Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Reaganomics shortening

Hi everyone. This article has been up for FAC six or seven times, and the last one was, in my opinion, the closest one to passing, but one thing stood in the way: the "Reaganomics and the economy" section. I think everyone working on this article will support me when I say that Ronald Reagan should be a FA, and is so very close! If we fix up the Reaganomics section, make it a little less POV, and dramatically shrink the size of it (it's the longest subsection), we stand a much better chance of the FAC passing. I'm going to list quotes/comments from other editors rating the article, we can see what they thought, then work from there:

• Oppose. The crucial section on reaganomics is badly written, not neutral and poorly sourced. It's poorly referenced since it mostly draws from primary sources (raw government data), or from unreliable sources as the Heritage Foundation; the best of the scholar/academic literature must be used instead. It is not neutral because the two paragraphs devoted to "economic data" are divided in "facts" and "criticism"; the first presents mostly apparently favorable aspects (the "facts"), and the second discusses the non favorable ones (marginalized as "criticism"). (oh, I'd never expected that from a Reagan fanboy :). In the end, it is a "pick and choose" list of confusingly related data, and lacks the perspective of a writer that has broadly studied the whole subject (reviewing the main reaganomics article would be a good exercise for this).--BMF81 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with BMF81 on the need for a better treatment of the criticism of Reagan's economic policies. David Stockman's views, in particular, should probably be taken into account since he was a very prominent critic at the time (and had inside knowledge). Haukur 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We originally had a quote criticizing Reagan himself by David Stockman, but chose, by consensus,to replace it with one by Don Regan, fmr. Chief of Staff and Sec. of the Treasury, for the quote by him seemed to focus more on Ronald Reagan himself, and that's what we were aiming for. Happyme22 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Regan quote isn't bad but I think it's weird to omit the juiciest part of it: "From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants." Have you read The Triumph of Politics, by the way? I strongly recommend it. I couldn't help but feel sympathy for Stockman, a somewhat naive ideologue who gets stuck in a world of compromising congressmen, "lemon socialism" and public relations. Haukur 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have indeed made improvements but I still see some problems. I'm especially concerned with this sentence: "The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics," due to the facts that the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending caused large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis, as well as the stock market crash of 1987 (known as "Black Monday")." First of all "derided by some" is not great writing but I'd be willing to let that slide. I think the major problem is that you're trying to condense too much into a single sentence and the causal relation gets tied up in knots. The large budget deficits and the trade deficit (etc.) were criticized in themselves not because they had necessarily anything to do with "Trickle-down economics". Indeed, some people who did believe in trickle-down economics (even if they didn't necessarily use that term) were critical of the deficits and the "trickle-down" philosophical criticism didn't necessarily refer to the deficits. My paragraph is probably even less clear than the one I'm criticizing but I hope you grasp what I'm trying to say :) Haukur 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are oversimplifying the causes of the S&L crisis. See savings and loan crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Pearson (talk • contribs) 15:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign my name. Brian Pearson 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per above criticisms. -- CJ Marsicano 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - While this is a great article, and I felt it deserved a GA pass, it needs some work for FA status. After just a quick read through I noticed the ""Reaganomics" and the economy" section needs a thorough copyediting. Chupper 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So there's some of the opposition to the page, taken from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive6. In fact, out of the four (4) oppositions, three (3) were because of the Reaganomics section, and the last one was not a legitimate reason for opposing the article.

I would like to get opinions on what should/can be changed, what should stay, and wording of the section. There's already two other full articles on Reaganomics and the Economy of the United States, so this section can be "shrunk." Any thoughts/suggestions on what to do or how to start it? Best, Happyme22 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Argh. I would really love to support this article... but the criticisms of the economic sections are very well framed and definitely have merit. How much time does the article have left in FAC? Did you get some editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics to review that section at some point in the past?
• I just made one change which deleted (commented out) some referenced material, because Haukur is correct: "...the major problem is that you're trying to condense too much into a single sentence and the causal relation gets tied up in knots." The stuff about deficits etc. needs to be reinserted, but in an appropriate manner. I hope I have time to finish it tonight, but... --Ling.Nut 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, I think what your doing is helpful, so I won't butt-in until your finished. The article has onlny been in FAC for two days. Happyme22 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Wilson Reagan, GCB?

Is that his proper title? -MichiganCharms 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in the United Kingdom it is, but I don't know about the United States. Or is it the same for the entire world? He was awarded the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath by Queen Elizabeth II in 1989, but I don't know. None of the other Encyclopedias have his name written that way. Best, Happyme22 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that even if Reagan was entitled to use the postnominal letters GCB for his honorary knighthood, they should not appear in the lead section of this article, but should be referred to only in the "honors" section. Reagan was an American citizen and did not use "GCB" normally, nor was he referred to with the GCB designation in the American media. See also my past comments regarding Bill Clinton and his honors from the Order of Logohu. [1] --Metropolitan90 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but look at Bob Hope. Although he was born in England, he spent the great majority of his life in America, yet his post-nominal letters appear in the lead as his universal proper title. I don't care if is reads Ronald Wilson Reagan, GCB or not, but if that's his proper title than it should go there. Happyme22 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrote most of his own speeches

I think this is important: Reagan had speechwriters in the White House, but for most of his public career he wrote his own speeches, laboring diligently and daily upon his prose. - Rollyson, Carl E. 2006. American Biography. iUniverse. 197 , but I can't find a section to put it in. Where should it go? Operation Spooner 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would put maybe a breif sentence or two in the "Early political career" section, saying how he started writing his own speeches, a pratice that continued into the White House. Even if he didn't write a speech, he usually looked over/edited it. That's what I'd do, and please ask me for help if it's needed. Best, Happyme22 07:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's where I put it in the first place but Happyme22 removed it with the excuse that it was "random." I'll try again. Operation Spooner 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

What's with the POV edits taking out the word "controversial"? I don't want to think that anyone is trying to push their opinion in bad faith, but this is frankly absurd. The word controversial takes no sides, but makes a simple statement about prevailing conditions. I fully intend to restore it unless someone can make a sensible argument why it's biased to state an undisputed fact. Wercloud 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual or not, it isn't appropriate for the first sentence of the first paragraph in this article. What amount of controversy warrants adding this word to an article? If I find my state's governor to be controversial, should I add it to his bio? Should I go change George W. Bush to read "George W. Bush is the 43rd and controversial president of the United States?". This is a clear problem with WP:NPOV, and should not be included. See undue weight clause of NPOV for starters. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: A consensus exists that Ronald Reagan was a controversial president, ergo warranting the descriptor in front of the introduction to him as a president. Point 2: If you wish to add "controversial" to a president, you should say "...was the controversial nth president," not "...was the nth and controversial president." This is a simple grammar issue. Point 3: Where exactly is the undue weight in the statement of a completely neutral fact? The most rigorous standards even of journalism, never mind encyclopedias, permit "controversial" where it is an accurate description. To deny that controversy was a central and defining characteristic of the Reagan presidency borders on censorship of history, and clearly violates NPOV. Wercloud 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "controversial" is out of place here. The controlling policy is clearly WP:NPOV undue weight. Reagan was clearly controversial to some folks, but he was also the most popular President of the last forty years.--Paul 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He was not controversial to "some folks," he was controversial period. This is not in dispute. To deliberately omit such an overwhelmingly significant fact on a political basis is contrary to NPOV. Wercloud 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "political basis" but a policy one. Reagan is not notable because he is/was controversial, he's notable because he was President. To qualify that with "controversial" is undue weight and against policy. - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty thin POV rationalization. He was notable as a president because of the pervasive controversies of his presidency, and omitting that fact is non-neutral. Wercloud 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether or not, in fact, Reagan was "controversial" - and the answer is an unequivocal "yes" - this is a fact, not an opinion. It is clear POV to leave it out. Whether or not it belongs in the lead is a matter (ironically) of opinion. :) In any case, a statement that Reagan was - and remains - a controversial president absolutely belongs in the article, and certainly somewhere in the lead. It's one of the most important facts of his political career. As far as Reagan's popularity is concerned, NO scientific, non-partisan poll in the last forty years has Reagan as the most popular President, of those - or any other - decade. The highest approval rating Reagan ever recorded by Gallup (used not only for highest quality but for longevity and consistency, the hallmarks of this kind of question) was 68% - heck, Bill Clinton managed to top that by three points! Info999 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to change this article to read "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the controversial 40th President of the United States". If backed up by reliable sources, a sentence which states the controversial nature of this president in wording similar to that of the sources would meet NPOV. It's all about the sources and presentation of the fact. We cannot flat out call Reagan controversial, but we can present the fact that some people see him that way. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That significant proportions see him that way is the definition of controversial, and stipulating it as an opinion is logically ridiculous. Wercloud 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't for you. We do not confirm opinions or state them as fact, but we can report that such opinions exist. That's the very basis of this project. - auburnpilot talk 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The body of the article confirms the fact that Reagan's presidency was controversial, and the POV of his supporters is not a valid basis for calling that fact an opinion. That they may find it troubling is not a premise on which to dispute the factuality, neutrality, or significance of a statement. You have not addressed the statements made in support of noting controversy, but rather have just continued to assert without basis that a fact is an opinion or unduly weighted because a given POV finds it inconvenient. Continuing to prevent inclusion of "controversial" would blatantly bias the article in service to pro-Reagan POV. Wercloud 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the key point. It does not matter whether or not I consider Reagan controversial. He was a controversial president by objective standards. As someone below has pointed out, FDR is not considered a controversial president, Reagan is. It does not belong in the first sentence, but it does belong in the introduction. Image protection is getting in the way of editing. Wikipediatoperfection 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is turning the meaning of Neutral Point of View on its head. "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States" is clearly a statement of fact without any point of view. "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the controversial 40th President of the United States" is a statement of fact WITH a point of view. I would think that anyone could see this, unless they are blinded by ideology. The important fact is that Reagan was President. Both sides agree on that. "Controversial" is POV pushing, and does not belong in the lead OR the body of the article as it is a judgement, which the reader can draw for him/herself given facts in the body of the article. --Paul 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you are insisting that the word "controversial," and all other adjectives not in quote form, be expunged entirely from every single article in Wikipedia? How about the word "prominent" in the lead, describing his early political career? Or describing him as a "New Deal Democrat" when the reader might instead be told that he was a Democrat and infer his specific views from his statements and actions? How about the sentence calling his policies "fiscally expansive"? The current article is rife with terms that don't fit your standard, so either you are proposing a radical overhaul of virtually every Wikipedia article or you should change your mind about "controversial." Wercloud 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't see the point of using "prominent" in describing his early New Deal leanings. Reagan was certainly not a prominent New Dealer. The rest of your arguments are arguing reductio ad absurdum as I suspect you well know. --Paul 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree stauchly with AuburnPilot and Paul. By adding the word "controversial" to Ronald Reagan's page, it makes sense that it must also be added to Jimmy Carter's (which it's not), Gerald Ford's (wich it is not), FDR's (which it is not), right? WRONG...Do you get the point? It's definetly POV to say that. Happyme22 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your examples, of course, is that Carter Ford and FDR were NOT in fact "controversial" presidents! Ford's was probably the LEAST controversial of any presidency (the loud but brief pardon issue notwithstanding). Carter was certainly unpopular (though not nearly as unpopular as the current occupant of the office) but was not controversial. FDR? Controversial? In what way? FDR had his critics, especially on the New Deal, but his presidency was not "controversial." Answer this question for any particular president: was "controversy" a hallmark of their presidency? Were many (if not most) of their proposals, decisions and opinions deemed "controversial" by the people, the press, the punditry, the experts, of the time? The answer, for Reagan, is clearly "yes." It is the single most important description of his presidency - far more important (and accurate) than "popular." Once again, however, protection of a person's "image" is getting in the way of properly following wiki guidelines. What else is new?Info999 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's added to any other president's page would depend on the facts of that president, and has no bearing on this one. I have no objection where such is factually accurate. By this point the claim that "controversial" is POV has been not only debunked, but shown to be an argument in favor of POV itself. One has to take a position against all unquoted adjectives to legitimately object to "controversial," which is against the clear and unambiguous consensus of the Wikipedia community as exhibited by the vast majority of articles, including Featured ones. Wercloud 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The non POV-ness of using "controversial" here has not been debunked, nor is obvious that an aversion to its use in the lead is pushing a POV. Repeating your position and stating that you are correct while people who disagree are incorrect, does not really advance your argument.--Paul 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Happyme22 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a point-by-point summary of my rebuttals on this page earlier, but I guess it didn't show up (ahem). Can't find it in the history either, so I guess I'm missing something about the way this page functions. The fact remains I've thoroughly addressed every point made by opponents while they've ignored every point I've made and continued to beg the question. Wercloud 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed verification

I removed the failed verification tag added by Sandy, per this paragraph in the source in question:

"As a result of the investigation, many key figures were arrested and convicted in relation to the scandal. Among those convicted were Robert McFarlane, Oliver North, and John Poindexter. However, North and Poindexter's convictions were overturned on appeal, and in 1992, President George H.W. Bush pardoned 6 Iran-Contra figures, including Caspar Weinberger and Robert McFarlane."

IvoShandor 09:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And I just changed the sentence to read nine, though I suspect that the source isn't entirely as comprehensive as it could be, not sure, I will consult some books I have around here once I finish unpacking my library. : ) IvoShandor 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And a re-read, make that eight. Oops. Going in for another small edit. IvoShandor 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, original research (8, 9, 10). Sources I've found say 11. Please source the text to a reliable source rather than doing the math ourselves. I found much too much sloppiness of that sort in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Um simple math isn't OR, where did you get that idea? IvoShandor 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have other sources? More comprehensive ones? I would much prefer to see more academic stuff for this article. IvoShandor 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to remove the statement, if the source's reliability is in question then we shouldn't use it. IvoShandor 09:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

After 3 edit conflicts, right, that's the conclusion. I found numbers as high as 11, it appears to depend on how you count the pardons and overturned on appeal, that source doesn't pretend to give a total, it looks like someone did the math (OR). Unless we have a definitive source that says how many, we shouldn't say how many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What I found in my editing of this article is that a lot of uncited text was apparently pulled from other Wiki articles, and it's not always correct. The incorrect name of the church, for example, has now been mirrored all over the internet because of wiki's error. And the number of people at the funeral ... and so on. That's why we insist on citations for all hard data at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts, but I think there's something around here somewhere, I can't find it but I read it, specifically states that simple math is not OR. At least I read it somewhere around here. That aside, I am for not including the statement based upon the reliability of the source. IvoShandor 09:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But that article doesn't even pretend to list them all, so you can't even do the math from it. And, it doesn't even discuss how it's counting, as some others I found did. I'm not sure what the number is or how it's defined; we need a better source, or to drop it (as you have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its hidden for now, I have a couple peer reviewed books on Reagan, I will see what they say, but I have to dig them out of a huge pile of books that haven't really been unpacked since I just moved. IvoShandor 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article can scrape by without that one sentence in the meantime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Absolutely. We can clarify the wording if we need to as well, there were X convictions, X were pardoned blah blah blah, X were overturned on appeal blah blah blah, etc etc. And so on and so forth. Etc. IvoShandor 10:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

General Electric Theater

It looks like Reagan was host until the end, but there was controversy which caused General Electric to pull the plug on the show... General Electric Theater left the air in 1962 in a welter of controversy surrounding the U.S. Justice Department's anti-trust investigation of MCA and the Screen Actors Guild talent waivers granted to MCA -Revue. The hint of scandal discounted Reagan's value as company spokesman and program host. As SAG president in the 1950s Reagan had, after all, signed the waivers, and later benefited from the arrangement as a General Electric Theater program producer himself. The suggestion of impropriety fueled Reagan's increasingly anti-government demeanor on tour, and his insistence upon producing and starring in episodes combating Communist subversion in the final season of General Electric Theater. Museum of Broadcast Communications: General Electric Theater--Paul 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

This text isn't verified by the source given:

• Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt. [2]

The critic mentioned -- Frank Shostak -- is a proponent of the gold standard. How is that defensible? Brian Pearson 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to Google up a source, and besides blogs, only found this: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I came to my senses and found a book source: page 128 of Lou Cannon's book Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio. Happyme22 03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a very interesting article, Sandy. Brian Pearson 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Economics; was it really good? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was, though I'm not an economist. The man seemed to write 'plain talk' about a something I'd never heard, before, other than "the poor got poorer and the rich got richer" (among other things). I posted the link in morphh's talk page to get his take on it. He probably won't respond until tomorrow, though. Brian Pearson 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record? -- Ling.Nut 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey I hate to be Jonny Raincloud here, but Cato is somewhat biased according to some, although I happen to not have an opinion on it either way. What exactly is this for Brian Pearson? I seem to be "out of the loop," but that's ok! And does it have to do with President Reagan? Happyme22 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to support the one posted by SandyGeargia, which also is setting the Reagan record straight. I'd be willing to bet that an opposition POV wouldn't be able to successfully debate the issue, except through the media. I just happened to be in the neighborhood, Happyme22, and thought I'd comment -- one thing led to another. :) Brian Pearson 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Both CATO and National Review (esp NRO) are completely biased sources and violate wiki's POV rules. While there is debate over exactly how Reagan's policies affected the economy, there is no debate over the historical fact that Reagan signed budget after budget that was negatively unbalanced, and had to borrow in order to make up the difference - thereby increasing the national debt by a greater amount than at any other time in US history. These are facts. It is also not under debate that the out of control national debt had a negative effect on the US economy, especially in the years after Reagan left office. These are facts, not opinions; both the CATO and NR articles are full of opinions, not facts, and should not be used as sources to verify otherwise insupportable claims. Info999 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a more complete picture would include certain other factors, assuming agreeable cites are found. For example, if it is true that the drop in inflation had an impact, it should be included. Likewise, what were the effects of Paul Volker's actions? or those of Alan Greenspan? If it is true that wages (not just dollars and cents per hour) actually increased via more perks. If a man today says he makes $8.50, that's not accurate, because he isn't including matching 401k benefits, matching insurance, and the like. This was mentioned in one of the previous links. Whether or not they are biased is one thing, but do they report facts which are verifiable through other acceptable cites? Just a thought. Brian Pearson 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Wikipedia's NPOV rules aren't exactly as they seem to be represented in this thread.. take some time to carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks & later! --Ling.Nut 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree that even allegedly biased sources could have legitimate points which may be reflected in legitimate sources? Brian Pearson 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Brian Pearson 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No. A biased source is one who presents items - both opinions and verifiable facts - in such a selective and manipulative manner that there is only one possible conclusion to be drawn: that their point of view must be correct. There is a difference between a biased source and a conflict of interest source; the "source" that is offered for the "Reagan saved 77 lives" is only Reagan himself - there is a conflict of interest in that source, because it's him, and it isn't neutral. However, for this article, CATO, AEI, Hoover - conservative/libertarian think tanks - have a vested interest in promoting their agendas, which are directly linked to their and their benefactor's economic interests, and are not "academic" in any way. They are biased as "sources" for controversial and/or contested claims that aren't generally accepted facts.

Moreover, you're now not only running afoul of NPOV, you're doing something far "worse" in wikiland - you're doing original research, by compiling a brief in favor of the "Reagan legacy", complete with independent facts, figures, and analysis. Either way, it seems that many here are just promoting the "Reagan Legacy Agenda," instead of creating a clean, simple article of relevant facts.Info999 02:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was suggesting there may be acceptable links which back up points not included in the article. This is original research? Brian Pearson 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stretching and overextending of Wiki policies going 'round here. Info, do you have a source you'd like to see reflected? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have specific sources in mind, I was speaking hypothetically. I began by wondering if a person can see a point made by a biased site, and find agreeably unbiased sources for the aforesaid point. I've found myself with my foot in hot water where I'm unsure if I've been understood. I'd appreciate your input. Would that be "independent research"? If so, I may need to look up a few definitions and get my own head straight. Brian Pearson 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Legacy' section is totally biased and sickening to any decent person. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia but there is a clique of 4 or 5 Reaganites here who delete any criticism of Reagan, like 300,000 dead in Central America as a direct result of his policies.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I 'spose Ortega et al. had nothing to do with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review/ Featured Article

I am extremely confused. I added a peer review tag to the discussion page because there is significant disagreement over NPOV/POV in this article. It has been removed because you apparently can't have both a nomination for featured article and a peer review going on at the same time? Can featured articles not be peer reviewed? Wikipedia articles are an on going process, it would seem that a peer review could happen whenever someone requests a peer review as part of that on going process? What is the deal here? Wikipediatoperfection 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR; it's a waste of reviewers time to be reviewing in two places at once. Review is currently at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Wikipediatoperfection 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AIDs stuff

I think a new user incorrectly added the following to the Lead. It seems well-sourced, so it shouldn't have been purged completely but instead ported over to here. It should be integrated into the article.

Reagan's administration was criticized for its slow response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic, until the illness of movie star and national icon Rock Hudson became public news in July 1985, by which time over 10,000 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS, and over 6,000 had died.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more than "AIDs stuff". AIDS is variously defined as either an global epidemic or pandemic, and was predicted to be one, even in the early years, though most people don't know that, since Reagan basically did nothing about AIDS for the first 2-3 years. rich 09:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Lead

From my understanding of Lead, it is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, not a party hack speech dedication. It needs re-writing, and badly. To begin with, citations are NOT used in the Lead, as per practically every rule that WP has. Look at some FA BLPs - they don't use cites, and nothing in the Lead should be so striking as to require one, specifically:

"Reagan advocated less government regulation of the economy, spoke against the welfare state, and argued that people should be allowed to keep most of what they earned.[1]"

In other words, the dude is a Rebublican. Yeah, we get it. Save it for the article, move on.

Secondly,

"He was able to institute some of this by introducing fiscally-expansive economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics." "

I don't see this polcy discussion occrurring in the article in proportion to the time being devoted to it in the Lead.

I could go on, but frankly, I'd like to finish the post before dawn. the second and third paragraphs need serious revision and/or trimming. Clearly, the article suffers from a conservative to much in love with the subject to step back and see some of the warts. There is no coverage of the Iran-Contra Affair (which, if not for Poindexter falling on his sword, would have seen a disgraced Reagan doing prison time). There is nothing about the Lead that says, 'this is a short summary of the article'. It's a puff-piece as seen through the rose-colored glasses of revisionist history, and I for one won't have it. It isn't neutral. And if you think I am tough, pray to the Lord Jeebus that a pack of ultra Liberals don't find this article and trim it to the bone.

The point is: trim the article's Lead, or it will be trimmed harshly by others not as in love with Reagan. Capiscé? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The first thing you quoted above is important. That's what was revolutionary about him. Prior to him people weren't advocating small government, but big government, more welfare, and more taxes. It belongs in the lead. Operation Spooner 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it really doesn't. Please read WP:LEAD, and you'll see what I am talking about. The stuff you talked about need to be in the body of the article, and touched on in the Lead. It gives an overview of the subject's life. Not what they espoused. Reagan wasn't a collection of party lines. He was a man. Treat him as such. When you pedestal him like that, you are begging someone to send him crashing down.

And, for the good of our working relationship, stop talking about the guy as if hw were the returned Messiah. He wasn't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What a person advocates for most of his political career is an important part of his life. It's not putting him on a pedestal to say that he advocate deregulation, less forced welfare, and less taxation. It's just a matter of important fact. It's what he's known for. Operation Spooner 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an absolutely terrible lead, but I do have to agree that it reads a little like one-sided. It mentions how he argued for a smaller government, but fails to mention such things as that the size of the federal government actually increased during his tenure or the record budget deficits his government incurred. Furthermore, I find phrases such as "fiscally-expansive economic policies" to be overly complicated; perhaps I'm just a moron, but I am unsure of the exact meaning of this phrase.--Rise Above The Vile 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. "

I am not saying don't mention the dude's accomplishments, and I am not going to dissemble the statments about what he "advocated for most of his political career" - that is for a forum where people can flog themselves frothy over that bs minutae. We don't do that here, and partisan editing is met with rather stringent editing.

. I am saying that the Lead is an overview of the subject. Currently, the stuff about policy takes up 2/3's of the Lead, and that is wholly unacceptable. I am not debating Reagan's merits as a politician. I am saying that WP policies and MOS formats say it has to be contructed differently than it is now. In no uncertain terms, I am telling you that the Lead is going to have to change for the better. Now, you can do it, or I can, or we can - but it is going to get done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)RAB, you aren't a moron; those terms are confabulations - without any real meaning. That is one of the many, many things that will be going. The Lead is an overview, not a peacocking preamble. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. He was not able to fully implement his laissez-faire capitalist vision. I just noted that it is arguable to what extent he was able to implement his ideals. Operation Spooner 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that some of this partisan love can be set aside for the good of the article. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose four paragraphs. If e end up needing more, we can consider it. The first addresses his early life, film career and family life. The second deals with his governorship and first Presidency. The third deals with his second tern in office. The fourth deals with his post-Presidency, death and legacy (this last part being brief to the point of being skeletal).

In addition, the section on religious beliefs needs to be merged with either his early life or family, or spread through the other sections as anecdotal info.

There is a fair bit of peacocking going on (though not nearly as bad as some other articles). If we can paraphrase general ideas, separating them from direct quotations. I think that would improve the article vastly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Four paragraphs seems reasonable, though I would group them differently. It seems more logical to me to have both terms of his presidency grouped into one paragraph rather than separated. Perhaps early and family life as the first paragraph, film career and governorship as the second, presidency as the third and legacy as the fourth? As for the legacy paragraph, I don't think we need to make it "skeletal;" briefly but thoroughly explain his legacy.--Rise Above the Vile 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as it stays encyclopedic and not a puff-piece by the Reagan Fan Foundation, then there shouldn't be a problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a good idea. I don't know if I can work on it now, but I will when I get the chance, probably in the next few days, so please don't make any drastic changes. Happyme22 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the notion that leads don't need to be cited crept in, but it's incorrect. See WP:LEAD#Citations_in_the_lead_section. Generally, summarizing statements in the lead need not be cited, but data, quotes, anything surprising or likely to be challenged is cited, exactly as in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Despite his rejection of détente, he negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War." is disputed. Many historians credit mainly internal pressures within the Soviet Union and assign not more than marginal credit to any Reagan policies.

http://hnn.us/articles/5569.html

http://hnn.us/articles/2732.html

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5644.html

http://hnn.us/articles/1797.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/schell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1970752,00.html

Gmb92 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with the Lead section: "He was one of America's most popular presidents". What is this based on? His average approval rating in office was about 57% (about the same as Clinton) - no doubt better than average but not unusually high. Nearly 40% disapproved on average. Another poll that asked respondent to choose the best president ranked him 2nd. That doesn't say much considering only 16% chose him. It says nothing about the other 84%. 13% chose Clinton in the same poll. Furthermore, it could be argued that most Americans tend to pick presidents who they know a lot about, which are mainly more recent ones. I think we should remove this recently-added phrase. The Legacy section covers the polls. Gmb92 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think a lot of people are thrown by the dewy-eyed recollections of the older farts, who recall how the Republican Party nearly crumbled after Nixon's Grand Crazy Train drove off a cliff. Ford was a good guy, but simply didn't have the charisma to pull the party back together, and while Carter was in fact one of our more moral Presidents, he didn't know how Washington (and national politics) functioned, and failed utterly. Reagan truly revitalized the Party that was clearly nearing its deathbed. Gotta give the Gip props for that. Republican parents tell their little Republican-ettes about how Ronnie saved us from communism and whatnot, and all of the sudden, he's the Biggest Pimp on the Block. He gets things named after him because he was all about championing Big Business (guess who pays for those lobbying efforts to rename airports and the like?). Its no wonder folk get confused.

Oops, did I leave my Rant on? Sorry. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran Contra

Here's an example where an edit is made supposedly to make the article shorter, but in fact it ends up protecting the image of the subject. It hasn't been alleged that Reagan signed the finding; it is a fact that he did. It's also a fact that he signed it after the arms sales and hostage releases had already begun. It's a further fact that Reagan's NS advisor destroyed the finding the next year because he felt it would be embarrassing to Reagan (kind of ironic here, no?); that last one should be left for the IC article, though. It's been corrected. Info999 21:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this at some time following the Tower Commission that these facts were verified? Brian Pearson 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the Walsh Independent Counsel report was much more thorough, took longer to investigate and create, and wasn't made up of Reagan-hand-picked "safe" men. The Tower Commission did its work in less than three months from appointment to publication.

Incidentally, this is from a timeline of the events of Reagan's life; it includes good details about Iran Contra. I'm not using it as a "source" so all the POV pushers can relax (esp. those from Georgia). However, it's interesting that this particular paragraph - which is factual and neutral - is the kind of thing we should see in this wiki article, but don't, because things get "cleansed":

February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

Anyway, the answer to your question is yes, the Tower Report was not the last - nor most accurate and complete - word on Iran Contra. And the Walsh Report has to be the last word, since two of the main participants were pardoned before - against all propriety and tradition - they came to trial (when a lot more of the facts would have come out, including (potentially) those incriminating to the one who granted the pardons...seems I've heard that happening again recently, no?). Info999 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine Info, my applogies, but I really truly am sorry, ok? I should know by now that you claim POV on all of my edits. I thought I was removing redundancy because you added so much more that the article size went from 108 to 111, so I was trying shorten things that didn't pertain to Ronald Reagan himself. Again, I'm sorry!!!! Happyme22 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Every single time, your "mistakes" or your "re-wording for clarity" or your "cleanup" remove all negative facts and connotations and whitewash the issue. Repeated apologies after Reagan smells better in the article doesn't work anymore. You've lost the presumption of innocence in my book. Info999 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't really care. Happyme22 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FEATURED ARTICLE!!!

Well, we've done it! Ronald Reagan is finally a featured article!!!! Happyme22 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Happy, and all that worked on this article. This is a tough one because of how much emotion both sides have related to this man. Good work on a great article. : )IvoShandor 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Governor of CA section

This section contains hardly any criticism of Reagan; it practically reads like an advertisement. He was a very controversial governor, having closed down mental hospitals and other services for the homeless, in addition to having instituted a controversial stance towards the protests of the era. Now, his confrontation with the protesters is duly mentioned, but there is absolutely nothing about the effects of his so-called campaign to "send the welfare bums back to work," a campaign which continues to have lasting effects today (disastrous effects, if you ask me).

I know the article needs to be kept to a short length, and his governorship of California is relatively unimportant compared to his presidency, but this is a little ridiculous. A sentence or two about the effects of his anti-"bum" campaign would probably suffice. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the idea more could be said about a number of things. I suppose an encyclopedia article shouldn't be a book. Just the same, I've seen several articles that are larger than this one. BTW, I noticed that someone had suggested splitting the article, but I have no idea how that could be accomplished. Brian Pearson 01:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the length of the article is fine. And now that I realize that there is no separate article for his governorship, the section could definitely use a lot of expansion. Any thoughts? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs}

Make a seperate article for his governship. The length of the governorship section dosn't need to be much longer, for it's condensed. I don't remmeber a lot of criticism of him during those years, but if there was please add (but cite - we're a FA now!). I say make a new article: Governorship of Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty much unprecedented, and completely unnecessary. Take a look at long-serving recent governors, such as Tommy Thompson, Michael Dukakis, Howard Dean (and even not-so-recent, like New York's longest-serving governor George Clinton), and you'll see that none of them have separate articles for their gubernatorial years. Even presidents who were formerly governors don't have separate articles for their time as governor. And by the way, Reagan was arguably the most controversial governor California had up until that time, and certainly one of the most controversial in the state's history, even counting the years since he left office. If one doesn't know that about Reagan, one doesn't know Reagan (how about May '70, UC Berkeley, just to name a single example?). No separate article is warranted in my opinion, as well as considering how other governors/presidents are treated. Info999 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. What do you think we should do? Happyme22 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we should find two reliable and verifiable (and noteworthy) pro and con summaries of Reagan's time as governor and run with that. This way, it's cited and balanced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. As soon as JSTOR lets me log in...2-user limit, curse you. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've reworked the Lead, leaving out all the specific policies and views that Reagan or his party championed, as specifics are not supposed to be in the Lead, but rather to be articulated within the body of the article (or, in the case of Reaganomics, covered in another article of its own). I think that was what bothered me the most about the Lead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it, however I think the infobox should read "Ronald Wilson Reagan" per Gerald Ford, another FA (his common name wasn't Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., but it reads like almost all other articles); Jimmy Carter, another president of the United States known not as James Earl Carter, Jr.; George Herbert Walker Bush - the same thing. William Jefferson Clinton; are you going to tell me most people knew him (or know him) as William Jefferson? George Walker Bush is in the infobox on his article too; Dwight David Eisenhower; John Fitzgerald Kennedy; Lyndon Baines Johnson; Richard Milhous Nixon - all the articles on recent presidents have his middle name in the infobox, so why should Reagan be any different? To make Reagan's like all the other presidents, especially since this one is at a higher standard (being a FA), we should use his middle name. Even people who aren't presidents use their middle names on Wiki; look at Merv Griffin, Alberto Gonzales, and even Nancy Reagan to name the first three that came to me! Although people know him better as "Ronald Reagan" this is an encyclopedia and his middle name should be in the infobox. Best, Happyme22 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I've changed it to reflect the precedent. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reaganomics

The article is confusing two different ideas, interchanging them inappropriately. Supply side economics is a theory that (badly condensed for purposes of discussion) argues that you can create economic growth if you provide incentives (lowering income taxes and cap gains taxes) for people to produce goods and services. This differs from demand side economics, which argues that demand can be controlled through gov't spending (I know, horrible simplistic, but we're not arguing supply vs demand here). "Trickle-down" is a perjorative term created by critics, to describe their view of the supply sider's argument: let people and businesses keep more of their income, and they will spend it producing goods and services, and the money will eventually trickle down through the classes.

This is markedly different from "voodoo economics" - a phrase most famously used by George H.W. Bush - to deride Reagan's notion that he could significantly lower taxes, significantly increase spending, and all would be well with the economy; critics, who did not see how this could work, said that it must be some sort of magic - some sort of "voodoo" economics. The article now not only conflates the two, but mischaracterizes both, to different extents.

By the way, since he was his VP and his successor, any mention of "voodoo" in the article needs to mention Bush, I should think. Info999 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good analysis by Info999. I was about to revert Voodoo economics for the same reason. I don't see the need to add "voodoo economics" at all, as it was something that happened in the primary, before anything was actually implemented, and thus is not a criticism of anything real. Also, adding extra pejoratives into the section, flirts with creating a trivia list of criticisms which conflicts with the proscription against giving undue weight.--Paul 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see Paul's point about balance, but I think if something important to a subject's life is going to get more than just briefly mentioned, it should not be without context - and in this case, the context is not only all about how radical the ideas were, and the criticism/skepticism that greeted their introduction, but about how the most vocal critic on this subject ended up being his VP. No? Info999 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Info here. I am the one who added the voodoo economics characterization, and I think its appropriate that, if we are going to discuss the polices, thenwe have to address what people thought of those policies, pro and con. That his own VP thought of them as voodoo is notable. Were they an accurate characterization? It doesn't matter. Truth isn't the litmus test here, whereas notable, verifiable and reliable is.

Additionally, I think this policy bi-polarity is going to re-occur where we choose to attampt and discuss the nitty-gritty of the man's policies and not the man. I mean, we have an article called Reaganomics; wouldn't the article be better off simply providinf a link to that ("for more information on Reagan's economic policies, see Reaganomics"). This would seem the best way to achieve both ends. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that H.W. Bush criticized Reagan's economic plans is at all important. The only reason anyone is interested in it, is because Reagan picked Bush as Veep. This isn't at all remarkable, it is little more than trivia. Do you suppose that LBJ didn't criticize JFK? Is this in the JFK article? Perhaps the real point here is that H.W. Bush wholeheartedly embraced Reagan's policies after he had denounced and made fun of them during the primaries. This is more of a commentary on Bush's character and wish for a revived political life than it a serious commentary on Reagan's policies.--Paul 05:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that any comparison with Kennedy and Bush are pretty much doomed to failure from the outset - different politcal environments and challenges, personalities of the main players, etc. What makes it noteworthy is that both before and after, Bush remained a noteworthy individual. Secondly, this was pretty much his main campaign point (that, and the superior foreign relations experience), so the term spread beyond just the campaign (rather unlike anything the far more capable politician LBJ had developed). Thirdly, after he was elected, he backed off the policy significantly (as noted by those too-tightly-wound sycophants at the Heritage Foundation).

Long story short, that this economic policy was characterized by an national politician in a way that caught on within the lexicon for economics and uniquely tied to Reaganmomics makes it both noteworthy and encyclopedic. Reaganomics is even listed as part of the voodoo economics not once but twice, and not solely as applied as campaign observations by the loyal opposition. If we are going to discuss anything about the politics, we need to avoid an undue situation where we are only talking up Reagan's economic policies without pointing out the equally valid views. Again, readers don't have to agree any more as to the accuracy of these terms (any more than editors), but we are tasked with noting it as encyclopedic and verifiably connected. I think that the reverted edit should be reinstated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On the narrow point of Arcayne's last suggestion: the edit was reverted because it was completely inaccurate. The term voodoo economics was not applied to supply-side economics, which is what is being derided with the term "trickle-down." In the John Madden article, we can't write "John Madden was the coach of the 'Oakland Raiders,' or the 'New York Giants' " - because they're two different teams, and he wasn't coach of the Giants (broad, rushed analogy :) ). Just some wrongly conflate the two ideas does not make them the same - or even similar. I do not agree that the factual inaccuracy should be reinserted into the article - there's enough of that there already, don't you think? Info999 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's factual inaccuracy in the article? Maybe it would be better to actually point those out, rather than imply that its all some vast left-wing conspiracy. For the second time - Wikipedia doesn't require information to be accurate. It requires it to be verifiable, noteworthy and reliably sourced. Are you contending that no one called Reagaonomics voodoo economics, or referred to parts of it as trickle-down theory? You will not that I provided the wikilink to the voodoo economics article; trickle-down economics also appears to have an article. I understand your analogy, and I think you are under the impression that Reaganomics addresses only one portion of the field. It does not, as it extends into at least two different subtheories, it garnered skepticism and criticism in the form of those particular nicknames. Simply because you do not think they are accurate doesn't diminish their noteworthyness; they were both used in describing parts of Reaganomics, and so therefore need to be included as criticisms.

The alternative is to purge the specifics of Reaganomics from the article (as I previously suggested), leaving the discussion in the Reaganomics article and offering a link to more information about it in the Reagan article. Frankly, I think that is best. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree that the specifics should be purged in favor of a link to the Reaganomics article; I also think that should be the case for every single other item that is covered too deeply in the Reagan article and which has its own article! Second, I never accused anyone of "left wing" anything, much less a conspiracy. I have no idea where you got that from. Third, I have contributed to this article several times over the past few months, and much of the article was (and some of it still is) inaccurate. And I don't mean about accurate vs verifiable. But that's not the point.

I was not attempting to wade into a wikidebate over accuracy vs verifiability. I was simply correcting an error on your part: in the edit in question, the sentence mentioned (and briefly defined) "trickle-down economics"; your edit equated that with "voodoo economics." When George HW Bush used the term "voodoo economics, it was not in reference to supply-side, or trickle-down, economics; he was referring to a completely different economic claim that Reagan had made: that he could significantly lower federal taxes while increasing federal spending with no negative effect on the economy. The numbers didn't add up, and Bush was calling him on it. Reagan's claim - the one that Bush was criticizing - was not related to the notion that supply-siders put forth, which is that cutting taxes on wealthy individuals and large corporations would provide incentives for them to save and invest, and the effects would eventually be felt by the rest of society (which earned their critics' scorn, and the pejorative "trickle-down" economics). It is incorrect to equate trickle-down with voodoo, because they deal with fundamentally different parts of Reagan's "plan." Bush didn't have a problem with supply-side per se, but he did have a problem with lowering taxes while increasing spending. And by the way, previous poster, Bush never "wholeheartedly supported" Reagan's economic policies - he went along with his rival after losing to him in order to secure a place - any place - on the national ticket.

Finally, your claim that trickle-down and voodoo were parts of Reagan's economic plan (or Reaganomics) is correct (although technically not, since both terms technically were criticisms of the plan, not "parts" of the plan, but we'll go with it). However, I was objecting to your grammar, not the fact that both were parts of the plan. Read the reverted edit as you wanted it, and you will see that you explain supply-side, then claim that critics called supply-side both trickle down and voodoo economics - and that's not really correct. If you're trying to say that since the 1980 primaries, some people have mistakenly conflated the two terms, well, then, perhaps that belongs in the Reaganomics article, but certainly not here (if we're even keeping the section at all). Voodoo was not applied to the supply-side argument, it was applied to the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" fact that Reagan's numbers weren't adding up, and Bush criticized him for that. That's all I was saying. Info999 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Fair enough, On that point of grammar usage, i stand corrected. Why don't we sidestep this sort of misunderstanding again, and purge all but the most topical of Reaganomics and include a link to the article on the subject now? I am not all the wondrous magician at that, so maybe you could work your.....voodoo? (sorry, i couldn't pass up the opportunity - lol) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with the suggestion that the section on Reaganomics be replaced by a single wikilink. Reagan's approach to economics was one of the most important policy initiatives of his Presidency. You don't understand Reagan unless you understand this, and it needs explanation in this article. Wikipedia Summary Style describes how a summary overview should be backed up by an in depth article, and this is done here. I happen to think the current version of the Reaganomics section is reasonably good at both explaining what it was and how it was criticized. It is also balanced, and certainly risks losing that balance without careful editing. It is probably a good piece of writing, if the opposing sides both dislike it. I think things in this section are best left alone, unless editors can point out obvious inaccuracies.--Paul 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations?

I am pretty sure that the info contained in these removed statements are accurate, and that they wre removed a bit too quickly. I am placingthem here, as I think citing them would be pretty easy before reinstating back intot he article:

(from early political career section)

"An admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Reagan supported the New Deal and campaigned for Harry Truman in 1948. During this time he was a member of various liberal groups including Americans for Democratic Action. As late as 1950 he was listed as a supporter of the Senate candidacy of Helen Gahagan Douglas. He later moved rightward, supporting the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and that of Richard Nixon in 1960, as a registered Democrat. "

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a great example of POV pushing in this article. There is a lot of irrelevant fluff in the article, but this certainly is relevant: Reagan wasn't just a disinterested Democrat, he was a DEMOCRAT. No one is drawing conclusions or trying to embarrass him (you know, like, oh, I don't know, connecting the probable dots between Reagan's sudden switch - and it was sudden for someone so involved in Democratic politics - to the Republicans, to the scandal involving Reagan's SAG talent waivers for MCA in the same year), this is just relevant information for any politician who has an article in wiki, and VERY VERY relevant for someone so identified with the Republican Party! But there are POVers here who sniff out the smallest item that they feel is embarrassing or inconvenient, and just like that, it's reverted. I agree with Arcayne that it belongs in the article.Info999 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid that characterization until it becomes the 500-pound gorilla in the room. Let's just find the citations for the statements, clean them up and reinsert them. The article is going to be neutral. Reagan was not the best man in the world, nor was he the worst. he made good decisions and bad ones. In short, he was human. We will portray him as such. Nobody gets to inflate the man beyond his due, and no one gets to tear him down for anything more than what he is responsible for. This is our job. This is what we do. If anyone is not on board with that, Conservapedia and Liberapedia is over there, thataways. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Info's POV-calling is so blown out of proportion. I didn't remove the phrase; an IP did because he/she saw it wasn't cited and this is a featured article. If a citation is found for it (and one probably could be), please add the content in. There's no POV here. Happyme22 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

removed personal attack against Happyme22 by User:Info999 --Happyme22 01:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

As with other presidents, certain nicknames became associated with Ronald Reagan, including:

Dutch
The Gipper
Ronaldus Magnus
Ronald RayGun

In other biographical entries on Wikipedia, nicknames seem to be included in the "InfoBox"

Is there a reason that Reagan's nicknames are not featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.82.138 (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing because most of them amount to triva. Dutch is valid as a nickname, I guess, as is The Gipper, for those who have difficulty distinguishing between movies and real life. I'be never heard of Ronaldus and the RayGun reference was used essentially by children. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne is correct. Happyme22 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"I was there""

The statement about the nazi soldiers and to the Holocaust suriviors is both noteworthy and there are umpteen citations available for that rather famous gaff on the part of Reagan. At best, his remarks are an extraordinarily thoughless mistake. They should be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you and I have spoken about that. Happyme22 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Equated deaths of Jews with deaths of Nazis

A sentence was added saying, "Reagan issued a statement that called the Nazi soldiers "victims" and equated them with the victims of the Holocaust," and was cited with http://www.buchanan.org/pma-99-1105-wallstjl.html.

Here's what the statement released by Reagan (written in the source) said:

"These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."

Now I could see a lot of controversy with these words; when I read this, it astonished me, but right above where the statement was written on the web page, Pat Buchanan, Director of Communications under Reagan (from whose webpage this statement was copied from), says the following:

"President Reagan never equated SS troops and camp victims. He equated the teenage boys Hitler put in uniform and sent to certain death at war's end with concentration camp victims."

So this is somewhat of a controversial sentence, and is not showing both sides. I think Reagan's choice of words was stupid, but I can't change that and history is history. President Reagan did say this so I think it should be mentioned in the article (because it is so astonishing and noteworthy), but I think Pat Buchanan, a Reagan insider who knows a lot about this incident, should be quoted as well. Maybe something like this:

"Reagan issued a statement that called the Nazi soldiers buried in that cemetery "victims" and some say equated them with victims of the Holocaust, but Pat Buchanan, Director of Communications under Reagan, argues: "President Reagan never equated SS troops and camp victims. He equated the teenage boys Hitler put in uniform and sent to certain death at war's end with concentration camp victims." In the end..." and finish the topic. Any thoughts? Happyme22 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made the change. Happyme22 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit regarding the protest by Members of Congress undercuts the importance of the fact that a good number protested. At least some Members of Congress protest everything that a President does, and that fact is not notable; the fact that so many, on both sides of the aisle, decried the visit by Reagan is very notable. Your edit takes the sting out of it for Reagan, making it seem as if it was just another flap. It wasn't. To this day, it is considered by many to be not only the most shameful act of Reagan's presidency, but the most shameful of any American president in regards to the Holocaust since the end of the war. The level of Congressional participation in the protest should be returned to the article. Info999 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the numbers back. Happyme22 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan top=

This article is awesome!!!. Exactly what you'd want for an article on any president or leader. This should be used as a role model ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

The edit war needs to end, discuss the problems and come up with a consensus, I couldn't care less since it is not really that important to me but this is a serious problem. Both sides need to present their case and if Operation Spooner doesn't want to cooperate he should be blocked for a short time until he agrees to stop edit warring.--Southern Texas 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it an "edit war." It's just run-of-the-mill editing. What is wrong with someone making changes and another person deleting the changes? That's Wikipedia. Do you want or expect a static article? That can never happen, because this is Wikipedia. I've already mentioned several times that I'm willing to discuss my changes here if anyone wants to, but no one deleting my changes has said anything here. You're the first one to mention anything here but unfortunately you're not an involved party in this. As far as any "consensus" as far as I know there is one, because my changes was agreed to here as well as in the vote for Featured article. But even then there is no rule that I'm aware of that says there has to be a consensus first in order to put something in an article. What is the point of obtaining a consensus anyway if it's only good for that day? The next day everything is back to square one, as we've seen. So what's it for? Just to pretend that something permanent is being accomplished? Seems like a naive and childish quest. I've already said that I don't care if anyone reverts my additions because I'm willing to share this article with others. I have no ambitions to monopolize it, to keep it the way I want it. As long as my edit stands for just a few minutes out of a day or two I'm satisfied. What more could one ask for on Wikipedia? Asking anything more out of Wikipedia seems really stupid and a waste of time. Operation Spooner 05:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is an edit war. Maybe at a time before the article became featured - when you and I agreed to put part of what you were saying in the lead - concensus had been reached. Since then at least two other editors have joined the team (User:Arcayne and User:Info999) and after Arcayne redid much of the lead, sufficient room became scarce, and a new concensus vote showed that the sentence(s) about his philosophy should not be said in the lead, but rather in the body of the article (like Arcayne did in the "Governor" section). So concensus was reached, but with all due respect you seem to be the odd-man-out and won't follow the rules of Wiki and the obvious fact that a place in the aricle has been found to tell readers about his philosphy and beleifs (in this case it's in the "Governor" section), and that's where you information currently resides. Happyme22 17:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about an "edit war." I certainly don't feel like I'm in a war. Secondly, I'm not aware of any "new consensus vote." And, I would not accept the vote of a few editors here as a determination of consensus. It would have to be the larger community to get a feel of the consensus. Thirdly, you accuse me of not following Wikipedia rules. I would like to see a Wikipedia rule that says someone has to obtain a consensus before they put material in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's simply a matter of logging in and changing something. So, what rule do you accuse me of breaking? Operation Spooner 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:CONSENSUS would be the obvious one...--Rise Above The Vile 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to anything in there that says a person has to obtain a consensus before he makes a change to an article? I don't believe there's any such rule. Operation Spooner 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and Spooner knows that more than any of us. Spooner is only doing this to get a rise out of everyone and to make a stink simply to make a stink. He or she is being rude for no reason, being aggressive, and acting indefensibly in the face of overwhelming logic and facts (ironic, really, when you consider Spooner's politics, no?  :) ). It is the wide consensus of the editors who have devoted far more time to this article than anyone else (including Spooner) that the information not be repeated, and therefore not be included in the lead. Further, it is not "neutral" to make such a political statement in the lead. Continually adding it into the lead not only goes against WP:CONSENSUS but is against WP:NPOV. This is from WP:CONSENSUS:

"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject."

Spooner is neither being reasonable nor making good faith efforts. To continue to fight with him/her is to give him/her what he/she wants. Either report Spooner or shun Spooner. Enough time has been wasted on this troll. Info999 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm doing is point out that I don't have to get anyone's permission before I put something Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit. All you have to do is log in, hit the edit button, and change something. A few here are trying to say it is a rule that a person has to obtain a consensus before he makes a change to an article. It's just not true. I may be new but I'm so naive as to fall for that. If you want to report me, go right ahead. It should be interesting. Operation Spooner 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Continually readding bits without consensus is disruptive, it is considered edit warring which is not acceptable here. I promise you if you keep readding the same information without any discussion and without a consensus you will be blocked. If you feel the information should be included discuss why and maybe it will be readded with consensus. The way you currently are going about it will only led to you being blocked and the information being left out. Rather than explaining your actions which everybody considers an obvious violation of wikipedia policies, please explain to us why you think the information should be readded to the lead.--Southern Texas 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Info999 and Arcayne on most points, and applaud their editing to this article, I'm getting awfully frustrated with them. Not because of the edits or the subjects, but because of their blatant attacks on Operation Spooner, and other self-proclaimed Reagan fans. I am not defending any actions or edits, but it frankly discourages me completely from trying to contribute to this article because of the way other editors are treated. I am worried that by contributing to any kind of discussion, I will be labeled a "Reagonite" and someone who is obviously not intelligent enough to know the real facts about Reagan.

I don't care how awful Operation Spooner is. Both of you accuse him of trying to put his pro-Reagan politics into the article. Which may be true. But from an outsider's standpoint, who's been reading all this arguing for weeks, both Info999 and Arcayne come off as extremely anti-Reagan. In fact, more than one rant has been written about how awful he was, with no real helpful discussion on how to improve the article. Now, I'm sorry, but that doesn't give me much good faith in the edits of those editors either. Because they are CLEARLY vehemently anti-Reagan, and it severely discourages me when I have to read stupid rants against him on a talk page. You don't like him, we get it. You don't like Spooner, we get it. There is NO NEED to personally attack him OR REAGAN (whom the article is about) because of his "obvious pro-Reagan stance", especially when these two editors are so obviously anti-Reagan, but no one is accusing them of putting their politics into the article.

So again, I want to reiterate that I support the current edits to the article. But please, when writing notes on the talk page, STOP attacking editors, and for God's sake STOP with the plain ranting against the article's subject. It puts a bad face on Wikipedia, and it discourages potential other discussion because some of us don't want to get into a fight if we happen to have different politics than some. Thank you, Stanselmdoc 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above these statements by Stanselmdoc, nobody is attacking Reagan or the user in question, we are just trying to develop a consensus and an end to edit wars. Stanselmdoc is apparently addressing a completely different matter and perhaps this should be in a different section of this talk page.--Southern Texas 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc: I think you've misread some things. First, I don't think anything I've written in the discussion could be fairly described as a "rant" or as "anti-Reagan." More important, though, is the fact that nothing I've edited in the Reagan article can be construed as having a particular bent in any political direction. Simply because I disagree on some edits with people who self-identify as Reagan supporters does not make me a Reagan-basher. It would be incorrect to assume that anyone who wishes to balance an article and to fight against the whitewashing of someone's reputation as being "anti" them. Second, I think far too many people mistake criticism of an editor's actions on wiki with "personal attacks." If you denigrate, mock, or make fun of someone because of a characteristic they have - the way they look, sound, dress; what they believe in politically, spiritually, etc.; how they express themselves; you are attacking them personally. If you criticize an editor's actions on wiki - especially if those actions appear to violate wiki policies - and you do not include the above attacks on their individual characteristics, it is not a "personal attack." Do I think we all need to take deep breaths and step back from this a bit? Absolutely. Arcayne rightly suggested it and we did so this weekend. But to accuse us of personally attacking and calling into question other editors' intelligence (something I have never seen in discussions on this page) is plain wrong. Info999 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already discussed why I put the information in there. Read up above. It just comes down to a Info999 and Arcayne don't like it, and I do. That sums it up. Like I said, I'm open to discussing the material with anyone who wants. Here I am waiting for arguments against the addition of the material. But, I'm not going to be intimidated to refrain from putting information in the article. And I'm not going to be fooled with the claim that a person needs prior permission from other editors before they make changes to an article. If someone doesn't like what someone else puts in, they can simply delete it. But apparently a few here want more. They want to prevent me from making changes to the article unless they first agree to them. Sorry but that's not a Wikipedia rule. That's attempted monopolization of the article. Operation Spooner 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't really completely understand policy. Wikipedia is built on concensus, edit warring is not acceptable and constantly readding information is edit warring and after a while as in your case it becomes disruptive. What you are doing is disruptive. Don't be immature and wait for others to discuss this. Like I have already said don't explain your rationale explain why the bits should be readded. Don't tell me to look for it because I want it to be listed right here. That is why I started this discussion. If you want to continue to dispute wikipedia policy it will only make matters worse for your readditions and for your future on wikipedia.--Southern Texas 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "edit warring." Please show evidence of edit warring, whatever that is. And, more importantly, if I put something in the ariticle and someone else deletes it, then why would I be edit warring and not them? It does not add up. And why is me putting material in the article "disruptive," but someone else deleting the material is not disruptive? Again, the claim does not add up when you single me out. If you want to see my arguments for the addition of the material look under "Problems with the Lead" above. If you have a problem with it, then please state your objection. I'm open to be convinced not to put the material in the article, and always have been. But there is no policy on Wikipedia that says I have to refrain from putting information in an article until I get prior permission from other editors. Operation Spooner 03:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, go away for the weekend, and all heck breaks out on into a pub crawl. I'm rather glad that this finally came to a head, although I rather wish that Spoon had been the one to initiate it - more than a few editors asked him to bring his arguments to the discussion page at least twice each. Ech time, he failed to do so, continuing to re-add the precise edits that he claims to have made prior, defending them on the grounds that they were what was approved when the article went GA. As well, he argues that by re-adding the same material, he is neither edit-warring nor violating any WP policy.

Of course, SouthernTex pointed out the obvious flaws of these arguments, and I will just touch on them here, as Spoon seems to have missed the point. The editing process (as it pertains to Wikipedia) means that one editor offers an edit, and others change it or leave it be as satisfactory. When the new edit changes something, it is with the idea that it is improving the article. Now, the argument can be raised 'well, what if it doesn't improve the article?' This is where something called consensus comes into play. The presumption is that most people tend to be reasonable, like-minded folk. They may not share the same ideology or belief systems, but they pretty much can agree on what is good writing and what is not. This common sense (as I'll call it) is helped along by WP policies, which pretty much set the boundaries and goals as to what we should be aiming for as final product.

Consensus is one of there. If someone makes an edit you don't like, you offer an alternative, or you argue why the previous edit was vastly better. Usually, if a number of people agree with the new edit, it becomes consensus - even if that equals only two or three editors. Looking at the consensus flowchart, it gives us an excellent illustration as to how consensus is formed.

The problem with Spoon's editing behavior was that it failed to follow this process. It offered the same edit day in, day out. This sort of action doesn't seek consensus; it says to the other editors that he doesn't care what edits they make, he is going to revert it back "whenever he gets around to it."

I have no doubt that Spoon doesn't believe he is being disruptive, as Wikipedia is in a "constant state of flux". What he has missed on more than one occasion that his edit doesn't seek consensus - he is going to add it whenever he wants with the full knowledge that it will be reverted immediately. there is no talk of attempting to even try to create a new edit that folk can agree with. As he says that the Lead statements he keeps adding are his, this imnplies an ownership issue which is decidedly inappropriate in any article. That in itself is bad, but its excusable, as Spoon is admittedly a newbie. He doesn't need our permission to try out a new edit - note that I said new - but he does need to justify continually replacing the same edit. If an edit replaced the previous version, he needs to make an attempt to convince those of us supporting the change why it was better the previous way. the place to do that is NOT in the edit summary, but - as he was asked numerous times by numerous editors - in the Discussion page, as it allows for adequate replies not limited by the two lines of an edit summary. It wasn't that Spoon didn't do this; he specifically chose to even attempt this. By my reckoning, that's a failure to assume good faith, and failing to do that tends to get an editor marginalized by those who don't receive that good faith assumption.

The long and the skinny of this is that it was decided that the Lead needed changing, and it was changed, in accordance to WP:Consensus. The previous Lead was not an adequate summary of the man but instead was - again, tomy reckoning - a hyper-idealization of the man's supposed political philosophy, and not a summary of the man's life. My understanding that biographies are supposed ot focus on the individual first, and the accomplishments, views, etc, second. The previous Lead did not do that, and was revised because of it. To reinstate the same phrases over and over again, without deigning to discuss the edit paints the editor doing so as disruptive, and makes him/her ripe for blocking/banning. I don't want to see Spoon blocked. He clearly has some polarizing political views, but those are necessary in the editorial process, so as to balance out more liberal influences, which I guess I am part of (though I do make considerable effort to give everyone their due). It is through the discussion part of the editorial process that better articles and better editors are made. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you’re right, Southern Texas, I should have moved my comment to a different part of the talk page, I apologize. It’s more of it’s own topic. But I still believe the point I am making is valid. There have been things said on this talk page that are unnecessary and rude. Despite good efforts on their part to remain unbiased, editors here are rude to other editors for voicing their opinions.

For instance, Arcayne has said: "The point is: trim the article's Lead, or it will be trimmed harshly by others not as in love with Reagan. Capiscé?...And, for the good of our working relationship, stop talking about the guy as if hw were the returned Messiah. He wasn't." This first sentence almost sounds like a threat, and the last sentence, IMO, is attacking this editor. So someone likes Reagan. It’s demeaning to say that the way someone talks about the subject is "as if he were the returned Messiah", just because he likes him. I don’t go to Clinton’s page and argue with pro-Clinton editors about the way they talk about him. And I don’t call their edits to the Clinton page "whitewashing" and POV-pushing. But Info999, has implied just that: "But there are POVers here who sniff out the smallest item that they feel is embarrassing or inconvenient, and just like that, it's reverted." This kind of language is discouraging to Reagan-supporting editors, who may want to honestly discuss changes. It’s upsetting to read that any dispute they may have with edits will be labeled as "POVers" who are "sniffing out the smallest item" that they feel is "embarrassing or inconvenient".

Maybe for Info999 I am reading into what he says, and if that’s what has happened, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. But Arcayne?:

"Okay. I think a lot of people are thrown by the dewy-eyed recollections of the older farts, who recall how the Republican Party nearly crumbled after Nixon's Grand Crazy Train drove off a cliff. ... Reagan truly revitalized the Party that was clearly nearing its deathbed. Gotta give the Gip props for that. Republican parents tell their little Republican-ettes about how Ronnie saved us from communism and whatnot, and all of the sudden, he's the Biggest Pimp on the Block. He gets things named after him because he was all about championing Big Business (guess who pays for those lobbying efforts to rename airports and the like?). Its no wonder folk get confused. Oops, did I leave my Rant on? Sorry. ;)" Okay, this entire edit is a rant, and Arcayne even admits it. There’s literally no reason for it, other than he felt it necessary to rant against the article’s subject? I’m sorry, but as much as I like his edits, saying stuff like this does not give me good faith in his ability to make objective edits.

"Thirdly, after he was elected, he backed off the policy significantly (as noted by those too-tightly-wound sycophants at the Heritage Foundation)." "Too-tightly-wound sycophants" is derisive and offensive to those affiliated with an organization. An editor should not generalize those associated with the Heritage Foundation as sycophants, but even more importantly, comments like these are completely unnecessary and they damage Arcayne’s reputation as an NPOV editor.

"Good to know that some of this partisan love can be set aside for the good of the article. : )" Is there even a point to saying something like this? Other than accusing pro-Reagan editors of pushing POV?

I am bewildered by the comments, despite my approval of their edits. I'm nervous as it is just typing this. I don’t see how these statements do anything but discourage honest discussion between opposing views. Stanselmdoc 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will be helpful: Stanselmdoc - can you please provide a few examples from Arcayne's - or my - edits to the actual article (not to the discussion page) that you think demonstrates clear bias? I understand your point about how rough a discussion page can be, and think we can all pull back somewhat. But there is a significant difference between what someone says on the Talk page and what someone edits in the article. Happyme and I have gone a few rounds on Talk pages about bias, but when it comes to making edits, we each - Arcayne included - make our cases using wiki policies and sourced information and come to a consensus. Are there items in the article that Happy would rather not have in? Probably. Are there items or descriptions of events that I would rather see become more neutral - or balanced in criticism? Yes. Does that make our edits - the ones we discuss and come to a consensus on - suspect? I don't think so. But I would be willing to read what you have to say if you could provide examples of actual edits in the article itself (and not the Talk page) that you think display bias, because those are really what matter. It can be a Reagan love-or hate-fest on the Talk page, but it has to be NPOV sourced relevant information in the article itself. I may have done things on Talk pages in ways I wish to change the next time there's disagreement, but (for this article) I find myself in the role of an editor who roots out POV, some of which used to be (IMO) blatant in this article. That doesn't make me a Reagan-hater, or someone who personally attacks. I also believe that neither Arcayne nor myself have made a blanket accusation that anyone who is pro-Reagan is automatically pushing POV; heck, I don't think the majority of Happy's edits are POV-pushing (any more :) ). But there is a difference between supporting someone and going over the line in order to make them look good (or better). That has happened in this article. Information that is embarrassing has been deleted or softened, information and language that is laudatory has been added, and sources whose neutrality is in dispute have been used - in most of these cases, I think, deliberately. I do not believe, however, that information or sources have been deliberately used in the opposite direction - in order to add negative POV or unfairly criticize without citations. I look forward to reading what you have to say, though. Thanks. Info999 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Info pretty much covered what I was going to say, but without all my hip commentary. Note that I don't like Reagan or his policies (and have never tried to straw-man my way out of that position), but I still make sure that no clown of either stripe messes with the article. You don't have to believe that my edits are objective, but until you squeeze my shoes about it, I will make sure you have the right to say it. If you think I am too aggressive on the Discussion page, you might be right. However, I despise partisanship and POV presented inthe article, and it just gets my blood up to see it. Forgive all the aggro. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say I'm here waiting to discuss? If you have a problem with my edit then what is it? One thing I do not have to do is refrain from putting the edit in until you personally give me permission to put it in. We can discuss it while it's in the article. If me putting it in is "disruptive" then you taking it out is equally disruptive. I don't think either is disruptive. This is Wikipedia. People take things out, put things back in, and change things. There is nothing disruptive about doing the very thing that Wikipedia is designed to allow. It seems to me you're just trying to pressure me not to put my edits in the article in order to save yourself the trouble of deleting them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What's absurd is that behind all this posturing on your part seems to be the intent or expectation that you can make a Wikipedia article stable. That notion just seems absurd. Why would you even try? Do you plan on living on Wikipedia to make sure that articles are the way you want them to be? I don't understand. Wikipedia articles are best so long as they are constantly changing, in my opinion. An article says one thing one minute, and another thing the next. Otherwise there is a stagnation and assumption of infallibility that is contrary to what I think the nature of Wikipedia is supposed to be. The articles should be shared in that way, instead of the monopolization or ownership that it seems you are trying to achieve. Operation Spooner 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lead (2) (arbitrary break)

(edit conflict)Please take the time to re-read what all the editors have written above, Spoon. Putting in the precise same edit is disruptive, especially when it has clearly been rejected by your fellow editors. Putting in a rejected edit is - by definition - disruptive. While Wikipedia is always changing, the aim is for it to improve. A majority of editors felt that your edit was not an improvement, as per WP:LEAD. I am trying to maintain the assumption of good faith, but your consistent offering of a rejected edit is in fact a bad faith edit. You have stated your intention to keep adding precisely the same edit until we apparently get too tired to revert it. Clearly, you think Wikipedia is a game of stamina, and that so long as you offer your written edit (that's kinda the definition of an ownership issue - the one you were accusing of me and others of having), you will eventually win out.

Allow me to express clearly what has to happen here:

• either you have to convince us (not the other way around, btw) that the edit you wrote is more valid in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia (Lead, disruption, etc.),
• you have to offer a different edit each time to seek consensus, as per the eponymous policy, or
• you might want to find a way to learn how your edits aren't always going to be the ones we decide to use.

My understanding of wikipedia is that you are treading some very, very thin ice on the way to being blocked for beign disruptive. I really don't want to see that happen, but if you remain obdurate in this matter, I see that happening sooner rather than later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me just first inform you that your threats, such as "you are treading some very, very thin ice on the way to being blocked for beign disruptive," don't have any effect on me, because I'm not violating any policies, so you might as well save the scares tactics. And no I do not think Wikipedia is a "is a game of stamina" and I will eventually "win out." First of all. I don't look at Wikipedia as a game, though maybe you do. I'm not looking to win anything at all. I don't aspire for my changes to be permanent in articles. I already said that I don't mind if anyone deletes my changes. So I'm not trying to accomplish anything other than to insert an improvement in an article which I don't feel I have any rational reason to presume or expect it to last any more than a few minutes. I think everyone should have that attitude. In a fully populated Wikipedia, that's what I would expect, constant change. This goal which you seem to have of making sure an article accords to the way you want it permanently, I do not see a rational basis for. I for one don't plan on spending all day long and years on Wikipedia to make sure that my changes stay. That's nothing short of childish and what a waste of time! Since I'm not trying to make me change stay for any considerable length of time, there is no reason for me to convince you of anything. I have no problem with you deleting my edits. If you don't like my edits, and you don't want them there, then it's up to you to convince me not to put them there, or simply delete them.. So far, your attempts to stop me from editing, through threats of reporting me and what not, has not convinced me that what Reagan advocated economically does not belong in the introduction. Operation Spooner 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't get it, and I for one am a bit tired of having to reinvent the wheel for you every time we talk. No, I wasn't threateneing you. No, your edits are not helpful and are instead disruptive. Yes, I am sure yoiu haven't read the polices that myself and others are polite enough to wikilink for you, so that your knowledge of how consensus and indeed Wikipedia works requires the barest minimum of effort on your part. And no, I don't expect you to grasp that concept. And finally, no, I don't expect you to thank us. Sad, really. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. I get it all too well. Wikipedia introduction says: "Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." I don't see anything about having to obtain permission from a small set of other editors who are trying to control an article. I think you're trying to turn Wikipedia into some kind of forced collectivism, or convince me that it is, when it's actually it's very individualistic and anti-authoritarian. Everyone is allowed to make changes to an article without having to obtain permission from any other individual or collective. Your attempt to keep the article constantly the way you want it by convincing me otherwise is a good try, but I'm just not that naive. Operation Spooner 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(Typing with elbows, as I am using both hands to hold both my tongue and my temper). Okay, whatever. We are all just big, bad bullies trying to control wikipedia. I am going to simply disengage until you learn a lot more about Wikipedia's policies. I hope its sooner rather than later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my point got across about the talk page, but I want to clarify Arcayne and Info999, that I don't have a dispute with the edits you have made to the actual article. I'm sorry that I came across that way; I was trying hard to show that I actually agree with the edits you have made (in fact I welcome them), but that the attitude I have perceived from the talk pages has worried me that if, in the event that I didn't like an edit of yours, I wouldn't be able to discuss it without being labeled a POV-pusher. But now that I've kind of shown my face and presented my immediate thoughts (and seen your reactions), I'm not worried. I respect the balance you are trying to bring to the Reagan article. Stanselmdoc 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, Stans. We are not trying to blacklist anyone's edits (except for the vandals that think Reagan was the antichrist, which of course everyone knows Karl Rove was - j/k lol). The problem presented was that the same edit was being continually introduced, and after its been rejected, it's just disruptive and lame to do that. I am sorry if some of wearyness of folk treating WP like a game of endurance rather than a test of quality made me kin da snippy at you, here's a nice warm, fuzzy apology. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC) -

Aww, Arcayne! And I even laughed out loud at work at your antichrist reference. Stanselmdoc 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA

So which edit was it that the CIA made to this article? IvoShandor 09:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An innocuous one (grammatical):. However, this one is much more interesting, IMO. Info999 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but these edits by them seem innocuous (I mean, the 'more interesting' edit is almost 3 years old). Were they not identified as being from a CIA server, we wouldn't give them a glance. You can bet your bippy that traffic outward is monitored pretty heavily. It isn't as if we are going to see state secrets sneak into Wikipedia. Seriously, now. lol. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about secrets - it's about vanity. 99% of all wiki edits that "come from" identified organizations are just the average worker editing their favorite (babylon five) article, nothing to do with the organization for which they work. The few, though, that have any connection to the organization are the ones to examine more closely...which is why someone (unidentified) from the CIA poo-pooing casualty figures from Iraq is...at least entertaining, if not...interesting. Info999 16:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Info. However, it wasn't as if the user wasn't parroting what every Bushie and pentagon politico wasn't saying before. However, it is amusing. I wonder if a worker at CIA has ever added an edit to the CIA article. Now that would be interesting, indeed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we might not know it if they used a masked IP, but someone at the CIA did do this one here, as well as making a lot of small edits to various articles related to the CIA and the intelligence community (some more picky than others. Persons at the CIA made these edits, though - and they are interesting, in a small way: [4], [5] and [6]. Info999 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spooner's Edit

Spooner thinks that everyone agrees with him, and that he's justified in vandalizing this article every day. So here is an "official" discussion about his edit.

Remove: I do not believe that Spooner's edit to the lead should remain, and I do believe that it should be reverted. Permanently. Besides the fact that the information is already in the article (making his edit redundant), according to wiki policy, that kind of information doesn't belong in the lead. It is my considered opinion that it be removed, and that this issue be resolved. Further, it is my opinion that if it is the consensus of the editors here that Spooner's edit be removed, and Spooner continues to vandalize the article, Spooner should be reported and blocked. I would appreciate it (I think we would all appreciate it) if you could voice your opinion here, so that we may establish the consensus (you know, the thing we already established?...but this will look better in our request to block him). What say you all? Info999 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Remove: the statements do not follow WP:LEAD in that they do not give an appropriate overview of the article, and instead hyper-focus on matters of policy that were utilized during 8 years of the man's 90+ year-long life. As well, musch of the substance of his edit have already been incorporated in the body of the article, where it belongs (I did that myself). The continued re-adding violates two distinct policies within Wikpedia:

• WP:CONSENSUS - failing to seek a new consensus for an edit which has already been dedicded against by at least three different editors, and commented upon by at least one admin;
• WP:OWN - in that the edits that Spooner continually tries to add are those that he has admitted were of his own creation. No one owns any part of Wikiepdia, and;
• WP:POINT - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. His updated comments in both the Discussion page and his User Talk page illustrate a desire to prove that no edit in Wikipedia makes any difference, incorrectly suggest that the very idea of a stable article is a fallacy, and that even attempting to render an article stable is an act of ownership. That the comments on his User Talk page, immediately added after his article edit is reverted (here, here and here) easily constitute thinly-veiled WP:NPA don't directly affect this discussion, they do give credence to the idea that this has become a specifically personal discussion for this fairly new user (only active since July 10th of this year). New users are particularly prone to taking article edits too seriously, and usually counseling is called for. However, counseling has failed in every case here, and in fact are perceived as attacks by the user. A block may become inevitable, so as to both protect the article and to give the user an object lesson in the repercussions for repeatedley and flagrantly violating policies.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll just move it out of the body and into the introduction so it isn't repeated. I disagree about the consensus. Consider how many people view this article. There's really only two people that have been removing my edit over and over. There is tacit approval by everyone that reads and edits the article that doesn't remove my edit. Considering all the people that don't remove the edit and the extreme few that do, I would say consensus is on my side. Moreover, to get a solid idea of consensus would require putting this issue to a larger community vote, rather than just a small group of editors for this article. In addtion, as I've indicated before, I don't mind if anyone reverts any of my edits. I accept this as part and parcel of Wikipedia. To get upset about someone reverting one's edits is really immature in my opinion. It's silly to try to assert ownership of an article. Finally, I'm tired of all these threats about reporting me and blocking me to try to keep me from editing. Why you don't you just go ahead and report me? I'd like to see the results of that. I'm not violating any policies, not edit warring, nothing. Just editing Wikipedia. Operation Spooner 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: To begin with, silence from others doesn't imply consent with your edit, esp. when a number of factors might prevent them from speaking up, specifically a lack of endurance. Secondly, you seem to continually keep refusing to get the point. You don't offer a new edit that might be more acceptable to your peers editing here, and you apparently refuse to follow the instructions of both editors and admins who ask you to stop being disruptive. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't really the ideal fit for your personality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Define "disruptive." Operation Spooner 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe follow the link above, the one called 'refusing to get the point.' - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What point? Where does policy say that I have to get authorization from you and a few other editors of this article in order to add informative information to it? Operation Spooner 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, the policy called WP:CONSENSUS. If you find that an edit you introduce is not getting through, you seek an alternative; you don't continually add the same one. This isn't the first time this has been pointed out to you, and pretty much the definition of refusing to get the point. We are simply tired of having to reinvent the wheel each time we engage with you. Allow me to use small words: consensus says if more of us disagree with your edit, your edit cannot stay. It cannot be re-added. Please, ask an admin to explain how WP works. We have better things to do than to keep explaining things to you. Don't get me wrong - just because we have beter things to do doesn't mean we can't make time to keep the article in good shape - I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can certainly out-endure your obstinance. I won't be worn down. Perhaps you can write a whole new thinly-veiled personal attack on your user page about how very, very mean I am for not allowing you to WP:OWN the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking to own the article. I'm looking for the opposite. I'm looking to share the article. As I said, I don't mind if anyone reverts my edits. I acutally prefer it, so that content can be dynamic instead of stagnant. So this claim of yours that I'm trying to own the ariticle is false. I'm not the one trying to make the article stay in any particular configuration or with any particular content. It's clear that you are trying to enforce that kind of thing, however. That's a burden you've imposed on yourself. Operation Spooner 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be bold and edit this page. Let's assume good faith. This page is not for bashing another editor, it is for discussing the articles content. It's not necessary to get a consensus to make an edit, you can just do it. NPOV is the overarching policy. It simply means that an article, including the introduction, shoul have a balanced POV. Mytwocents 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think perhaps you are missing the point. The edit being added in is not new. It is the same edit he has been adding repeatedly for over 3 weeks - exactly the same edit, despite the fact that at least three other editors and an admin have asked him to stop, as disruptive point.
As well, following your interpretation that NPOV is the "overarching policy", the edit in question still cannot be allowed, as it presents information in the Lead that is best left to the body of the article itself. Following the examples of other president biographies, the detailed explanations of their policies are not included in the Lead - for WP:LEAD clearly stupilates that info in the Lead is to be an overview, and nothing more. the Lead that replaced Spoon's fulfilled that criteria. The Lead that Spoon continually tries to add is the one he wrote for the article. Clearly, we aren't asking for consensus for a new edit - it's the very same edit, offered again and again, after we have already decided against it - in favor of a balanced view.
And it is agreed that this page is not supposed to be for singling out any editor's mistakes, no matter how many times he makes precisely the same one. I would also imagien that using one's User page to snipe at other editors (and updated after every post here) is probably not too kosher either. Good faith doesn't excuse bad behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A concensus was reached to remove the edit a long time ago, so the only one not following good faith is Spooner. Happyme22 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove - I thought this discussion was over! WP:CONCENSUS is not being followed here, and the rules of WP:LEAD are not being enacted here. I've already explained my case for removal thorughly on this talk page, so I'm not going to say it again, but a concensus has been reached (please don't say that's not true) and the philosophy is already in the "Governor" section. Happyme22 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way let's move on. Systematical removing this phrase "He advocated less government regulation of the economy, spoke against the welfare state, and argued that people should be allowed to keep most of the money they make from being taxed" from the lead serves Little purpose. It describes Reagan accurately. I have a pretty good picture of what's going on here. The name calling and threats need to stop. Let's get back to editing. That probably means moving on to another article, this featured article has reached a mature state and doesn't invite changes in content. This argument about the lead strikes me as little more than how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. In other words it'a a made up argument about a non-issue. Let's move on. Mytwocents 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove - And thank you, Info999, for drawing my attention to this discussion. While I wouldn't actually have a problem with it in the lead, I agree with Mytwocents that the information serves little purpose, particularly when reading through the body of the article, the information can be found. Leads should be as all-encompassing and as succinct as possible. Stanselmdoc 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think Spooner has a point - the lead says nothing about what "Reaganomics" means. A brief explanation would help. However, I think the 30-or-so word suggested summary is too long for the lead (and, it doesn't seem supported by the CFR link). Perhaps something like: ...his policies limiting government regulation of the economy being dubbed "Reaganomics." Compare James Monroe, where the lead describes the Monroe Doctrine in about 6 words. Gimmetrow 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Info999; the information User:Operation Spooner has repeatedly inserted does not belong in the lead. Frankly, I don't find it to be that informative at all, as it gives no information about anything he actually did, just what he said. Spooner, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the point of Wikipedia is to edit the articles incessantly, but its not. Furthermore, I, and several other editors, have pointed out that you are violating WP:CONSENSUS; please read it. While it doesn't state that a user has to obtain a consensus before editing an article, it does state that when there is a disagreement over an edit (such as uh...now!) the editors involved need to discuss it, not reinsert the material repeatedly. You obviously want this material in the lead, please discuss why it should be in the lead, not just insist that you have the right to put it there.--Rise Above The Vile 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that it doesn't belong in the intro. Reaganomics is linked to another WP article and there's a subsection on this. There's also some question about the content. "Argued that people should be allowed to keep more of what they make" seems a little fluffy. Most of the Reagan cuts were supply-side in nature, targeting the higher brackets. The lower quintiles actually paid more as a percentage of their income due to a payroll tax hike. Gmb92 05:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS There you have it: all of the major editors of this article over the past several months have discussed it. While there was one dissent, A CONSENSUS HAS BEEN FOUND. The lead should not include Spooner's edits. Further, if Spooner continues making these or similarly disruptive edits he will be blocked. Spooner, you may not like it or agree with it, but this is how this is done on wikipedia. Live and learn. I think we all welcome your edits if they conform to wiki's regulations. If that doesn't suit you, there are plenty of conservative/libertarian sites that don't care a whit for balance, NPOV, reliable sources, consensus, honest debate, civility, history, logic, fact and reason; perhaps one of those sites would better serve your purposes, which do not seem to be in line with wikipedia's purpose. In any case, good luck. In order to retain the privilege of editing on wikipedia, you should accept the WP:CONSENSUS of the editors and refrain from your disruptive tactics. Thanks to all who participated in this (hopefully concluded) object lesson. Info999 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You try to stop the survey after one day. That's not a determination of consensus, especially when almost no one on Wikipedia is even aware of this little survey. Even if a majority disagreed with me, I reserve the right to disagree with the majority. Nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia is designed such that an editor doesn't have to get majority consent in order to put something in an article. If someone doesn't like what someone puts in they can simply remove it. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Operation Spooner 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat my argument to include the information again. It's very simple. The economic vision that a president advocates is essential, especially for Reagan since it was a sharp contrast to the status quo at the time. He ran on the advocacy of a drastic reduction in taxes, reduction of the welfare state, and deregulation. This is crucial to knowing what he was about and therefore belongs in the introduction. Convince me that I'm wrong to think this and I won't put it there. Operation Spooner 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't find the material you're inserting to be very informative. Your version states, "advocating less government regulation of the economy, speaking against the welfare state, and arguing that people should be allowed to keep most of the money they make from being taxed,though it is arguable to what extent this economic vision was achieved while in office." Um...ok. What does that mean? He got up a gave speeches about lowering taxes, cutting welfare programs and removing economic regulations. Thats all it tells us. It does not tell us what he actually did. If he significantly cut taxes, mention that. If he made massive cuts welfare programs and removed numerous government regulations, put that in the lead. When I read a lead about a politician, I want to know what he did, not what his speech writers had him say.--Rise Above The Vile 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should also by a summary of what he accomplished, such as lowering income taxes drastically. It's still important to know what he aimed for economically. Operation Spooner 01:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoon, you bitched about not seeing any consensus. You have since participated in one, and you were unanimously voted down.

Yes, you are allowed to have your own opinion, but this isn't Romper Room, sport. You don't get to throw your edit tantrum when you don't get your way. You are going to have to learn with it; spank your inner child, go buy a gallon of Chunky Monkey and eat your sadness away, whatever. With the consensus against you, you don't get to reintroduce the same info that we have collectlively decided goes bye-bye. Add it again, and you can add to your user page 'advice for newbies' the experience of how it feels to be blocked for edit-warring. You've used up your quotient of AGF with me, and I will lead the charge to have you blocked or banned. Ask an admin if its an idle threat, sport. Your games end here and now, or they end by admin fiat. Clear? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Your threats to try keep me from editing the article are not a good enough reason for editors, including myself, to not note in in the introduction what Reagan advocated economically. You should argue the about the content rather than making threats. Reasoned arguments are what matters...not threats. 2. I've seen at least four people who indicated that they liked the edit, either by putting it back in or saying so explicitly. The little survey was not an adequate determination of consensus, as I explained. First of all, the larger Wikipedia community was not surveyed. Second of all, only a few editors of this article expressed their opinon on the matter and you and your friend concluded the survey in one day. Thirdy, most, by default, who view this article don't mind the information being there since they leave it there. It's right there in the introduction, so don't tell me they don't see it when it's there. 3. Even in an adequate determination of consensus, there is no Wikipedia policy that says an editor has to obtain permission from a consensus to add information to Wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." If the consensus doesn't like something, they're free to delete it, and will. I have no problem with that. It doesn't make sense to expect an article to stay the way you, or I, want it permanently unless we plan on living on Wikipedia, and consequently having no life, to make sure of that. I don't know about you, but you can count me out on that prospect. I have no interest in wasting a tremendous amount of time trying to monopolize, or own, articles. 4. Your threats are have long gotten old. Either do what you keep threatening or stop the threats, because they're not intimidating me. If you think you can "report" me to forcibly prevent me from adding referenced and neutral point of view information to this article then I don't see what's stopping you. If that helps your extremely small clique to maintain a monopoly over the article, then why not just block me instead of just threatening it over and over? Operation Spooner 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to life, back to reality

(With Gmb92's permiossion, I've moved his edit to here from a section above, where it was buried before the consensus 'discussion' went into high gear)

To add to the popularity issue, the statement "He was one of America's most popular presidents" is not clearly supported by the information in the article. First, the basic standard measure of popularity is approval/disapproval. Approval ratings are only reliably available for presidents since WW2. Thus, based on this standard measure, we can only accurately make a statement about popularity of post-WW2 presidents. The article puts his average approval rating at 57% and disapproval at 39%. Post-WW2, the average approval rating was about 55% for all presidents. A 2% difference is insignificant. Reagan had some ups and downs but was generally in the middle.

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-08-bush-approval-rating_N.htm
• http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html?printVersion=true

Another argument might be that his popularity has increased since his presidency, particularly around the emotion surrounding his death. Indeed, his approval is somewhat higher now. Note, however, that other presidents have increased in popularity since their presidency (Nixon being an exception). Carter's rating is over 60%, for instance. Clinton is somewhat higher. Bush Sr.'s rating has increased too. Then there are the "choose your favorite president" polls which Reagan wins the most votes in or is 2nd. The problem with using this as evidence is the fact that the percentage of votes allocated to anyone, including the winner, is fairly small. It says nothing about the strong majority that voted for someone else. This merely says that he was very popular among a relatively small minority of the population.

The statement "He was one of America's most popular presidents" is both POV and not clearly supported by the data. We should remove this and let folks decide for themselves based on the information in the Legacy section.Gmb92 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't like Reagan, and am in fact the one who added this info in the first place, I think its best I abstain from this decision. However, the argument Gmb makes is pretty convincing... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If only we would use Gmb's process for the rest of the article, we wouldn't have so many arguments and revisions. :) I agree that the statement is POV - and unsupported by the facts. Info999 06:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the reasoning behind the argument against the phrase, but I think for the sake of balance, if the part of the sentence "He was one of America's most popular presidents" is removed, so also should the phrase "though it is arguable to what extent the political vision of his administration was achieved while in office." That way, both sides of the sentence are removed, and the lead is made even shorter. OR I would suggest rewording the sentence to something like, "He is remembered as one of America's most popular presidents..." I do think it is important though, to mention that where he IS popular, he is extremely popular. He is/has become a conservative icon - not just an average popular president. So maybe something like "Reagan helped sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats; as a result, he has become a conservative [or Republican or what-have-you] icon."

I just don't think you can write off the extreme dedication that his fans have. It's definitely not painting him in a correct light, because he has been extremely influential. Stanselmdoc 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that while it might be important to point out Reagan's current status as a Republican icon (after Lincoln, they've had precious little reason to elevate any other one of their number), we canNOT be in the business of paying any heed whatsover to any fan base. Remember, the difference between 'extreme fan dedication' and 'fantatical devotion' is but a matter of interpretation.

As Gmb has pointed out that the phrasing of 'of of the most popular presidents' is inaccurate, we should not retain it as is. However, the statement that it is "arguable to what extent the political vision of his administration was achieved while in office" remains valid, as the effect of those policies are debated to this day. It isn't a balance issue, it is is one of accuracy. The proposed suggestion of Reagan's helping to sharply define, etc. seems more as an attempt to balance as opposed to making a clear statement. The article is about the man, not just the policies he enforced and instigated during his eight years in office. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If people want to read about his popularity they should be able to see it in the body of the article. The percentages about his popularity should be in one of the sections about his presidency. It doesn't need to be stated that he was one of the most popular presidents because people should already see this for themselves. Stick to the facts he had high approval ratings and a landslide victory in 1984, let people come to their own conclusions from this information. We don't need to spell it out for them in the lead.--Southern Texas 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There it is, then. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the phrase, "it is arguable to what extent the political vision of his administration was achieved while in office," be technically correct for every president? I'm not familiar with any president that has been able to completely achieve all their goals. I think it would be more informative to mention where he succeeded and where he failed (in very general terms that is).--Rise Above The Vile 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the very current revision. I'm still open to more discussion, but I like what's there now too. Just my two cents. Stanselmdoc 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rise: no, I don't think it would be correct for every president. While almost all presidents enter office with policy goals, Reagan's camp came into office with a very specific agenda of achieving a political vision - not every president does that. The statement isn't about whether or not a specific policy was enacted, but whether Reagan's political vision - the realignment of the country towards conservative politics - was achieved while he was in office. There is certainly disagreement as to whether it was, and it is at least arguable that this was as important a goal as any individual policy that he tried to achieve. I also think it is important in the article to balance the attempt by partisans to claim that what Reagan wanted to do (or claimed he wanted to do) was what he actually did. Info999 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to argue that every president's policy goals are simply their way of accomplishing their political vision - Reagan was only different in that he was explicit about what his political vision was. The argument is moot anyways though, as the sentence has been removed.--Rise Above The Vile 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rise: you're writing in generalities, which is fine - except for special cases. I would argue that Reagan's vision was unique to the period 1945-2000; his vision of a conservative America cannot be compared with the policy goals of his immediate predecessor/successor, much less Truman-Ford and Clinton. The only thing that compares is the Rovian vision of a "permanent realignment" - and this compares with Reagan's vision not only in its scope, boldness and departure from predecessors, but in its failure to be achieved within the term of office. If some president were to say - like Clinton with health care reform - "this is my goal" - and have it fail, it may or may not be notable that it failed. However, given the breadth of the vision and the extent to which Reagan's administration tried to dismantle the United States government of the previous forty years in order to achieve it, it is clearly notable that he failed to achieve it during his term of office. Even though the particular sentence has been removed (for now), it's important to discuss these things, since we're trying to establish the principles upon which we made edits. Info999 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I concede this one. However, I don't think the sentence clearly expresses what you've said. Perhaps instead of just saying "political vision" it should briefly mention what his political vision was.--Rise Above The Vile 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SouthernTexas. Although, I have to say that the point I think Gmb and some other are missing is that today Reagan is popular. When he was president - not as much (which also should be mentioned in the article), but look at just some of these Wiki articles about/named for him: Reagan Day, Ronald Reagan Building, USS Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (this hasn't been completley renamed yet), Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse (this is a disamb. page), numerous roads including Ronald Reagan Parkway and Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway, Mount Reagan, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, numerous schools, including Ronald Wilson Reagan College Preparatory High School and Ronald W. Reagan Doral High School...I think I've made my point (and you can go here if you don't believe me). After looking at some factual polling websites, it seems Reagan's popularity has grown within the past few years, and really spiked up in 2001 and after his death in 2004:

• http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/post_war_presidents_jfk_ike_reagan_most_popular - Rasmussen is a widley respected polling organization
• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E13F734540C738EDDAB0894D9404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fG%2fGallup%20Organization - Just read the first sentence, 2001.
• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/19/politics/main273106.shtml - This is CBS and from 2001.
• http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm - ranked number two (with 16%)

I'm not saying "I'm right you're wrong," but rather stating that we mustn't forget that he is one of the most popular presidents; wasn't as president, but is now. Maybe it doesn't have to be said in the lead, but in the Legacy section for sure. I'm not going to add back the phrase "He is one of America's most popular presidents" because it's still being debated, but please look at my point. Happyme22 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-12-bush-poll_x.htm (you have to scroll down a little) Happyme22 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's a valid point. Too often, people think in terms of a specific time period, when in fact, influence of a person can extend for many years. Brian Pearson 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico City Policy

This is a fairly big omission from this article, I don't really know enough to contribute to it, but I feel like there should be a section on it. 71.145.141.230 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Ato, 9/08/07

May I inquire as to what exactly you're talking about? Happyme22 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would assume its this, which was suspended by Clinton and then reinstated by Bush. I would not characterize it as a "big omission", though.--Rise Above The Vile 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is essentially yet another example of a policy directive being reversed by a member of Reagan's own party. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)