Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan/archive1

Ronald Reagan

This article has problems on 1b and 1d (not neutral and comprehensive).

The main editor reverts any facts with references that aren't hero-worship. Some time after the article achieved featured article status, editors kept insisting on a historically wrong comparison of Reagan and Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson spent very little money as President on anything, including the military), which was eventually removed because of me. Other issues kept out at first or allowed only after several reverts include any mention of thousands of people denied Social Security Medical benefits by the Reagan administration, and Reagan's policy on drastically cutting EPA funding.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notify the main contributor(s)? And what criterion does this not meet? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Close FAR, FAR is not dispute resolution, there is not a single post from the nominator at Talk:Ronald Reagan, there is nothing to see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I only did this a minute ago. I'll notify the main contributors. I thought

it was clear that neutrality was my concern.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

After seven FACs, it is doubtful that the neutrality concerns that you haven't raised anywhere on the talk page are sufficient for FAR; FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revert indicates that you might not be unbiased. You're one of the editors

who wants no mention at all, however brief, of Reagan's well-known environmental policies.

And I did include a reference.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And your lack of use of the article talk page shows that you might not understand Wiki policies and procedures or the appropriate use of FAR. I suppose I was equally biased the two times that I advocated that Barack Obama FARs be closed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain whether you have a bias. You said that Reagan's EPA policies were

only "marginally related" to Reagan's Presidency, even though what you reverted (and the

reference for it) make it clear that more than half of the federal regulations targeted

for an early review by the Reagan administration's regulatory reform team were EPA

rules.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a big arrow will help you find Talk:Ronald Reagan. (Are New Jersey taxpayers paying for your Wiki editing time, btw?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the big arrow. I responded on the talk page for this one concern, but the FAR is for an ongoing series of the same kind of thing in what, in theory, is supposed to be a Featured Article. See above for details. Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To recap a series of reverts that, over time, point to persistently biased editors:

Multiple editors kept reverting any attempt to correct a comparison of Reagan and Jefferson that was very wrong on the facts according to the book "Jefferson: American Sphinx", which was a History Book Club selection. Not that bad a reference. As to what the problem was, here's a hint: Jefferson and Reagan went opposite directions on the issue of deficit spending and military spending. That multiple editors of what is supposed to be a Featured Article wouldn't know this doesn't say much for the article.

Multiple reverts were made on any attempt to mention any details of Reagan's very well-known policy of deregulation, especially with regard to environmental protection (major) and also administration attempts to purge tens of thousands of people from Social Security Medical Disability roles (certainly not minor). There were good references for each. The reasons given were that they weren't relevant to the Presidency section of the Ronald Reagan article, which is very questionable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Close FAR By "main editor" I presume he means me. It's always me :) As I said on the talk page, Jim, there is no bias, discrediting of certain viewpoints, etc. This article adheres to WP:SS, with multiple sub-articles. The presidency section is a summary of what is covered elsewhere, namely Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration. As I stated in my edit summary, the paragraph you inserted relating to the environmental policies is not completely NPOV and lacks necessary context. Without explaining Reagan's environmental policies, we immediately get how one aide resigned relating to the Superfunds. As I also said, please feel free to add information related to this in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, where this can be covered in more depth. FYI, Reagan's stance on the environment is also covered in Political positions of Ronald Reagan. There is no cover up, or anything like that, and I think the FAR is, frankly, silly.

As for the Reagan-Jefferson thing, I have no idea what you are referring to. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

With all due respect, you are dead wrong on the Social Security mentions. I did not object to it being in the article at all. What I did was move it from the general "Presidency" section to the more specific "Reaganomics and the economy" section and placed it in proper context (see diff). Later, I realized that when I moved the phrase, I did not remove the first one, so I took that out (which was not controversial - see diff).

You also seem to be upset that work is reverted or undone in this article. Well, that is the process of editing. Not everything one editor enters is suitable for the article, and we have to adhere to guidelines (such as WP:SS, WP:RS, and WP:SIZE) to decide what to include and exclude. I've done some work over at John McCain, where they even have an FAQ at the talk page listing certain things that should be excluded and included for the good of the article. So if something is reverted, don't take it personally or jump to rash conclusions about bias and unfair portrayal; it just means that another editor disagreed with what you wrote for some reason. And usually, the issue is hammered out at the talk page. I try to always do that.

As I said above, I see no need for this FAR. The article is, IMHO, one of the most neutral on Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the FAR is closed should be decided by those who are not directly involved with the article. The main article should mention at least a short, concise summary of the important issues, although I'm sure they're mentioned in more depth elsewhere. Deregulation is certainly one of the things Reagan was most known for. If the article is about Reagan and not environmental deregulation then the Cold War shouldn't be mentioned because the Soviet Union and Gorbachev aren't Reagan, and so on.

And yes, every edit I mentioned above was reverted multiple times and no, it was not all about you, Happy. Other editors acted the same way. Hero worship would explain what otherwise doesn't add up, imo.

Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that this article cannot mention anything about Reagan's deregulation. I said that if you want to add lengthy paragraphs, please do so in sub-articles because of WP:SS and WP:SIZE, among others. I don't mind mentioning environmental deregulation, Social Security, etc. but all mentions need to be fair and have balance (see WP:NPOV). As I also said, the eight years of Reagan's presidency are given more weight than some other periods of his life because they are so significant. The Cold War and Reagan's direct negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev are indeed related to and about Ronald Reagan. I would be happy to discuss on the talk page with you how we can incorporate a mention of the environmental deregulation into this article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "lengthy" addition in question was three or four sentences, depending on which revert you're talking about. As for balance, if facts needed to be added you would have mentioned them by now.

Also, Reagan's EPA and Social Security appointees were specifically chosen because they shared Reagan's values with regard to deregulation. They were specifically chosen to implement Reagan's policies. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, if "other editors acted the same way", that should tell you something about the quality of your edits. Once again, you have a content dispute over one paragraph which you never even attempted to resolve on the talk page or via consensus or via normal channels. FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The length was indeed four sentences, which can be perceived as long or short depending on where the sentences are and how much WP:WEIGHT you give the subject (these particular sentences were also placed in their own section). I have mentioned that a context is needed: Why did Reagan support deregulation? Because of his small-government and free market views. That should be mentioned, or else readers may wonder "why did Reagan deregulate?" His general attitude toward the environment would also need to be touched on, which is summed up at Political positions of Ronald Reagan#Environment. The Superfunds are mentioned in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration#Environment. Again, I would be happy to work something out with you on the article's talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the quality of the edits, let some outside party judge. They were factual, had references, were as relevant to Reagan as the Cold War and, as mentioned before, several editors defended a completely wrong comparison of Reagan to Jefferson more than once. Let someone less directly involved also judge the quality of your responses.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)