Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 8

message: Is that his proper title? -MichiganCharms 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.   --Metropolitan90 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ronald Wilson Reagan, GCB? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wrote most of his own speeches

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: "Controversial"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And a re-read, make that eight. Oops. Going in for another small edit. IvoShandor 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Um simple math isn't OR, where did you get that idea? IvoShandor 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: General Electric Theater

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok, that makes sense. Wikipediatoperfection 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review/ Featured Article 

message: 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)
thread_title: AIDs stuff

message: Well, we've done it! Ronald Reagan is finally a featured article!!!! Happyme22 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Congratulations. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FEATURED ARTICLE!!!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, you're right. I've changed it to reflect the precedent. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citations?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Arcayne is correct. Happyme22 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well you and I have spoken about that. Happyme22 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "I was there""

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, I made the change. Happyme22 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've added the numbers back. Happyme22 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equated deaths of Jews with deaths of Nazis 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reagan top=

message: ::(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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Lead (2) (''arbitrary break'')

message: So which edit was it that the CIA made to this article? IvoShandor 09:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An innocuous one (grammatical):. However, this one is much more interesting, IMO. Info999 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: ,  and . Info999 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA

message: 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)
replies: text: May I inquire as to what exactly you're talking about? Happyme22 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mexico City Policy