" 

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