thank you in advanced. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You can also look at this from the opposite side, three weeks of you asking and not a single editor has agreed with you. There is no consensus that the summary is bad. - GB fan 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is not productive to keep this request open at this point. You have been asked to find consensus before using the Edit Request template. You have also been advised to open a Request for Comment if you'd like to bring this to the attention of a wider group of editors. I would suggest another approach: propose some actual changes to the section (in a "change x to y" format, with reliable sources). Clearly, you do not have consensus to add the template, and you're unlikely to gain it simply by asking again. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Thank you for your thoughtful disposition of this edit request. May I respectfully ask, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, do you believe the Political positions section of this article is a good summary of article Political positions of Paul Ryan? Thank you in advance for sharing your policy and guideline informed editorial perspective. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't take the bait. I have no connection to this article, and I intend to keep it that way. You've been given more than one suggestion on how to get more eyes on what you've identified as a problem with the article. If you're serious about wanting to fix it, you'll try one of those approaches, rather than waiting for the right uninvolved editor to happen by and be drawn in. You may have a valid point, but procedurally you're going about things the wrong way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No bait; a colleague asked your opinion on an editorial issue. I am saddened that you have time to change a no to a yes on an edit request but apparently have no time to take a very brief moment to comment on a very obvious editorial issue, an assessment which demands little or no subject expertise, and requires only a cursory familiarity with policy and guideline; however, as we know, there is no deadline, and for now I am content to wait for a conscientious experienced editor to weigh in. Thank you for your advice. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that until you have consensus for the change nothing will be done. If you think the summary is bad, propose a new summary, get consensus and then ask for it to be changed. If all you want is a tag, then start an WP:RFC and get consensus. Until you get consensus nothing will happen. - GB fan 23:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your ongoing commitment to this editorial issue. I look forward to collaborating with you on a resolution. May I respectfully ask, since your last few contributions to this thread, if you have had a chance to briefly skim our project's article Political positions of Paul Ryan, review this article's section Political positions, and perhaps arrive at some conclusion, based on your understanding of MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV, on whether or not section Political positions is an adequate summary of its main article? I take it your assessment is that section Political positions is a neutral summary of Political positions of Paul Ryan, I would please like to understand your basis. I believe the tag is simple and will help attract editor attention to this editorial issue, which is, after all, the main purpose of every tag, but also, as we collaborate on a resolution, improves the article by putting our readers on notice that the section may be non-neutral WP:READERSFIRST. Thank you in advance. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not read and do not plan on reading Political positions of Paul Ryan. I do not plan on taking part in any discussion concerning this issue. - GB fan 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your continued engagement with this editorial issue. I'm sorry, I'm confused, you say you do not want to participate in this discussion while you have inactivated this simple edit twice and commented in this thread six times; you are the most active participant in this discussion save for the proposer, yet for all that I regret I do not understand your position on the Political positions section of this article; can you please clarify? May I respectfully request some good faith WP:AGF and some focus on content WP:FOC? Also, go Pack! Thank you in advance for your reply focusing on content, policy, and guideline. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the political positions section of this article. I am only commenting on the consensus to add the tag. You do not have consensus to add the tag. If you want to get consensus you will need to try a different tactic. You might try starting an RFC on the question of whether the tag is appropriate. A better tactic is to actually try to improve the article. Write what you think the section should be and then start an RFC to get consensus for the New section. Just asking for a tag to be added is not an improvement. ~ GB fan 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thank you again for your suggestion of an RFC to add a "bad summary" tag to the Political positions section of this article. The justification for the tag is very, very obvious to anyone with passing familiarity with MOS:BODY, WP:SUMMARY, WP:NPOV, and a quick browse of the Political positions section of this article and article Political positions of Paul Ryan. The non-conformance with policy and guideline is so clear that an RFC is overkill at this time. An RfC is designed to draw community-wide attention to an editorial dispute; here, we have no dispute, and the consent of just one confirmed user is all that is needed. In fact, the above edit request is so WP:SNOW that an RfC were it launched would almost certainly be accused of being disruptive by some. We agree the goal is to improve the section, but the deficiency of the section with respect to policy and guideline is so severe that a tag is an improvement to the article. It seems to me you do have an opinion on the section if you feel a tag is not warranted; I would like to better understand your thinking if possible. I am disappointed that for all your many contributions to this discussion you say you have not developed an opinion on the content issue, but I respect your lack of position; may I ask only that you not actively prevent a colleague from attracting the attention of collaborators to improving this section in a simple, low-impact manor? Thank you again, and, as always, go Pack. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You say it is blatantly obvious, but this has been going on for a month now and not a single person has agreed with you. It does not appear to be that obvious. You have many options available to you, I have suggested a couple. The one that won't work is for you to continuously reopen this edit request. ~ GB fan 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House

On this and other articles the President is being added into the Infobox under the Speaker of the House. I do not feel it is relevant as these are two seperate and equal portions of the government. Congress does not work for the President. Who the President is does not make any difference. The latest revert to reinsert it used this search as justification. The President and the Speaker of the House have a very important relationship but not one that belongs in the infobox. ~ GB fan 19:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not denying whether they are separate or equal, but I think that the relationship is important enough for the infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Definite mention of the relationship of how it is and how it could be should be made in the article, but not relevant to the infobox. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key points of the subject. POTUS is not key to Ryan's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant in the Infobox. Ought to be included in most cases in the article, but not the Infobox.—GoldRingChip 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. Paul Ryan should not be considered equivalent to a Prime Minister in the European sense; his role isn't tied to the White House administration in power, and the Senate has equal political power as the House. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. They're separate branches of government, and their respective terms don't necessarily coincide (and never exactly coincide), so it's awkward for the infobox. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Inadequate summarization of political positions

The Political positions section of this article inadequately summarizes its main article Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please see WP:SUMMARY. The main article Political positions of Paul Ryan is 73,766 bytes long and has 4 sections and 11 subsections. Almost all of the main article is not summarized in the parent; the Political positions section of this article mentions just one area of public policy, social security. The Political positions section of this article might be better headed "Political philosophy" as it is almost exclusively devoted to the relationship between the topics of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand (a noteworthy relationship but not to the exclusion of noteworthy political positions) whereas the main article makes no mention of Ayn Rand. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please help summarize the Political positions of Paul Ryan in the lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Thank you! 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Summarization of the Political positions of Paul Ryan in progress at Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft summarization available in lead of Political positions of Paul Ryan. Please help. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with guidelines MOS:BODY and WP:SUMMARY? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Style guide of WikiProject Conservatism recommends a "Political positions" section in articles on politicians:

• Lead
• Early life
• Political career
• Election of year
• Term as office
• Later life or Personal life
• Political positions
• Legacy
• Awards
• Works published
• See also
• References
• External links

This article has such a section, however it is devoted exclusively to discussing the subject's favorite author. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Among of the most noteworthy aspects of the subject of this article are his political positions. This article makes no mention of Medicaid or Medicare. The Political positions section of this article makes no mention of the subject of this article's political positions on entitlement programs beyond social security. This article makes no mention of the positions of the subject of this article on abortion, pay equity, marriage equality, gun rights, climate, regulation, consumer protection, the corporate income tax, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, and many other issues on which his positions are manifest in multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article has two paragraphs including a long direct quote discussing the body fat percentage of the subject of this article. The systematic exclusion of the political positions, widely represented in reliable sources, is a serious neutrality deficiency with this article. 52.56.146.5 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources identify the subject of this article as conservative. May the lead of this article mention that the subject of this article is conservative? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the conformance of the Political positions section of this article with policy WP:NPOV? 52.56.146.5 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Issues addressed. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Broken Links

Links 10, 11, and 12 are either broken or not useful. Just a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed the broken links about Ryan's father. 216.83.65.74 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Spudnaut

"From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education.[26][27][28]". Link 26 doesn't cite where they got this information from. Link 27, politico, has a broken link as a reference. Link 28 is an article with no citations. Haven't found any evidence of this claim, can someone update with evidence or correct the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.65.74 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Rod Rosenstein/Paul Ryan Meeting

• @Jasonanaggie and MelanieN: I agree with MelanieN's removal but for different reasons. We don't include every minor mention of Paul Ryan in this article. He's a well known person and there are a lot of media references. Inclusion in the article should have importance to the topic of the article. This meeting does not. Belongs in the article on the investigation, not in an article on every name mentioned. @Jason: Other editors have been sanctioned in the past for massively adding this type of material where it doesn't belong for the sole purpose of soap-boxing it. Please don't do that.--v/r - TP 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, TP. I have removed this item from several articles where it was either irrelevant or trivial. In a few other articles I retained the meeting, but removed the claim that the meeting was about "Devin Nunes' interference with the investigation", because the source does not support that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Immediately before the Authority Control section at the end of the article is a hidden group of category boxes inexplicably titled "Articles related to Paul Ryan". These are not articles, but categories. Please clarify this by changing the title to "Additional categories related to Paul Ryan". 174.197.17.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Those aren't categories. They are navboxes, and they are collapsed because there are alot of them. This is standard operating procedure. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please rename "Articles" to "Navboxes". The problem isn't the collapsing but the title of the collapsed section. They are not articles, so the current title is very misleading. 174.197.17.82 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone of the links in those collapsed navboxes are articles. ~ GB fan 17:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:NAV Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Please add the following template after the first two official links in External links

• {{Dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Wisconsin/Government/Federal/US_House_of_Representatives/Paul_Ryan_%5BR-1%5D}}

Please remove the THOMAS links. Congress.gov replace THOMAS years ago and the referenced information is available from the Member link for Paul Ryan at Congress.gov

The last link, for the WI Historical Society, is broken. It might be https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS12588 although that contains little information. 174.197.17.82 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Representative Ryan skipped the filing deadline

Hello. This article confirms that Mr Ryan skipped his district's primary filing deadline. Can anyone tell me if this fact is notable enough to be included in the 115th Congress section? --Синкретик (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There is already a mention in the article detailing his announced retirement from public service. The assumption in that announcement is that he will not file to run for elected office again. (Technically speaking, he could serve as "Speaker of the House" without being an elected member of it's body, but that has not happened yet in U.S. History.) -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Cite Error

Every single citation after #223 in this article has a cite error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that auto sign. Sleyece (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Due to the lack of concern for this broken aspects of this article, as well as new broken citations in recent days, I added a multiple issues template to the article. Please do not remove it until all citations are fixed/replaced. Thanks! -- Sleyece (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the references problem after #224. See article history. There were refs that were not being used. Corky 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order. I'm removing the template. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede: cover Ryan political career

The lede needs to cover Ryan's political career more comprehensively. One editor added a bunch of content to the lede, but it was not reflective of the body and did not provide a NPOV summary (for instance, no mention of the ballooning deficits under Ryan's speakership despite the career-long attempt to portray himself as a fiscal conservative). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Jr?

Sources seem to indicate that Ryan's father was named Paul Murray Ryan, not Paul Davis Ryan like his son. Thus, the Jr. should be taken out and his father's name fixed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/25/nation/la-na-ryan-assets-20120826

And his father's page on an ancestry site

https://www.geni.com/people/Paul-Ryan/6000000017432726076 PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's would-be successor as House speaker.

We should show TBD in the successor's slot under Speaker of the House, as Paul Ryan will be leaving office on January 3, 2019. Leaving nothing there, suggests he'll continue as Speaker of the House in the 116th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Congressional Leadership Fund

I just removed the section on the Congressional Leadership Fund. It doesn't belong here. The first problem is that the majority of the material in the section did not even mention Paul Ryan. The second problem is that the section did not describe the CLF in an unbiased, comprehensive, encyclopedic manner; rather, it simply took a few potshots at the CLF (including one dubious one). Perhaps there should be a separate page on the CLF, but if one is created, its content should be even-handed. SunCrow (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the RS clearly and explicitly link the CLF and its actions to Ryan (see our discussion on the Rick Scott page where made arguments along similarly erroneous lines). Second, if the language fails to adhere to RS or somehow omits RS, then fix the language or add those RS (see the Mitch McConnell page where you made arguments along similarly erroneous lines about a lack of balance). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans The information in question has been removed for BLP concerns. Per policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE 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.. The material has not changed significantly, and there is not consensus to restore. As a reminder, this article is twice under discretionary sanctions. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that the text in question was WP:COATRACK and that "The sources link CLF with Ryan. Fine. But they don't link these particular ads with Ryan, and there is no evidence ryan had any involvement with them". This is false. Every single cited source links the CLF and its actions to Ryan, and in fact opt to do so in the very first line about the CLF. Here is the WaPo fact-checker in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), has been running a series of negative ads about Democratic candidates in close races across the country." Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "In repeated ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan". Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its mishandling of classified info about Abigail Spanberger: "A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application". The content should be restored immediately, because rationales for keeping this content out of the article are baseless and the content in question in no way touches on WP:BLP. The content is all sourced to high quality RS and the RS all clearly and explicitly tie the CLF and its actions to Ryan. The requirement that Ryan had to personally sit in front of a computer and put together these ads is ludicrous and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I left in text which discusses Ryan's relationship with the CLF. But there is no evidence that Ryan had anything to do with those ads, and therefore including detailed content about those ads is a WP:COATRACK. Nobody is saying the standard is "personally sat in front of a computer", nice strawman. It is absolutely a strawman. Person A has a relationship with entity B. Entity B has done X. X is not relevant to A's biography. You disagree. Great. Find consensus. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing how every single RS finds it important to note that this is Paul Ryan's super PAC and to do so in the context of the actions of the super PAC, even though Paul Ryan supposedly has nothing to do with the super PAC and its actions. Who among us hasn't accidentally headed an organization with a reputation for pushing falsehoods and racism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. therefore you are either accusing paul ryan of a crime (without sourcing, blp violation much?) or the actions of the super pac WERE NOT COORDINATED WITH THE CANDIDATE. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple RS has identified this verbatim as "Paul Ryan's super PAC", with the PAC itself saying Ryan "remains personally committed to ensuring CLF continues to succeed". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, your sarcastic statement that he "headed" the org is a BLP violation. But more realistically, the content of a particular ad, its production, its scripting, its approval, its budget would all be coordination, which would be illegal. A crime is certainly a BLP concern, and as there is no allegation that he did any of the actions that would make it a crime, including such information in this article is against policy. Again, I do not object to the content saying that he is linked to the pac. I do object most strenuously to the specific actions of the pac which he had no control or influence over, nor has anyone alleged he had any control or influence over. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Right on, ResultingConstant. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of Speaker tenure

Why is the WP article by editorial writer Erica Werner cited as a valid/reliable source? Snit333 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This Washington Post article (i.e. not op-ed) by congressional reporter (i.e. not editorial writer) Erica Warner?[9] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

There is an extra period at the end of the first sentence of this article (it reads "January 2019..") Someone needs to correct the typo. Thanks! 98.173.176.125 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Paul Ryan and the Congressional Leadership Fund

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

---

Should the text in bold be added to this paragraph?:

• The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan. Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF. The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads. In The Guardian's ranking of the five most bigoted ads during the 2018 election campaign, four of the five were ads by the CLF. In 2018, the CLF was described as "the highest-spending super PAC seeking to sway House races in the upcoming midterms." During the 2018 mid-term elections. CLF produced a number of false ads, including two that falsely linked two Democratic candidates with terrorists. In one ad, the CLF depicted an African-American Rhodes scholar with a Harvard Law degree as a foul-mouthed and "disturbingly radical" rapper, and misrepresented lyrics from his rap career. CLF obtained the unredacted security clearance application of Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer and Democratic congressional candidate, and then used it for political purposes. CLF also sent the highly sensitive document to at least one media outlet. CLF then ran ads trying to link Spanberger to terrorist activity.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• No it does not belong. Unless you can tie with reliable sources that Paul Ryan in some way was responsible for the ads, the information does not belong in the article. Just because it is a Super PAC aligned with Paul Ryan and he has directed donors to the Super PAC that does not mean he had anything to do with those ads. By including the information we would be insinuating he had something to do with those ads without any reliable source. ~ GB fan 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose Coordination between candidates and the PAC is a crime, and there is not even a suggestion that Ryan had anything to do with these particular ads. This is a clear WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP violation. Additionally, there is a significant amount of POV in the proposed text which would need to be changed to comply with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This content would be fine in an article about the CLF. It does not belong on an individuals BLP that had nothing to do with the production of these ads. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed material belongs in an article about the CLF. Here, it is just a "guilt by association" attack on Ryan. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I have added the non-repetive material to CFL in this edit, as seen in the last paragraph.--Saranoon (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The material in bold is not the only part of the paragraph that is objectionable. Everything after the first two sentences of the paragraph is objectionable, and the first two sentences on their own are of dubious significance. As I stated in a previous discussion above, "The first problem is that the majority of the material in the section did not even mention Paul Ryan. The second problem is that the section did not describe the CLF in an unbiased, comprehensive, encyclopedic manner; rather, it simply took a few potshots at the CLF (including one dubious one). Perhaps there should be a separate page on the CLF, but if one is created, its content should be even-handed." I also concur with the well-reasoned comments made by ResultingConstant and Saranoon. SunCrow (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support The text seem reasonable given the close ties between Ryan and the CLF. ImTheIP (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The text is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia; however it belongs in Congressional Leadership Fund, not Paul Ryan. This level of detail is inappropriate for a section that should be written in summary style. In this article we should say that the PAC ran a number of false ads during the 2018 midterms and leave it at that. R2 (bleep) 06:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. Every single cited source links the CLF and its actions to Ryan, and in fact opt to do so in the very first line about the CLF. Here is the WaPo fact-checker in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), has been running a series of negative ads about Democratic candidates in close races across the country." Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its racist false ads: "In repeated ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan". Here is the NY Times in its very first line about the CLF and its mishandling of classified info about Abigail Spanberger: "A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application". The content is all sourced to high quality RS and the RS all clearly and explicitly tie the CLF and its actions to Ryan. In fact, multiple sources simply refer to the CLF as "Paul Ryan's Super PAC"[10] The sole reason why the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races is because House Speaker Paul Ryan directs donors (per every reliable source) to the PAC. Ryan could kill the PAC or the change behavior of the PAC by outright condemning the cancerous racist ads that it puts it or by very simply directing donors to a PAC which does not put out racist ads. This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC." That Wikipedia editors are deciding, contrary to what all RS report, that what's important here is whether Ryan himself is legally listed as the chairman of the PAC or as the producer who creates these ads is absurd, demonstrates a failure to understand the role of PACs in American politics and the nature of politicians' relationships with them, and is a perfect demonstration of why WP:OR is a prohibited here. The notion that the chairman of the PAC or a board member has more influence on the PAC than Ryan is absurd - and to those who believe that to be the case, ask yourself why no RS mention these individuals when they run piece after piece about the CLF and its activities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because a reliable source reports that a super PAC has aligned itself with a politican, doesn't mean that politician then supports and endorses misleading and/or false ads that the super PAC has produced for broadcast, or should have it mentioned in their biography. That's horribly biased against the subject of the biography and undue, and yes, it's a potential BLP problem as it's contentious material. And also agree everything after the first two sentences of the paragraph is objectionable and contentious and needs to be removed. Again, just because a reliable source reports the CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads, doesn't mean that politician has a reputation for endorsing and/or supporting racist ads, which those sentences clearly imply. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• 'Oppose' except for the first 2 lines, the place for this material is the article on the CLF. "aligned with" is a deliberately vague term,, and the reader must (and undoubtedly will) draw their own conclusions about whether the views are similar. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note This RFC was mentioned at WP:BLPN#RfC: "Paul Ryan's Super Pac" runs racist ads. ~ GB fan 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Given the number of high quality sources that link Ryan with the PAC, it can't be argued that the sourcing is poor. It might be a different story if Ryan disavowed the PAC and the ads (he didn't as far as I can tell), but even the disavowal would be significant enough to mention in the bio. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose The only thing that should remain are the first 2 lines, as noted by multiple other editors. As was noted previously, Paul Ryan cannot legally coordinate with the PAC, and the PAC's activities should be described on the PAC's page. Clear WP:BLP violation. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This belongs in the article about the CLF. Its inclusion on Ryan's page would be a WP:BLP violation and a blatant attempt at guilt by association. Snooganssnoogans has tried this out at least once before, and knows better. DoubleCross (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  I stand by my remarks in both RfCs. Also, all reliable news outlets are now apparently guilty of guilt by association. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is overly detailed for an article on Ryan, and a not-so-subtle attempt to make him guilty by association. Calidum 04:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. Widely covered and relevant to his biography; no immediate BLP concerns (he was assaulted once but apparently not because of politics [11]) and WP:recentism would allow for a compromise by having a relatively short paragraph until we can cite retrospective analysis to determine the exact weight we need. Ryan is a public figure and his spokesperson issued a response; this makes the "guilt by association", BLP vio and WP:AVOIDVICTIM arguments moot. There are POV issues in the paragraph, and they aren't fixed by removing the content but by maintaining a NPOV adhering to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, i.e. not calling something "race-baiting" in wiki-voice when the sources attribute it to the politician's critics. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - this proposed paragraph really overdoes it. That said: there's a fair amount of coverage linking Ryan to the PAC, so it might be reasonable to include a brief discussion of the CLF, followed by a brief mention that the CLF was criticized for some of its ads in the 2018 midterms. @Marquis de Faux: I'm not sure that's correct. Super PACs can't legally coordinate with candidates because of campaign finance laws, but Paul Ryan isn't running for office. Regardless, this point seems like WP:OR. Nblund ^talk 18:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose currently proposed text This seems like an attempt to add a laundry list of only negative things about the CLF to Ryan's article and imply he is guilty of the same things. Why not list other things about the CLF if it is so relevant to this article, beyond these politically charged critiques? In other words, why aren't the things that appear most prominently in news articles about the CLF also mentioned (how much money it raises, what races it enters, etc.) First two sentences are ok. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Should this page describe the CLF in any way?

There was a recent RfC about whether we should describe the specific cancerous racist ads that the CLF put out in the 2018 campaign. There was a consensus not to mention those specific ads in the context of Ryan. However, 6 votes were in favor of describing the CLF whereas only 4 votes opposed any description whatsoever of the CLF. In addition, there are two editors who did not vote in the RfC who say the description of the CLF clearly belong.[12] So, of the editors who have commented on this issue, 8 favor including descriptions of the CLF whereas only 4 oppose it. The editor SunCrow insists on the basis of this that there is no consensus to include content that describes (1) the CLF as the most powerful PAC in the House and (2) a PAC with a reputation for running racist ads. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You literally tried to re-insert content the RFC specifically rejected [13]. This is a pretty obvious attempt to game the system and ram through your preferred text no matter what. Calidum 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the closure of the RfC. It's not long and it's not complicated. You should then immediately strike your comment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is clear. The bolded content does not belong, the question about whether anything about what the CLF does still needs to be answered. Not a single source has shown that Ryan has anything to do with the racist ads.The sources tie Ryan to the CLF and the CLF to the racist ads. That does not mean Ryan has anything to do with the ads. ~ GB fan 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think what Snooganssnoogans added is appropriate if the CLF is going to be mentioned. However, the list of complaints against them that are proudly displayed on their user page does not give me a good feeling about this style of editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about Ryan not the CLF.

1. What does "The CLF has a reputation for running racist ads." say about Ryan?
2. What does "In 2018, the CLF was described as "the highest-spending super PAC seeking to sway House races in the upcoming midterms." say about Ryan?

I understand what they say about the CLF but what does either of those sentences have to do with Ryan? Then, what are the reliable sources that we are going to use to verify what we are saying about Ryan? The CLF article is where we talk about and describe the CLF, this article is all supposed to be about Ryan. ~ GB fan 22:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I am not going to help Snooganssnoogans refine that edit if they are persistently being accused of bias in political articles. I feel dirty touching a political article at all, just saw this on a noticeboard. However, it was not difficult to find sources that characterize the CLF has having run racist ads. I guess we need to analyze exactly what portion of coverage of the CLF is about racism and what is about other things. If we said "So-and-so was a member of the Ku Klux Klan" I think we might as well say "So-and-so was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization." Not a direct analogy but similar. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that says that the CLF runs racist ads and it is appropriate to discuss that on their article. For us to include that on this page we need reliable sources that tie those ads to Ryan, not just tie the organization to Ryan and tie the ads to the organization. When we add them here we are implying he had something to do with them without any sources that says he did. ~ GB fan 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe it should go to WP:BLP/N for feedback on how policy affects that. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You tried this again, and again it didn't work. Between reflection and obstinacy, I'd choose reflection. - DoubleCross (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, in the interest of time, I will put aside your mischaracterization of my concern and will simply restate it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the following sentences:

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan.] Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF.

I object to all of the language that you wish to include after that because it is POV coatracking that lacks encyclopedic tone.SunCrow (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Congressional Leadership Fund should definitely be mentioned: we can say for a fact that the PAC is closely aligned with Ryan, and that it raised record amounts of money and made a lot of noise in 2018. This seems like a major part of his bio. The question of whether or not Ryan is directly culpable for the ads is not really something we need to answer: he was criticized for his role in the CLF in opinion pieces by Dana Milbank, The DCCC, and in Mother Jones, and NBC News. I think a brief mention of those criticisms (maybe just attributing to the DCCC) might be reasonable: "Ryan's involvement in the Super PAC was criticized after CLF released a number of negative ads that were characterized as racist or misleading in the months leading up to the 2018 election" Nblund ^talk 20:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Ordinal numbers

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

---

This would affect multiple pages but since Ryan is the current speaker I thought this might be a better place to start. In short: should Paul Ryan be counted as the 54th Speaker or the 62nd? News sources seem to disagree: [14] [15][16][17] say 62nd, [18] [19] say 54th. Ryan is the 54th person to be Speaker, but several speakers served two or more non-consecutive terms (Frederick Muhlenberg, Henry Clay, John W. Taylor (politician), Sam Rayburn and Joseph W. Martin Jr.), including the next likely Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, so there have been 62 distinct terms of the Speakership.

In short, should Paul Ryan be counted as the 54th or 62nd Speaker? Nevermore27 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be 62nd Nevermore27 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've no preference either way, as long as we go by the most reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

How do we describe those speakers with two or more non-consecutive terms? There should be consistency. If there is none, there is at least a precedent with another office - Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Caveat: I have seen books that describe him only as the 22nd President, reducing by one all those from William McKinley onwards; in those books, George H. W. Bush was 40th President, not Ronald Reagan. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Within the US, there's no numbering consistency across the board. One need only look at the state governors. In Alabama, George Wallace is counted as the 45th governor, though he served 1963-67, 1971-79 & 1983-87. Meanwhile in Arkansas, Bill Clinton is counted as the 40th and 42nd governor, having served 1979-81 & 1983-92. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Only two of these offices are federal though, as salient as your point may be. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Nevermore27. The Speaker of the House is a federal office, second-in-line to the Presidency. With the President and Vice President both numbered based on terms, not the person, then logically, Paul Ryan should be the 62nd Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi should be the 60th and 63rd Speaker of the House. This will take some work on editors' part going through and fixing the numbering of many, many Speakers, but I think it is more accurate and consistent. I do not have enough reputation to edit some of the protected pages, it will need to be senior editors who take this on. Gibbsness (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there is disagreement among the sources, and the respective perspectives seem roughly equivalently backed by high-quality sources overall, I think we have to use and mention both, explaining the distinction (as briefly as possible, since it's trivia, but I don't think we can get around covering it.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Seems like a workable compromise, having a column each for Speakership terms and Speakers overall Nevermore27 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• 54th. While I vastly prefer 62nd (much more consistent way to count non-consecutive terms), it seems that most sources are using 54th (maybe due to house control->speaker flip-flops that have (almost) nothing to do with the incumbent other than flipping him by default). Going by the gNewsHits - there's simply too big of a gap between the two. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• 62nd. The List of Presidents of the United States are the nth in the office so Grover Cleveland is 22nd and 24th. It would seem confusing here if the 61st is followed by the 54th. I do note the other counting exists, as shown at List of Governors of New York, and that numbering is not done in other cases such as List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom... But here I think the Presidential numbering makes the most sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Both, briefly per Aquillion, choosing one or other will lead to confusion, whereas explaining the distinction (which isn't THAT self-evident)- will clarify. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• 54th – it aligns with the presidents and other offices. Corky 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC) No numbering – I’m now !voting for no numbering at all. Corky 06:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Corkythehornetfan: That's...not true though? Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is almost universally referred to as the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For non-consecutive terms, that makes sense. But for consecutive terms it doesn’t make sense. Ryan is the 54th speaker, not the 62nd. Corky 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If you read the RfC introduction, you'd have seen that 4 speakers have served non-consecutive terms. So while Paul Ryan is the 54th person to be speaker, there have been 62 (so far) speakership terms. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I read the RFC intro thank you very much. You won't change my mind, now, because of the tone of voice you are using with your responses. No need to comment further on my response. Corky 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: well when you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• 62nd to be consistent with the counting of Presidents. The higher number arises from separately counting earlier non-consecutive terms held by Henry Clay and others, who are this office's equivalent of Grover Cleveland. This counting ignores consecutive terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• No numbering - is my suggestion. For example: We don't bother numbering the presidents pro tempore of the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• No numbering unlike presidents, nobody particularly cares about the numbering of Speakers of the House. We don't number popes or English monarchs in their articles, why do it here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Power~enwiki: "Who cares" is a particularly weak argument, since obviously people care enough to make and comment on an RfC of the issue. By that logic, what does the numbering matter for Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense or even the President? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) First, you can't have an RfC in the talk page of one article and say that it applies to multiple articles. Secondly, as an encyclopedia we can clarify the 54/62 thing without having to choose one or the other. Needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We better make sure it does apply to all the speakers. The next speaker is likely former speaker Nancy Pelosi. Which will create another discussion on what 'her' numbering will be. Will she be still the 52nd speaker 'or' will she be the 60th & 63rd speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You see, if we chose 62nd in this case or 54th/62nd, then it creates more numberings for those who've had non-consecutive tenures as speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• None. First I liked the 'both' idea, then I liked the 'neither' idea even more. Why complicate things?Happy monsoon day 22:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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