Talk:Michael Reagan/Archives/2014

Untitled

I've added some material here that will at least sketch out Mike's life a bit. It's much better than the previous stub. Too bad the book he cowrote, On the Outside Looking In, isn't in print - it's only available used. It has much valuable information. 209.221.221.213 17:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

The show is 3 hrs long (6-9pm EST) on the Radio America Network. -btbd

"His father told him since 90 percent of his earnings were taxed by government, he wasn't able to increase Mike's allowance"

But the first part of the sentence (before the comma) cannot be true, since the 90 percent tax bracket certainly did not start at $0. (Unless you're Ronald Reagan's kid, obviously.) That the second part is not true is pretty obvious.

I'd say his father fed him bunk, but that would be OR. GregorB 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that Ronald Reagan's income was taxed at 90% and so he (President Reagan) couldn't afford to give Michael more of an allowance. --B 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

How did he come to be adopted? -- Y not? 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added Tough Love, reminisces of MR's childhood and his mother Asteriks 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Dice

The Mark Dice Death Threat has been broken on mainstream media. It was mentioned and played on KFI Los Angeles Bill Handel's 8:45 AM Morning show and is available on podcast. This is the citation that should allow the Mark Dice information to stay on the page. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.239.130 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material about Mark Dice. Dice is a notorious culture jammer who has repeatedly tried to use Wikipedia to promote himself. This incident has not been mentioned in any reliable, 3rd-party source that I can find. Until it has been there's no reason to beleive it is notable enough to mention. Talk show hosts say all kinds of things on their shows. Unless a comment has generated enough controversy to be mentioned in 3rd-party sources we don't need to cover it here. We certainly don't need to reference every time Dice gets someone pissed-off at him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Dice was issued a death threat by this man. Other talk show hosts got in trouble for saying lesser things like Imus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.248.222 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the actual man saying he would pay for the bullets if someone were to shoot Mark Dice in the external links. Say what you want Will Beback, he specifically called for the murder of an individual on a national talk show, a violation of the laws of most states in the United States where this was broadcast, as well and violation of the broadcast license issued by the FCC for the stations that carried the show. This isn't something that should be pulled off the article, as it is historical (I cannot find a single reference of a national broadcaster, even in jest, calling for the murder of an individual) and even if it will be covered by third parties it doesn't need to be buried because you don't like Mark Dice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.237.22 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's newsworthy it'll be picked up by a legitimate news service. If we added every outrageous statement by talk show hosts then the articles would be swamped. If it's as important as you say then it'll get mainstream coverage. There's no hurry. (Also, in researchig this I found a claim that Reagan will have Dice on his show tomorrow, so perhaps this matter will be resolved.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. Your 'proof' is right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJO-kUINMs&eurl=http://www.nujij.nl/michael-reagan-9-11-truther-moet-dood.2800363.lynkx

How can you deny what has happened here WIll Beback? Exactly what don't you understand about CALLING FOR MURDER, THRICE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the content back to the article without a specific reference to Mark Dice. Will, you may not want people who read about Mr. Reagan to know that he was the first national talk show how to contract murder over the airwaves, but there is no valid reason to remove the entry. ·:· Bonked ·:· 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All material in Wikipedia biographies of living people must have reliable sources. There's no source saying that this is the first "contract murder" solicited over the airwaves. If that assertion is true then I'm sure it will be covered in reliable, 3rd-party sources. We don't add every outrageous quip that radio talk show hosts make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the man's own words from a recording of the show on the exact date isn't a "Reliable Source" then none of Wikiepedia is a reliable source, because you cannot get a more reliable source than the "horses' mouth." You are showing a tremendous bias against Mark Dice and the other 11-33% (Depending on the poll) of American's that he called for capital murder of. ·:· Bonked ·:· 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source is Reagans own show its all over the web. I wonder if Will beback can cite any other talk show hosts who call for political murders?

As in Naomi Wolfes book "The end of America" political death threats from the media is the last of 10 steps towards a fascist state. Read her book Will and get educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherfunky (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reagan probably spends ten hours a week on the radio (I don't know how long his show runs). Obviously we can't report on everything he says. We rely on 3rd-party sources to tell us what's important and what isn't. If this incident gets picked up by reliable news services then that tells us it's important. It's not our job to make it important. We're only here to reflect what reliable sources say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is unbelievable. 'We don't add ewvery outrageous quip that radio talk show hosts make'.

I don't think Will Beback even knows what he's saying here. Every outrageous quip? The man is putting a contract on a man. He calls for his murder THRICE. He calls him by name. He says he will pay for the bullet. He says 'Let it rip, don't be gentle on him'. And all this in a day and age where everybody can google a person's address.

Yeah, that really compares to a racial quip from Imus. Just another 'outrageous quip'. And it's really 'not important'. Until the man DIES.

Unbelievable. Sickening and unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax, and lay off the personal attacks guys. I'm with Will on this one. What we are asking for is a reliable source that has covered this. Wikipedia works off citing reliable sources. If no reliable sources cover something, then we cannot include mention of it. If the adopted son of Ronald Reagan has actually called for the murder of a political activist, then it will be covered by reliable sources, and we can include it. There's no deadline, so it doesn't matter if we have to wait a couple of days. I personally don't like either of the guys, from what I've read and heard, but we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, especially on biographies of living people such as this. And besides, that YouTube video, I imagine, has been uploaded without the radio station's permission, which makes it a copyright violation, and Wikipedia cannot link to copyright violations, per WP:EL. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no deadline? Yeah, it's not your life on the line. Real easy to say that.

Oh, and that it has been posted without the radio station's permission is more important than the fact that the radio show host is calling for murder?

I'm done with this site. Remind me when it's being run by sane admins again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk • contribs)

Have a good one! Tan | 39 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way will including this information in the article right this moment determine whether Dice lives or dies? Dice says he has filed a report with the FBI, in which case I doubt they need the help of Wikipedia to keep Dice alive. As Will Beback mentions above, it appears that Dice will be on Reagan's show tomorrow to discuss this. And I didn't say that the fact that the video has been posted without permission is more important than the radio show host calling for murder. I said that until it is covered by a reliable source (coverage by third-party sources determine what is important enough for inclusion), we cannot include it. I also said that we don't link to copyright violations. You're using straw-man arguments. Just relax. P.S. I'm not an admin. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is a sham lol. Very good for reading about sports teams and celebs etc. but when it comes down to anything political about insane neocon supporters openly asking for a guy to be shot it gets pulled. What a complete joke Wiki is. My guess is that most of the sad bastards moderating Wikipedia for free haven't got a clue how stupid they are for doing this, and how what they are doing is wrong because they are suppressing facts. The guy (Reagan) openly said it to millions of listeners on his radio show, what more proof do you stupid Muppet's need lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.75.87 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the deck is stacked against you. "reliable sources" is what keeps the Global Warming page on Wikipedia and many others from getting updated with 'reliable' information- even as more scientists are saying 'heck no' to the so-called 'concensus' as well. It's the sites that only cover stories that are favorable to the 'establishment' which get published. So, naturally 'they' are the 'reliable source' you must get into. If Michael Reagan was indicted on conspiracy to commit murder and resigned for "family reasons", even though he was in legal hotwater, but that wasn't published in 'reliable sources', then you'd play heck trying to get it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.221.191 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Reagan To Apologize For Death Threat Comments Tomorrow www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/150608_a_apologize.htm Femacamper (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been covered on the Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/15/12649/4669/510/530382

Not exactly MSNBC or CNN, but still a third-party source. 71.31.170.161 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Daily Kos is by far the most notable place to cover it so far. Hopefully this will lead to other places picking up on the story from here. Daily Kos, unfortunately, is a blog, which are unverifiable in general. The exception is if the author of the blog entry is considered an expert on the topic, and his work has previously been published in reliable, third-party sources. I did a bit of research, and the real name of the author of that article is "Darrell Lucus". Does anyone know if Lucus has had any work published in a reliable source (such as a newspaper, for example)?

And to User:71.252.221.191, that's conspiratorial nonsense. What is a reliable source is covered in the linked page. There are thousands of such publications around the world. Not all of them are going to be "favourable to the establishment". BBC News, for example, covers very different stories to what Fox News might, and those, too, are different to Dagens Nyheter, and so on. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are getting anywhere. This is a BLP issue. The exceptions about blog usage is for non-BLP pages. From WP:SPS:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.

I do understand some of the new folks who don't yet understand how Wikipedia works. You should direct your frustrations and concerns at the mainstream media and request they investigate this matter. Wikipedia, by design, reflects reliable sources and is not the place for initiating notability. You may dislike that design but there are a multitude of other outlets that allow you to include information that is not from reliable sources. If you want Wikipedia to change, then go to the talk pages of WP:RS and argue for a change. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW IS PRIMARY STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH SOURCES UNRELIABLE???? Primary sources seem of greater value than a paid journalist report. Person makes threat, threat is published, recording is sourced. You can't get any closer to a primary source than that. Once something is said over the airwaves (the same airwaves the news uses) how is that not already a third party source? AND besides that, there IS a third party who reported on it, OTHER TALK SHOW HOSTS. You can't make something unhappen just because it wasn't in the news. Anyway, can someone explain what, besides news reports, would be considered a valid source? Especially considering that Reagan is a public person and everything a public person says is potentially notable. Would a copy of the FBI complaints and FCC complaints against him qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.246.101 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that primary sources are of great value to a paid journalist's report. However, Wikipedia is not made of journalists but instead of encyclopedists who create no original work. Wikipedia does not allow primary sources for just that reason. It is not up to a Wikpedia editor to determine if a primary source is notable but instead it relies on third party sources to make that determination. Please read up on WP:PSTS where there is an explanation on the difference between primary and tertiary sources which I believe may be the source of confusion here.

We are not trying to make something "unhappen" -- instead, an encyclopedia depends on other reliable sources to determine which happenings are notable. Subsequently, FBI reports, etc. would violate original research is not allowed. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Does anyone have any reason to believe that the Raw Story article on the death threat against Mark Dice is inaccurate? Is there any reason to believe that the son of Ronald Reagan calling for someone to be shot dead live on air for thousands of Americans to hear is not a notable event? The idea that this is not a notable event is ridiculous excuse, for heavens sakes, we have information here on hundreds of different Pokemon, and all the Kardashian sisters have their own Wikipedia article. It should be mentioned here, it's a confirmed undisputed fact, and whoever keeps deleting this obviously edits Wikipedia with a political agenda. Frankly, I'm sick of this and I'm just going to keep adding this until it remains here.Counteraction (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether you or I believe the Raw Story is accurate or not. It may or may not be. The issue is that Raw Story doesn't fit the requirement of a reliable source which means published, mainstream and known for fact checking. Raw Story doesn't fit any of these requirements. You may want to go to the talk page for WP:RS and suggest they change these requirements.

Apparently, no reliable source has determined that this is a notable event and that is what is required. Your complaint is with the MSM. Direct your frustrations towards them, have a MSM RS make an issue out of this, then it can be added. If you believe that Wikipedia's policy is incorrect, then this isn't the page for that discussion. Instead, go to the talk pages of WP:V and WP:RS. If you continue to add, you will be (very soon) blocked from editing as the consensus here is that it should not be added. Wikipedia makes even greater demands on biographies of living people. Finally, it would be helpful to keep your comments civil, to assume goof faith and to not make any personal attacks. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mark Dice information is valid. Michael Reagan did give a death threat and has apoligized for it to Dice. Why can't this be reported on Wikipedia in an article about Michael Reagan? I have seen SEVERAL valid link given about what happened. Wikideia is about fact, not feelings. Your personal objection to Mark Dice is irelevant because a factual act was commited and you're commiting censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.231.66 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether your links are valid but if they are reliable sources. In Wikipedia, that means mainstream publications known for fact checking. Your references do not satisfy that criteria. I understand your frustration -- you are used to the more open any-thing-goes world of blogs, public forums or newsgroups. Wikipedia is none of those things but is instead an encyclopedia. If you are defining censorship as the responsibility of editors to take out poorly referenced materials on living people, then, yes, that is part of the mission of Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike Reagan Talk Show Host Calls for Murder http://youtube.com/watch?v=OsEK3kyKfeA

It's wrong to call for people's murder. If Mark Dice and other 9/11 activists are criminal suspects then they should be brought before a court of law.

There's nothing wrong with adding a small section to M. Reagan's article about this. Look at how much talk there is in the discussion section here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.12.77 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"He said he was sorry for his comments, that he apologized, and that he shouldn't have said it and confirmed that he will have Mark Dice on his show Monday. He explained that when he made the comments, he had recently given a speech and just got off the USS Ronald Reagan, he sees the troops and supports their work, and was upset, but that he acted wrong in making his comments. I said that many people are saying there should be criminal charges filed against him for his remarks, and asked him what he thought of that,. He said no comment on that but reiterated that he and Mark had a nice conversation and will discuss it on the show."

That's from: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7753 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.12.77 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disgraceful

This censorship is bringing wikipedia into disrepute, the ultimate sin. As to reliable sources the show was recorded, it is not in doubt as to what happened and when. How can such behaviour be justified ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs)

If you see the section above, noone is denying that it happened. As for justification, again see the section above. It's not "censorship" to not include material about something, otherwise you could include hundreds of thousands of words in the article, and claim censorship if any of it is removed. We have said that if reliable sources cover it, we will include it. The argument, I feel, is pretty well summed up here. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to determine what is and isn't important. That role is up to how much coverage something gets from third-party, published sources. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sophist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to convince you when you haven't taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works. Tan | 39 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Making death threats on the air is not irrelevant triva, and of course is illegal under US Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Typical for the hive-like mentality exhibited by these Wikipedians: you don't understand how the 'system' works, therefore you don't have a right to reply.

They even admit they don't have to do research.

It's really simple: you're covering for Michael Reagan. You don't even mention on this page that he called for the assassination of Howard Dean. Or his 'solution' for 'peace' in the Middle East (go look it up. Go see if it's something you want to be associated with) Numerous mainstream news articles have been dedicated to those topics alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Police Department. We are not the FBI. We are not a news source. Tan | 39 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you go to Will Beback's discussion page, you'll see this quote:

"Wow, talk about an embarrassing moment--I had no idea Dice was using Wikipedia to promote himself. Does he have any socks? If I'd known he'd had a history here, I'd have been a bit more wary about putting that in Michael Reagan."

So it's pretty simple. The REAL reason that Will Beback censored the section is exactly for the reason stated above, even though it is a FACT that Mike Reagan ordered for the death of Mark Dice.

Oh, and as for real 'newsstories', here's another one from Rawstory.

http://digg.com/politics/Radio_talk_host_calls_for_murder_of_9_11_Truth_activist?OTC-widget

The up-is-down-down-is-up and hive-like mentality of these Wikipedians is really something else.84.30.88.83 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story is not a reliable source as defined at WP:RS. Be patient, this may in time be reported in the mainstream press. That is the necessary requirement. If you disagree with that policy, the proper venue is the talk page of WP:RS. Please don't berate editors for following the policies. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Reagan's own words about paying the bullets to excute Mark Dice without due process are criminal and on the record. These should be posted on this site as they are a true record of the words uttered by Reagan and should stand for the record. This censorship is unconscionable in a modern world. This article shou;ld contain fact, and not opinion. It is a fact that Reagan has uttered words to incite murder. Kiwifilm (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is questioning whether Reagan said this. He did. However, editors may not determine if something is notable for inclusion. Instead, that is left to reliable sources to determine notability. If you disagree with that policy, I recommend directing your thoughts to the talk pages of WP:V and WP:RS. You could direct some of your thoughts about the Reagan issue at the comments page of the Raw Story article also. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit others' comments. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This man advocated the murder of an american citizen on air and said he would pay for it. He put a hit on Mark Dice and no matter how you try to censor wikipedia (which is losing my respect because of this very fact) the truth is out and it will be spread. He should be fired, sued and arrested in that order. Mark Dice is a patriot, not this 'man'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.132.51 (talk • contribs)

"Truth" (which is definable by anyone) is not the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia, but verification is. It's a mantra. Talk pages are not for the discussion of the subject but instead for suggestions on how to improve the article. There are thousands of other outlets for your ideas on this matter which may in turn gain your respect. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

KFI

SOURCE: Clearchannel's KFI Los Angeles Breaks Reagan Death Threat Story

Wiki editor, please consider that this is the 2nd most "listened to" talk-radio station in the country and Bill Handel covered the death threat issue in his news program (albeit in a biased way)"Handel on the News" from 8:46 am yesterday (6/16). I just listened to the podcast here: [Can be downloaded or streamed at http://www.kfi640.com/pages/podcasting/] Bill Handel (leftmost column) -> Handel on the News (6/16) Jump to time: 38:54. [ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.72 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Handel is not a reliable source. From WP:RS:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The show referred to this incident in a mocking manner. It has the reputation for neither fact-checking nor accuracy. Sorry, I realize how frustrating this can be when first faced with the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Well you could go to RadioAmerica's own podcast, but they deleted Hour 2 for Jun 10th... Or you could go to Mark Dice's Youtube page, but his account was suspended... Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, because the truth is buried just like Youtube, Digg, and RadioAmerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.175.197 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to be a "reliable source" it, by definition and design, must rely on other reliable sources. A reliable source in Wikipedia means a mainstream publication with a reputation for fact checking. RawStory, for one, does not fit that definition. It is not up to editors to determine if a quotation from a primary source (the use of which is discouraged) is notable. Instead, a third party reliable source must determine if it is notable. Finally, the Wikipedia mantra: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please find a reliable source that has determined that this is notable, then it is a candidate for inclusion. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i cant even find a third party source that deems true your statement that wikipedia is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.246.101 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with User:Therefore, above) Hello. If you read the section above, you will see that we are looking for reliable, third-party sources to cover this so that we can determine importance. Wikipedia itself does not make judgements about whether something is important enough to include, otherwise it would be open to bias, as, for example, hundreds of fans of Reagan could include statements from every one of his shows, and his opinions on absolutely everything from War in the Middle East to what his favourite brand of coffee is. Of course, Michael Reagan makes lots of radio shows, and sure enough, he's said some stuff that I disagree with (such as his recent comment regarding grenades and baby orifices), but I can't just decide that this is important enough to go in.

What we need is third-party sources to deem this important enough to cover, then we can include it. It's not a case of "the truth being buried". We're an encyclopedia. Something being true doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. It is true that I live in England, but that doesn't mean I should be mentioned in the article on England, or even the article on my own town. I'm nowhere near important enough for inclusion. We could include information on how many hairs Reagan has on his back, or what time on a night he tends to go to bed, or who his favourite character on Cheers is, but if it's not important enough for reliable, third-party sources with an editorial process to cover, then it's not important enough to go in what is, essentially, a free encyclopedia, rather than a free repository of absolutely everything that is true. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

but c'mon NOBODY is actually doing that (including statements from every show). get real. if they did, THEN human moderators could be justified cleaning up the mess. but if this guy ends up DEAD then i bet it'll be on wiki (err, scratch that, we would still need a third party stating cause and effect) GTFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.246.101 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if he ends up dead (no need to use all caps -- avoids the impression of someone ranting), then I think it is safe that there will be mainstream reports on the matter and hence a candidate for inclusion in this article. I think you are beginning to understand the policies here. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will be included. Whether a person is dead or alive is automatically an important part of any biography, just as much as their date of birth is, or their full name. If he (or anybody at all that is notable enough for inclusion) dies, and a reliable source confirms it, it will be included in their article, of course. And with regards to my examples, I know nobody is actually doing that, and that was my point. Your parting advice, I should mention, is as welcome as any advice stated so eloquently. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no source more reliable than the source, Reagan himself. How pitiful and disgraceful that Reagan's very words will not be allowed on Wikipedia, merely because Faux News or some other "reliable source" like that hasn't picked it up. "The mainstream media." What a dispicable definition of a "reliable source."220.220.209.199 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sure you'll find that the information you're complaining about is included in the article. We weren't looking for proof that Reagan said it, but rather we were looking for something showing the importance of what he said. If noone covers something, then it's probably not that important. Yes, we have proof that Reagan said it, but we have proof Reagan has said everything he's ever said on his radio show. That doesn't mean we're going to include mention of everything he's ever said, you know? Now that we have the coverage by reliable sources, we have an indication of importance, so the statement is covered. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look

There's only so much time we can devote to trying to make anonymous editors realize how Wikipedia works. If you don't take the time to read the comments and learn the policies, and keep making the same argument over and over - that Wikipedia has some sort of onus to report this out of empathy, then I figure we'll just leave it at that. The above discussion is beating a dead horse, it appears. Tan | 39 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree. We don't bite the newbies. I personally have no problem with carefully outlining Wikipedia's policies to newcomers who come here in good faith in the hope they will become productive editors. The more we treat them civilly (as they deserve) and not dismissively (as one could argue some of your above comments were), then there is a chance of keeping the article discussion calm. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bite the newbies, Therefore, I was saying that "if you can't read two pages of argument, then there's nothing we can do for you". I didn't attack or call anyone names. WP:BITE doesn't say that we need to waste time explaining policy four, five, six times. Your time would be better spent elsewhere. If you have the patience to continue with this, by all means - you could have ignored my statement. Tan | 39 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that, yeah, if people come here, and are polite about their asking, or are genuinely wondering why this information can't be included (yet, I hope), then I too don't mind politely explaining to them. We can't expect an anon to know all the policies, or for them to read through big blocks of text like those above. Of course, if people are obnoxious about it, or smart-arse (here, for example), then I don't have much time for them, no. I don't have much of a problem with Tanthalas39's comments above, seeing as they were in response to people who were certainly not acting in good-faith or being civil. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have ignored it, I guess -- I'm not too sure why, though. I felt that your responses above were not attempts to explain policy but showed impatience and were dismissive. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience.

Well, it's hard to convince you when you haven't taken the time to learn how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia is not the Police Department. We are not the FBI. We are not a news source.

Are not exactly welcoming to new editors. Since this is a discussion page, it was important to chime in. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like DW said above, Therefore, these editors were not good faith editors. I know you like to keep quoting (and linking) WP:BITE there, but that's a behavioral guideline, not a policy that needs to be followed to the letter in every single situation. These IP editors were sarcastic, had one agenda, and were clearly not listening to mine, yours, or anyone else's reasoning. WP:BITE and WP:AGF does not mean that we have to mindlessly disregard obvious problems. WP:BITE and WP:AGF do not mean that we have to waste time arguing with people who are clearly not here to understand Wikipedia's policies. If you wish to keep spending time on this, that's up to you and I'm certainly not going to argue it - my initial statement in this section wasn't directed at you. You can carry on how you wish. Tan | 39 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do like quoting and linking WP:BITE, you are correct. We don't dismiss guidelines simply because they aren't policy. And, yes, I know we aren't a bureaucracy -- even policy isn't followed to the letter in every situation. I assumed good faith of the above editors but possibly because that too is a guideline that doesn't need to be necessarily followed. WP:BITE isn't about attacking or calling people names. Instead it implies treating new editors gently even when you dislike their edits or their attitudes. Being dismissive is counterproductive. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, carry on. I think it's against common sense and counter-productive to the advancement of the project to continue arguing here. Tan | 39 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Folks give it up"

You are not going to get anything past the puppet admins. If some mainstream media outlet (controlled by governments and gloablists) does not pick up a CURRENT story the admins won't let it through. Although CNN, Fox, etc. were not around for the middle ages I guess it is more believable that knights on horses invaded Persia than Reagan made death threats even though plenty of RELIABLE sources have picked it up and broadcast it over the air and internet. The Truth is not popular when it interferes with globalist agendas and they have their lackeys in place to cover their butts for them so they can institute mind control unhindered. The only thing Free about Wikipedia is that you have the freedom to know you ARE NOT getting the real truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unowen7 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not only MSM but peer reviewed scholarly and scientific works. If these reliable sources state that knights on horses invaded Persia, then it would be a candidate for inclusion.

No reliable sources have picked it up. Not one. That is the source of the confusion: the definition of RS as used at Wikipedia is MSM known for fact checking. "The Truth" (when capitalized, it must mean heavy business) is not relevant to Wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion is verification and not truth. Please read WP:V for details so you may understand better how things work here. For you, freedom means unimpeded inclusions of absolutely anything with no filter. That freedom does not exist (nor should it) here. You have thousands of other venues to speak about your frustrations with lackeys and globalists and "The Truth". This one isn't one of them. I'm going to return to controlling my mind unhindered. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

STOP

This whole Troll Festival is based on the arguement that relates to Secondary Evidence Sources, this is totaly irrelevant when you have a indesputable Primary Evidence Source... That is the accepted academic standard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would be correct if Wikipedia was an academic institution. It isn't. It is an encyclopedia that users secondary and tertiary sources. Please read WP:PSTS. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Wiki is an encyclopedia of hearsay. Primary sources don't matter. Only tertiary ones, right? No matter how you slice it, it's a flawed policy that is used to suppress the truth, and protect criminals.--70.113.119.168 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you cut and paste your argument to Wikipedia talk:No original research and work diligently to change policy. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about original research ! This typical of the Wikipedia Trolls. Evadinggrid (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR states that reliable, third-party sources are required. 70.113.119.168 complained about third-party sources being needed. Does that answer your question? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

More media coverage of the Mark Dice death threats. Could we please see a citation? [2] [3] [4]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk • contribs) 15:50, June 20, 2008

All three of these are blogs. The use of blogs is proscribed for biographies of living people. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Raw story isn't a blog but isn't a mainstream published source which Wikipedia requires. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on The Raw Story calls it a "weblog". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 23:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So if Michael Reagan's death threats are not covered by mainstream sources than why are they included in Mark Dice's article? That is highly hypocritical.65.188.219.75 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It appears it was added a short while back without being noticed, and has since been removed from the Mark Dice article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah

Quasipalm added this:

Reagan caused controversy by advocating the killing of Palestinian babies whose parents named them Hezbollah. "You know what I'd get them for a first birthday? I'd put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday baby, bye bye." After being challenged by a listener, Reagan repeatedly advocated the killing of newborns. [5]

with the edit summary:

sourced, notable, and not a copyright violation

However, the only source given is a youtube clip of Reagan's show posted by the youtube user "hearthetruthamerica". I invite Quasipalm to explain how hearthetruthamerica is a reliable source. Which part of WP:RS does he feel applies here or why this should be an exception? How is the clip not a copyright violation? Notability isn't determined by the fiat of an editor but instead by the use of reliable sources. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

hearthetruthamerica isn't the source, Michael Reagan is the source. Lastly Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia. -Quasipalm (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia has no standing here; it's a discussion page. The materials on youtube are owned by the show owners and this is a clear copyvio. I'd be happy to request a review at WP:CP if you like.

But that problem aside, you provide absolutely no source for the notability of this issue. If you take the time to read above about the similar concern with Dice, then I'd appreciate if you would respond here why WP:NOR and in particular WP:PSTS doesn't apply here. You need a source that indicates that this is a notable issue. What is your source for this notability? ∴ Therefore | talk 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC

"You need a source that indicates that this is a notable issue. What is your source for this notability?"

Are, You, Kidding me. So now, you not only need a reliable source (the person in question), someone needs to validate the actual source's words? In the end, the "main stream media," the 2nd hand conveyor, is the end-all, be-all of what is "reliable?" Give me, a break. "It has to be touted by the mainstream media" is a HORRIBLE definition for a "reliable source." Especially since the mainstream media has been on record for continuously being FULL OF CRAP. Reagan has called for the assassination of an American citizen based on his political views. These are his words, he must own them, and not rely on Fox News, CNN or some other "main stream source" who are all mysteriously mum about this, to own his words for him. Fact is based on FACT, not on whether or not the media decides to pick it up. Reagan is on record, on tape, on his own show uttering these words. What a disgrace that Wikipedia is allowing him to disown his own words like that. SHAME on you, editors, SHAME on you. Have you no shred of integrity or decency to let the truth about a man be heard? Even when it comes from his OWN MOUTH? Hillary Clinton.220.220.209.199 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a venue to support your morals. Learn how Wikipedia works - WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:V - and come back then. No one here has the time or energy to deal with your "shaming" when you don't know how an encyclopedia works. Tan | 39 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If the anon could at least take the time to read the entirety of this page, they would see that all his issues have been said multiple times and accordingly responded to. ∴ Therefore | talk 14:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?

Please explain what is Wiki's definition of reliable source? I would assume if Faux news tells tomorrow there are WMDs in Iran, that makes reliable news, huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.18 (talk • contribs) 00:37, June 22, 2008

Your answer can be found here. In this context, in a nutshell, a reliable source is a MSM outlet known for fact checking. If Fox News reported that there are WMDs in Iran, then presumably that would be a candidate for inclusion in the appropriate page. But such a significant news story from the Fox news division would be covered by many other news outlets, either confirming or denying, which would also be a part of the page. Could you please clarify what point you are trying to make? That because MSM can be inaccurate, therefore Wiki's definition of reliable source should be tossed and any and all information from any source, without any filter, should be includable? Then Wikipedia would be just another blog's comments space. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fox is not a MSM outlet known for fact checking. Did they check if there were WMDs in Iraq when Bush was singing his song for war in Iraq? Your definition of fact checking is soo ridiculous simply because most if not all media outlets dont do any fact checking of any kind especially with regards to foreign affairs. Alll they do is repeat what the government wants people to know. That is not fact, that is opinion. However, in this case, people know what the fact is. People know this Michael Reagan made a death threat to Mark Dice. Its 100 percent fact. Then why not put it? Or are you disagreeing that it is not a fact. You yourself admitted that the point of a MSM outlet is for fact checking. But here, the fact is in front of you. Are you saying it did not happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.18 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read DW's answer below. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I agree with you that Fox News would not necessarily be considered a reliable source on the subject of WMDs in Iran. If they were saying there was WMDs and noone else was, I don't think it should be included. But that's largely a discussion for another time, of course. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't get any more reliable of a source than hearing words coming out of someone's own mouth. YouTube has been used as a source on Wiki before without any problems. It would seem to me that Therefore has a bias for Michael Reagan and he/she should no longer be allowed to contribute to this page. In Therefore's world, if something hasn't been written about, it didn't happen. Even if there is video to prove that it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.233.194 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Stop using straw man arguments. At no point above has Therefore (nor any other Wikipedia user) claimed that this didn't happen. We realise that a video of him saying it is great proof that it happened. We are not looking for proof he said this. We already know he did. We are looking for something showing the importance of the event. For example, if something happens and gets covered by hundreds of news sources around the world, then it's obviously a pretty important event and should be included. However, if something happens and doesn't get covered by any reliable sources, then we must unfortunately concede that it can't be that important in the long run.

I personally would love to see this included (along with the baby/grenade reference), as I personally think it is important. However, what I personally think isn't relevant here, as we go off Wikipedia's policies. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies, this is not the place to discuss them. Feel free to go to the relevant policy's talk page and discuss there to try and change policy. If you don't know where the discussion page for a policy is, feel free to tell me which policy you disagree with, and I will link you to the discussion page for it. Thanks, Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting source

June 27, 2008 - There is a new source that brings notability for the death threat comments. It comes from Fair & Accuracy In Reporting (fair.org). Is this source credible enough? It even mentions and lends notability to his comments that he would like to blow up babies with grenades. Does this qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informancy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be usable as long as a) it is clearly attributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, b) FAIR is described as a "liberal" media criticism org (just as Accuracy in Media would be described as "conservative"), c) be written in a neutral tone and, finally, d) that it be short to avoid giving it undue weight (let the source flesh out the details). Here is the link: [6]. However, I'd like to hear if other page editors agree and then reach consensus on verbiage before adding it to the article. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is considered a valid WP:RS, then I'm suggesting this text:

The liberal media watch dog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting characterized statements by Reagan as "death threats" when he criticized individuals who sent letters and DVDs to U.S. troops in Iraq blaming the government for 9/11. Reagan said, for instance, "We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them." Reagan later apologized for these statements saying they were "stupid".

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty good to me. The wording seems right too, although a minor bit of copyediting on a few things (like wikilinks, and moving the first quotation marks on "as death threats" one word to the right :) ) will be needed. Perhaps to be sure, it would be worth asking on some noticeboard or related talk page if FAIR would be considered a reliable source? Although to be fair (pun unintentional), we have proof that this has happened - fabrication was never so much an issue as the importance of the stuff. And if FAIR is deemed notable enough to have an article, as with the Daily Kos, then we have two notable sources reprinting this. Still, if you want to ask around anywhere before we actually put it into the article proper, go right ahead. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Daily Kos is a reliable source in a BLP since it is a blog. I've searched in Wikipedia for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (in the search box enter this string with quotation marks: "fair.org") and it appears in these BLP related articles where they criticized:

• John Stossel for unbalanced reporting
• Bob Grant (radio host) for promoting eugenics
• Hannity & Colmes for giving Colmes an unequal chance to interview
• Madeleine Albright for saying the Iraqi sanctions were worth the price
• Michael Savage (commentator) for racism and bigotry
• Ann Coulter for saying Canada sent troops to Vietnam
• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly for lots of things ;)
• Don Imus for antisemitism

I believe that FAIR is useful as a source if properly attributed.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, my last post was to say that Daily Kos was notable, not necessarily reliable (what with it being a blog e.t.c.). I do agree with the rest of your post. Feel free to add it! :D Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- I missed the use of "notable" -- you are quite correct.

To finish up my analysis, I searched for "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting" and found these additional uses of FAIR:

• George Will for not disclosing conflict-of-interests
• Charles Krauthammer for not disclosing conflict-of-interest (praising Bush speech on Fox News w/o disclosing he helped write it)
• James Reston for being too chummy with politicos
• Samuel Robert Lichter for conservative bias
• Steven Emerson for plagiarism
• Thomas Friedman for constantly hoping that the "next six months" will show success in Iraq
• Glenn Beck for lots of things
• Rush Limbaugh ditto

And it was used as a critical external link at Peter George Peterson, Celerino Castillo III, John Gibson (media host), Lou Dobbs. I think that this can be comfortably used. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

" We are not looking for proof he said this. We already know he did. We are looking for something showing the importance of the event."

This is the worst kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel I've ever heard. So first, it's about a "reliable source." And now it's about whether or not what this man said was "important?" In which case, you're STILL saying the only people who can validate what is on wikipedia is some sort of mainstream source. BOLONGA. Look at wikipedia. Look how many entries have ever been published on the Mainstream Media. If we were to strip Wikipedia of all of its entries that have been blessed by CNN and FOX, there'd be next to nothing left! There are entries for every video game out there. Entries for the usage of an apostrophe. Entries for "Russel's Teapot." I've never seen anything about Russel's Teapot anywhere on television. Yet, here it is, in Wikipedia. You're going to sit there and tell me the importance of everything on here needs to be "validated" by some "mainstream news source?" Gobbledygook. Self-serving gobbledygook to keep a crooked man from owning his words. What a disgrace on Wikipedia's part. In the end, another unreliable source, filled with biased information that our dear Ministry of Truth doth bless. Pathetic.220.220.209.199 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Harumph. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My, what passion!

Seriously though, the Russell's teapot article is sourced by reliable sources. Published books by respected professionals. I don't see what your complaint is. The information you're complaining about is already in the article. Stop looking for something to be outraged about, and read through the policies. If you disagree with the policies, then say so on the policy talk pages. Simple. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Therefore, remember this edit? :-) Tan | 39 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can barely say that 220.220 is a good-faith editor when he makes no attempt to read our policies or the article, or even think for a moment about the logic of his arguments, can we? "You're unreliable because you apply rigorous sourcing criteria to your articles, blah blah blah!" :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I knew you'd come back with that one. ;) I'm good for one or two reiterations of explanations but then I expect new editors to at least make an effort to see if their questions/complaints are already addressed. But your point is well taken, such efforts can easily be exasperating, particularly when a subject is already well hashed out. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of "death threats" comment

90.240.137.122 wants to expand "individuals" to "Mark Dice, the leader of a far right fundamentalist Christian group". I disagree. The source states, "Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly ...." True that Reagan did go on and single out Dice but that doesn't mean Dice was the only participant. Secondly, what exactly does this add to the statement? How is it relevant who these individuals were? Finally, I'm concerned that such an expansion increases the weight of the statement beyond what it is due. Let the interested reader go to the source for such details. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The activists that Reagan was referring to were members of Dice's far right organisation The Resistance for Christ. I think the militant nature of Dice's religion and politics should be made clear in the article. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that is your position. But why? What does it add to the article? Would it make any difference if the individuals were members of Move On (not that they would)? Or if they were just another 9/11-truther org? How is the article improved by adding this in? If it doesn't improve it per se, then it is excess baggage which distracts from its greater point: Not that a particular org was involved, but that Reagan's remarks were criticized. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes pretty clear the context in which he was saying it. We are not talking about some innocuous pacifists or "truth seekers" here. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying -- the context would provide some level of mitigation for his words, making them a bit more understandable? I don't see that in the source provided. Do you think that Reagan would have not said the same thing if, in fact, it was a pacifist or "truth seeker" involved vs. a fundamentalist Christian group? You see, I don't know if that is the case and the source doesn't support that opinion either way. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about my opinion, it is about the context in which he was saying it. If you don't think Dice is notable then put his article up for deletion, but I think it would clarify the situation if he and his group were mentioned here. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, by clarifying, you mean to make Reagan's comments more understandable? If I am being obtuse, what is being clarified by adding in Dice's name, or more precisely, his group? Adding context should serve some purpose, don't you think? I'm not arguing Dice's notability but its relevancy here. I'm trying to avoid the comment expanding beyond its due weight (not a huge deal, admittedly, but it does increase it) and keeping the article clean from unnecessary baggage. ∴ Therefore | talk

On the contrary, the information on Dice would create balance to the statement- which by omitting this information is weighted against Reagan. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict, in response to Therefore)I think I'm with 90 on this one. The source given (FAIR) specifically opens with "[...]Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist", and goes on to say, again in the opening paragraph, that he "singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination".

I'd say it's clear that the Dice comment was one of the central parts of the controversy, and our citation for that bit even has the subheadline "Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason", note the singular 'activist'.

I wouldn't say that including the mention of Dice would be undue weight, as our only reliable source for that bit seems to consider the Dice quote as the main Bad Thing. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, if no other editor is going to weigh in on this and if this is the growing consensus that Dice's name is relevant (relevant, IMO, only to the interested reader who can go to the source, but I'm all for consensus), then I suggest the section to be changed from "individuals" to "Mark Dice's political activist group". The source does not support the characterization as "far right" nor does it deem its religious affiliation as relevant. Again, IMO, adding in Dice's name adds nothing except to promote Dice. As 90 said, the objective of adding this is to decrease the "[weight] against Reagan", which I can only infer to mean to make his comments more understandable, which is, IMO, an unsupported POV. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Mark Dice's political activist group" is much better than "far right fundamentalist Christian group". I also feel there's no rush here, so I think it's a good idea to wait a couple of days to see if anyone else chips in on this, as it's always good to get more input from other established editors. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention a group. I think it's questionable whether an organized group actually exists. "Mark Dice and other activists" would be more accurate and closer to the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his "Resistance" group has made news before, so it clearly does exist. And it does describe the Catholic Church as "evil", which is an extreme fundamentalist position, and it also promotes numerous other conspiracy theories. According to the FAIR source, Reagan did refer to Dice by name in his "threat" (tying up Dice on the firing range, etc.), so my wording is accurate. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in our source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is: "Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual: 'How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.'" [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.137.122 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You missed Will's point: the characterizations of Dice et. al. are not in the source. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The issue here is we are relying on the FAIR source and the FAIR source, in relation to this issue, neither refers to Dice as "far right" nor "fundamentalist Christian". Therefore, the onus is on you to find a reliable source (mainstream publication known for fact checking) that refers to Dice and Reagan's comments that characterizes Dice in the manner you would like to add. We are not under any obligation to characterize every proper noun. Should we add in "unpopular" because we referred to the Iraq war? Should we add in "universally discredited" to the 9/11 truth issue? No, because all of these are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Find a source that uses your characterizations that also discusses Reagan's comments, and it may be added. For now, the consensus of the page is that such characterizations do not add to the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, Dice is the leader of an extreme fundamentalist Christian group, and this group is well known for its fundamentalist views in various news reports. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point-of-view and it may, in fact, be true. But you need to address the policy/guideline rules that govern editors which, if you believe are nonsense, then you should consider going to the talk pages of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, WP:CONSENSUS and argue for changes. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Reagan didn't mention the group and neither does the source, so the group isn't relevant to this issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not violating any policies/guidelines. Being the leader of the Resistance group is what Dice is known for. And I just listened to the clip again on FAIR's site, Reagan did mention the group by name in the broadcast. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dice is known for hs radio show and stunts. What does Reagan say about the group? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

90 -- this article can not use Reagan's show as a source; it must rely only on the FAIR article. To avoid repeating the argument made tens of times, please read all of the discussion before this section. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One of you thinks Reagan is a source, the other doesn't. Reagan describes Dice as "the founder of the Resistance", and doesn't mention any radio show of Dice's (and neither does Dice's Wikipedia article). Dice is known for being the leader of the Resistance, and I don't need to rely on the FAIR article to say that. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No one thinks the Reagan show itself is a source for the article; the show itself is precluded as a source. Again, please read the vast discussion about this matter when the issue first came up. Then address that. This section of the article relies entirely on the FAIR article. Without it, there would be no section. You clearly are free not to rely on the FAIR article, but the article must. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, "Dice is know for...."? Dice is a relative unknown which is why I don't see why his name even needs to be mentioned. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He is considered notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, although I would not object to it being nominated for deletion. I am interested in explaining what Dice is known for, particularly as he is not a household name. I do not need the FAIR source to do that. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No you don't, that is true. In terms of notability, being sufficiently notable to survive an AfD isn't an adequate gauge of his notability to justify a mention here. (His article is linked only by Culture Jamming, Alex Jones, New World Order (conspiracy theory) and, oddly, Christine Ebersole because she said she believes in the 9/11 truther stuff on his radio show.) However, I'm willing to compromise on that due to the consensus of the group here. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am willing to drop "far right" and instead have "Mark Dice, the leader of a fundamentalist Christian group" - fundamentalist Christian is the most accurate and non pejorative way of describing the group. --90.240.137.122 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lapinmies has made an edit to the page. This one includes mention of Mark Dice, while avoiding all the malarkey about what to use to describe the other people. I quite like this version, personally. How does everyone else feel about it? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur; it reflects the talk page's consensus. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse as a child

This article has a large gap in his life story. A frequent topic of Reagan's writings and his radio shows is the sexual abuse of children. He describes in his book Twice Adopted how he was molested at the age of eight by a camp counselor[8]. Any chance of getting that incorporated?StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Be sure the sources are good and reliable, as per Wikipedia:BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet Reagan himself suggested sticking bombs up babies' rectums (see above). What a hypocrite. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical messages section

Why not find a way to rename the section or merge the statements throughout the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Favorably

We're told that "Reagan . . . expressed his support for McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, comparing her favorably to his father." Having looked at the quoted reference, I don't think that you can really mean to say this. It suggests that Reagan indicated that he thought Palin was actually a superior politician to his father, when all he was really doing was likening her to Reagan senior. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

I suggest that the FAIR-sourced statement in the article be deleted per this inasmuch as FAIR should not be used for contentious statements in BLPs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Section

I have something to add.

Ronald Reagan -- More of a Friend to Blacks Than Obama? (Posted on Martin Luther King day)

--Craigboy (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For there to be a controversy someone else needs to have reacted to it.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

He cannot be said to be "post media" since he has been publishing for FoxNews.com, see= http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/20/michael-reagan-proof-reaganomics-defeats-keynesianomics-aka-obamanomics-time/, and he recently gave out an NRA award, see= http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/may/05/gregory-receives-nra-award-ar-1017609/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.177.8 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrongly sourced and in fact a lie...

The main page states: During the 2012 elections, Michael Reagan left the Republican Party, switched sides and endorsed and actively campaigned [3] for Democratic congressman Brad Sherman a pro-choice Congressman [4] who is considered a liberal member of Congress.[5] [6]

This is at best incorrect and at worst a lie. Michael did NOT leave the Republican party and "switch sides." And the source used to support the statement in fact says the exact opposite. The only mention of Reagan in the piece says that he's hosting a fundraiser for Republican candidate Mak Reed. In a radio debate on “Which Way L.A.?” with Berman and Sherman earlier this month, Republican candidate Mark Reed said he had raised about $15,000 for his campaign so far. Reed is scheduled to appear at a $1,000 per person fundraiser in Malibu hosted by Michael Reagan on April 10.

This is at a point in the campaign when multiple candidates were still seeking the election. In the California election system, however, the number of candidates for the final election is pared down to two and party is no factor, so in this election the two final candidates for the ballot were both Democrat (big suprise for the San Fernando Valley). So, taking a page from both his father's and Bill Buckley's play book he did EXACTLY what all good conservatives do: he endorsed the MOST conservative candidate who could win. There was no Republican on the final ticket, so no Republican could win. His campaign letter (which is what should actually be cited with his ACTUAL rationale for endorsing Sherman reads as follows (and makes it quite clear he in NOT happy about endorsing Sherman NOR is he leaving the Republican party):

Dear Friend,
You know me as a conservative Republican leader dedicated to the legacy and philosophy of my father. You may also know that for decades I have lived in the San Fernando Valley and been active in the Valley community.
Prior to June 5, I endorsed a Republican candidate to represent our district in the United States Congress. Under California's new system, however, on the November ballot there will only be two candidates, both Democrats.
For the first time that I can remember I will be voting for a Democrat for the United States Congress.
My father always stood for stopping unnecessary spending. He always believed that the President of the United States should have a line item veto so he could block pork barrel projects and cut waste in government. Brad Sherman cosponsored and voted for the Line Item Veto to stop unnecessary spending. His opponent voted against it. The $700 billion TARP bailout of Wall Street was an intrusion of the federal government in the private market. Brad Sherman led the fight against the Wall Street bailout, and forced changes that saved America hundreds of billions of dollars.
Trust me, Brad Sherman and I certainly do not agree on all issues. However, Brad Sherman is dedicated to the San Fernando Valley. He works personally every day to help Valley residents unsnarl problems with the federal bureaucracy. He and his staff are unmatched in their service to our communities and they have helped thousands of Valley residents.

Brad Sherman has held over 160 town halls in the San Fernando Valley, where he listens not only to Democrats but also to us Republicans. That is why, on November 6, I'm voting for Congressman Brad Sherman.
Yours truly,

Michael Reagan

It is clearly untrue that Michael Reagan left the Republican party and "switched sides" as claimed in the main article. This needs to be fixed by the editors of this page.--157.185.95.27 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)mjd

I agree with you and wikipedia hasn't fixed it either. Just change it yourself and cite your sources. Wikipedia editors can't argue with facts. They have him labeled as a Democrat as we speak. That is clearly wrong as he is still a speaker of conservative causes and writes for right wing Townhall.com(something the article doesn't mention either).

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/ http://www.michaelereagan.com/ -72.204.66.161 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source 2

With regard to the information about Reagan being represented by a disbarred lawyer, I suppose that is in theory interesting information to include, but if the only source for this information is a 2-graf post (in which the term "co-counsel" is misspelled) at something called reaganemail.com, that's not really good enough. Wiki policy on sourcing states that

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

It explains that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That's not reaganemail.com. It just looks like a place to buy an @reaganemail.com email address, not a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's possible Reagan IS represented by a disbarred attorney, but the core sourcing policy of Wikipedia is that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that in order to include this, at the very least, we've got to have better sourcing.Flyte35 (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Original research

I think you are deleting content that it is relevant and I have the feeling that you are trying to protect the subject's reputation. The Court documents cited on the article are public records. Articles about the trial are relevant and current. Let's keep the information accurate and objective. It is what it is.

Please see Wikipedia:No original research:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.

The court documents are fine and the information they source is great. The problem is the other stuff you're trying to include. The information provided indicates only the names of people being sued with Reagan. No other information is appropriate to include unless sourcing indicates they are the same people being sued with Reagan.Flyte35 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Other people are being sued. Cover page of law suit (complaint). The names are clearly mentioned there. These folks have common names (Tim Kelly, Jay Hoffman). I am not implying any conclusions, just giving the facts and properly sourcing. On the article about the trial, only the information that relates to the subject is posted. Can't omit important facts.

You're concluding that the Tim Kelly and Jay Hoffman named in the law suit are those same people on the board, and there isn't sourcing to indicate that. The only facts you have is who the people are in the documents and reports about the trial. All other stuff, about who's on what board or whatever, is OR and is inappropriate. You don't have sourcing to indicate that they're the same people. Flyte35 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the page and the sources. Subjects Jay Hoffman and Anthony Saliba, are members of the board of the Reagan Legacy Foundation. http://www.reaganlegacyfoundation.org/board It is not a conclusion it is a FACT. Jay Hoffman and Tim Kelly are named on the legal procedures. That is a FACT. Anthony Saliba purchased the business. That is a FACT. Please stop vandalizing the page. I understand that you may be getting paid to manage these people's reputation and that is a violation of Wikipedia. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ). This is a WARNING LEVEL 3 to you.

No, you are mistaken. As I've explained, Wikipedia:No original research says that editors should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources do not state that these people on whatever boards are in the lawsuit or started the business with the subject. I'm sure they probably are the same guys, despite the face that the names are not the unusual, but this is not how sourcing works.

It's like this. The subject is the father of two children. One of these these children is named Ashley Reagan. This woman is probably a kindergarten teacher at St. Mel school in Woodland Hills, California. Here's the school's page about her. But we can't add a line in the article about his daughter and where she works because the source doesn't indicate that this woman is the daughter of Michael Reagan who is the subject of this article. That's what the OR policy is about.Flyte35 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You are violating all Wikipedia rules by deleting crucial, sourced and useful information about a living person. The facts are well sourced and documented. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Reagan. . It looks like you are a reputation management consultant. STOP Vandalizing page. Contribute, don't destroy hours of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthchecx (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have spent hours and hours reviewing your edits and they look bias and abusive. There is no "original research". It is all properly sourced and quoted from source. No conclusions are given. Citing subjects and people named on the article is proper, encouranged and acceptable. It is clear you are deleting information that may affect the reputation of Michael Reagan. I don't want to assume your intentions or motivation, but you need to stop. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Reagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablomorris (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." That's clearly not what's going on here. I've just explained above why the material you're trying to include is inappropriate. That's why it's shouldn't be in here. That's because it's original research This isn't vandalism. If you disagree with the edits you should address the issue. It isn't vandalism just because you don't like the changes.Flyte35 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There are three recent edits at issue here.

1. The Brad Sherman image.

I did not remove this, either time, so you guys should discuss it with the person who removed it. I don't think it's essential to keep it in, but I have no dog in this fight, and feel no need to remove it; my understanding of image rights is pretty limited.

2. Mentioning the racist emails twice.

It seems if you mention the racist email issue in the legal section (because the information comes from the trial) it's not improving the article to reference the exact same thing in the careers section.

3. Original Research.

I think it's pretty clear, and I think I've explained above, why it's inappropriate to speculate as to the careers of the people listed in the lawsuit. They likely are the same people, yes, but Wiki sourcing policy is that you've got to have citations for the statements. That means the Jay Hoffman listed in the lawsuit can't be said to be the same Hoffman on the board of the nonprofit unless there's valid sourcing to indicate the guy on the board was the same guy who started the business. Like the same thing with Ashley Reagan's job. The same name isn't enough. Flyte35 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this?

How about if we go with this edit and then, after the "Reagan and Kelly then sold the email business to Chicago businessman Anthony Saliba" line, we add this sentence: "Hoffman and Saliba are board members of Reagan's non-profit entity, the Reagan Legacy Foundation" and then source it to here? I don't really think this is essential to include, but the page indicates that two people, one with a rather unusual name, are both involved with the Reagan Legacy Foundation. And the individual bios, at least in the Hoffman case, it mentions that he's "a partner in The Reagan Group," which is the company referenced in the lawsuit. Sound good, Pablomorris and Truthchecx? Flyte35 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are arbitrary deleting properly source content. It looks like your edits are vicious and done as part of a reputation management campaign. It is what it is. This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Michael Reagan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthchecx (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary. I've explained the reasoning. What's wrong with the compromise solution? It would leave the board membership information in. I'd really prefer to not edit this article at all for a few more days if you guys actually talk here to try to reach consensus, which is how editing conflicts are supposed to work. This edit warring really isn't a good way to improve the article. Flyte35 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with the proposed compromised, but all partners being sued need to be listed and links to external sources of their bios cited. Both names are common, Jay Hoffman and Tim Kelly. Leave all citations to Anthony Saliba and the attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablomorris (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so This edit lists the parties in the lawsuit and is properly sourced. Then after the "Reagan and Kelly then sold the email business to Chicago businessman Anthony Saliba" I'll add "Hoffman and Saliba are board members of Reagan's non-profit entity." You're OK with that if I also add the line about Anthony Saliba's job? Flyte35 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, I'm basically OK with that, but you've got to get a better source for the line about Saliba's job than MarketsWiki. That's just another free encyclopedia built collaboratively using wiki software. Flyte35 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, hearing no objections after 5 days I'm going to go ahead with this. To make absolutely sure, does anyone object to the proposed compromise described above? Flyte35 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)