Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

message: Does anyone else find this article over journalistic? It spends a whole paragraph talking about other things that happened on June 5th before it even starts to talk about Ronald Reagan. Can we trim this? DJ Clayworth 13:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have to question the useability of some of these images.  A lot from CNN/Reuters/AP/Corbis, etc, which I believe hold all rights reserved and limit reproduction?  --tomf688(talk) 04:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Tomf688, answering your question, the CNN/Reuters/AP/Corbis thing you were mentioning, It is the web site where the photo came from. User:SNIyer12
I just started deleting some of the photos. I referred to Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau as a guide for this. User:SNIyer12
:Just because it comes from the website does not automatically mean it is fair use.  I'm not familiar with their copyrights, but you should read the fine print and make sure that they allow images to be reproduced. --tomf688(talk) 01:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
::But that's the very definition of fair use: we're using images in a certain context despite the fact that someone else holds the copyright and has not given explicit permission for reproduction. This is permissible under certain conditions.  If we had permission to publish the images under the GFDL or other free license, there would be no problem and we wouldn't have to resort to fair use claims. --MarkSweep 19:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The general rule on Wikipedia is that the number of fair use images should be kept under 10 if possible. Even with my reductions, this article uses 32. I am going to pare it further. I know that SNIyer12 will not be happy with me doing this, but if we don't have some sort of rule on this, then Wikipedia would be open to lawsuits. Imagine using 32 or 47 pictures in a paper encyclopedia without permission. You would be sued many times over. The same general principle holds here. Wikipedia:Fair use describes the fair use doctrine as it applies to Wikipedia. It doesn't give 10 there as the limit, but the image slueths have said that it is a general rule. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the article looks better or worse because it has 47 or 32 pictures. There is a legal question here and that's much more important. --Woohookitty 07:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: I've got the notes pared down to 20 from 64. Before I hear complaints. :) I did 3 things. First of all, some of the attributes were not needed. For example, in several places it said that tributes were made and then it had footnotes for them. No reason to do that since the tributes themselves were not being cited. Secondly, some of the footnotes went away in general editing that I did. Thirdly, I found websites that took the place of several citations. The best example is the quotes from the eulogies. It went from 8 down to 1 citations just in that area. 
In addition, I am working on ditching the narrative format, which does not belong here. We aren't a newspaper or a book. I will try to keep the article chronological but it doesn't need to be in a day by day format. 
Now, SNIyer12, I suspect you are a newbie here and I try to be nice to newbies. But. :) If you want to tackle stuff like this again, I would suggest looking at similar articles first and I don't mean the Trudeau article, which you yourself did most of the work on. Just look at as many articles as you can and pay attention to the format used. One piece of advice for you is that none of us "own" these articles. In fact, you have to assume that they will be edited. So you need to not make the article so detailed that it is impossible to edit. Again, I'm not being critical. It's easy to treat Wikipedia like a research paper but that isn't what we are. And using the methods you used make the article extremely difficult to edit. This is already easily the toughest edit job I've had to do and I am only about halfway through my work. 
The best piece of advice I can think of is what I just mentioned...that we don't "own" these articles. Everyone on Wikipedia owns them. If you keep that in mind, I think you'll do just fine here. I would suggest reading What Wikipedia is not if you haven't been following what I have been saying. It's a terrific guide for when you are writing articles. So...stick around...read some articles...learn how things are done...but...PLEASE...don't write an article in this style again. PLEASE. :) This is making my head hurt. LOL --Woohookitty 09:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: OK I am done with the editing job. I actually had to wipe out every section heading and start over. Now, SNIyer12 (or anyone else), PLEASE don't revert my changes. I have no problem with editing my page. That's the point of Wikipedia. But please don't restore huge sections of what I took out. The page is still over the suggested limit for Wikipedia (34 K), but I couldn't find any more trimming that I could do. --Woohookitty 01:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You and everybody else who cleaned-up this article did a wonderful job! With a longer lead section this article should sail through FAC now. However, some people may object to the large number of fair use images, saying such a number is not fair. Making sure they are from a diverse set of sources should put that objection to rest. --mav 04:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of fair use images is much more reasonable now. Current image stats: 6 public domain (from the U.S. federal government and armed forces), 6 fair use (from CNN and AP). --MarkSweep 04:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Mark. I somehow missed the fact that the headings should not have been capitalized. Sorry about that. But thanks for the extra help. Yeah 12 is much better than 47 isn't it? :) And I haven't even seen how many there were before they were cut down initially...that was done before I tackled the article. --Woohookitty 05:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done 

message: How come there's no mention of the funeral of JFK? There should be because even though Reagan had the first state funeral since LBJ, the state funeral that is burned most deeply in memory resulted from the assassination that made LBJ president. -- SNIyer12 22:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, write an article on Presidential funerals. The problem is that you are adding more material to an article that is too large anyway. --Woohookitty 21:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of the funeral of JFK

message: It is not necessary to tell people what other events were happening that day. This is not a narrative. It is not a news report. It is an article on Ronald Reagan's death and what else happened that day has absolutely no bearing on him or his death. The only point to including that information is to "give the story context" but this isn't a "story". It's an encyclopedia article. Major difference. SNIyer12, I've told you this before and I'll tell you again. Please read the articles on here on What Wikipedia is not. It is not a newspaper. it is not a place for obits or tributes. Alot of your material here is close to the line on that anyway.--Woohookitty 21:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the other events section 

message: Why is this text in the section, State funerals in the United States? Do all Presidents have these songs? 
:Several songs were played at each event of the week, including when the casket was moved into the Library, out of the Library, into and out of the Capitol, into and out of the Washington National Cathedral and finally, at the private internment ceremonies. These songs included "Hail to the Chief," "My Country 'Tis of Thee", "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "God of Our Fathers," "God Bless America," and "America the Beautiful." The casket was draped in the Stars and Stripes all along its journey.
I'm in favour of cutting it all together, opinions?--nixie 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird section

message: SNIyer12, please stop reverting the stuff that I took out when I did the massive edits of this page. I'm not sure if you think you are going to sneak something pass me or what. You do not have to add that the Reagan family was grief stricken. Of course they were. If something can be assumed, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Also, again, you do not need to link the same thing more than once in an article. It is not necessary. --Woohookitty 20:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty, I have just removed links to the same thing where they have been linked more than once in the article. -- SNIyer12 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: We currently have conflicting information regarding the date that the casket was transported from California to DC: did it happen on June 9 or on June 10?  Just checking to see if anyone knows off hand. --MarkSweep 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkSweep, it happened on June 9. -- SNIyer12 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: Basically, things are linked the first time they are mentioned. And you don't link things more than once unless its absolutely necessary. --Woohookitty 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for full dates, which should be linked every time so that per-user date preferences can take effect. --MarkSweep 12:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Woohookitty, I have just removed the links to those that are linked more than once. -- SNIyer12 22:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rule on linking 

message: I just did another round of major editing. Again. Add all you want to this article, but please stop reverting stuff back in that I took out. it's not like I took out anything germane. I took out flowery language and trivia. There is no reason for either in an encyclopedia article. Plus, there were some other issues. There were a couple of statements from people that did not have notations so I took those out. If you can come up with where they come from, put them back in. Just getting tired of taking the same things out again and again and again. --Woohookitty 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major editing 

message: It has been moved to Wikiquote:Tributes of world leaders on the death of Ronald Reagan per vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan. So SNIyer or anyone else, if you want to edit the article, you need to go onto Wikiquote's site. Please do not try to recreate the article on here or else it will be speedily deleted. Thanks. --Woohookitty 06:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tributes to Reagan

message: President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Senate President are 2 different offices. The Senate President in the United States is the Vice President. Through the years, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has become the day-to-day gavel holder in the Senate, though they often give that role to junior senators on the majority side so they can learn the rules of the Senate. But, if there is a tie vote and during certain other times, the VP still acts as the President of the Senate and they have that official title. In fact, for most of the history of the US, it's been the only real role of the Vice President. Until the US Constitution is changed, the VP will still have that role. I know it's confusing, SNIyer, which is why I'm explaining it. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I thought we had covered this before...apparently not

message: The first sentence seems especially important, and "nearly a decade" implies "less than a decade". 
The issue of mental impairment in heads of state is important enough that it doesn't seem reasonable to prejudge the issue of Reagan's mental capacity while in office (see this speech: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/5/325.long) .  
Maybe it would be better to say something like, "nearly ten years after publicly acknowledging he suffered from Alzheimer's." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/06/us/in-poignant-public-letter-reagan-reveals-that-he-has-alzheimer-s.html)
I've never edited a wikipedia article, so I leave others to judge how best to address this, and what citations to use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.218.84 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nearly a decade"?