Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 9

message: :Okay, fair enough, Stans. I wrote that while tired (a mistake). Yes, a man is the sum total of his experiences and philosophies. However, i utterly refuse any notion that the man was nothing more than a political machine, with no motivation or idea that existed outside the Republican Party. 
:The questions we need to be asking ourselves is WHY he had the political stances he did, what formed them. This is what we should be doing, instead of focusing on one, narrow sphere wherein those philosophies were acted upon. What kind of man, of husband, of father, of friend was he? Did he have any sort of commentary on his progressively debilitating illness? What were his interests outside of politics? These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked of the MAN, not the POLITICIAN. He wasn't a statue, and he wasn't activated from a pod to become a 'standard bearer for the Republican Party'. 
:There are articles that talk about these aspects of the man, and they should only be touched on here, not explained in the excruciating detail that some would seem to want. User Mytocents is incorrect; the article is NOT about President Reagan. It is about Ronald Reagan, the man. The article about President Reagan is here. OperationSpooner is incorrect; the article is not about Reagan's economic policies and related philosophies, and the article about that is here. There are lots of articles about what Reagan did. Let's focus on who Reagan was. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When have I ever asked that there be discussion of Reagan's economic policies? Do you not understand the difference between economic policies and economic philosophy? If this article is to be about "the man," then it must focus to a significant degree on his philosophy, and his economic philosophy is tremedously large component of that. Operation Spooner 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I meant that, in addition to excluding to a large extent the seconomic and political policies, that these restriction be applied to his political philosophies as well. Your opinion that that "his economic philosophy is tremedously large component" of who Reagan was is a disservice to the man. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A nice clean discussion (cont'd)...arbitrary break 3

message: As an example of how we can make edits that shorten the article, remove POV, and point to the appropriate articles for more information, how about this for the section on the 1980 election? It leaves the quotes and most of the stats where they belong - in the main article - and removes unnecessary information and peacock words.  Please look at it from this perspective: nothing has been "covered up" or "removed"; the information is covered in wikipedia, albeit in a separate article. It meets all of the requirements of the letter and spirit of wiki regulations while not being full of breathless fanspeak.
:1980 presidential election
:
:In addition to domestic concerns, the Iran hostage crisis overshadowed the 1980 presidential election. Reagan's showing in the televised debates against the incumbent, President Jimmy Carter, boosted his campaign, and he selected his opponent in the primaries, George H. W. Bush, to be his running mate.
:Reagan won the election, carrying 44 states with 489 electoral votes to 49 electoral votes for Carter (representing six states and Washington, D.C.). Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote while Carter took 41%, and Independent John B. Anderson (a liberal Republican) received 6.7%. 
Comments?Info999 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should talk more about his campaign and what he planned to accomplish as president. It's a start, however. Happyme22 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great - why don't you use the article that's about the campaign to do just that?  Do you see what we're getting at? That there's absolutely no good reason to duplicate information between articles?  That there's no reason to talk more about his campaign and what he planned to accomplish as president in the Reagan article, since it will be covered in the other article?  That goes for the other sections, too.  Think of it this way: if you only had a few hundred words to cover all of Reagan's life, you wouldn't leave out huge chunks, right?  You'd cover all of the stuff, only not go into so much detail about any one thing; if you felt that some things were just so important that you couldn't be held to the word limit, you'd break them off into separate articles...which is exactly what we're suggesting (and exactly what wiki policy is suggesting - though more forcefully, since it's really a policy and not just a suggestion :)  ).  Info999 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see what your doing. I guess that's ok, but this article needs to be kept to a higher standard because of its FA status, so try and keep the prose engaging. I'm going to change the article to read mostly like this. Happyme22 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no, no.  Think of it this way: You have 10,000 words to write an article about Ronald Reagan that is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral regardless of whether there is are daughter articles or not. Summary style says you move unnecessary detail that makes the main article too long to the daughter article.  It does not suggest you take everything out of the main article that is in the daughter article. Editors seem to be suggesting that if some detail exists in a daughter article it doesn't need to be in the main article, as that is duplication.  This is a principle for database design (its called normalization), not a principle for writing a Featured Article. The suggested rewrite of the 1980 campaign section squeezes it down to an absurd 90 words, and wrings all interest and information out of it.  There is no mention of the "misery index," no mention of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" no mention of "...recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his," no mention of "typee canoe and Tyler, too" OOPs, wrong campaign, but you get the idea.  This concept of revamping an existing featured article to concentrate on "the man" and remove "fancruft" and "peacock words" is very misguided.  The effort is in conflict with the FA criteria of comprehensiveness and stability, and potentially that of neutrality.  I forecast, that if it is pursued,  it will lead to monstrous edit wars and the de-listing of this article as an FA.--Paul 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that I agree with the entire strategy that some on this page are, but Info's version is more concise, cut down on the kb count, plus presented it in a factual manner with no questions of POV. Do I support this for the entire article? No, but we can get into that when the time comes. Happyme22 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Happy - I appreciate your being open to the suggestion. A few points on your edit: first, Carter wasn't Reagan's challenger - he was the President of the United States; Reagan was the challenger. Second, while I don't think you were meaning to insert this, phrases like "launched his campaign" are not only unnecessary (he was the Republican nominee, so of course he received the Republican nomination, and every presidential contender launches the campaign once they receive the nomination of their party), but also inject a...how do I put it?...a...spirited voice that isn't neutral (after all, didn't they both  "launch" their campaigns?  :)  ). Third, there were at least three serious opponents for Reagan during the primaries other than Bush...perhaps instead of "...he selected his opponent..." it could read "...he selected one of his primary opponents..."? Fourth, I have tried to weed out passive language when I could, and your edit added it back in (..."was conducted..."). And, it wasn't "amidst" the crisis, it was "during" it ("amidst" is a showy word, and doesn't mean what we want to convey here). Further, placing the Iran hostage crisis second actually gives it more weight, following the "In addition to domestic concerns,..."  I think mostly without realizing it, you're trying to add majesty and a little pomp to the wording, which comes across (to me, and to some others who have written about it) as POV. But I think we're on the right track with ruthlessly paring it down. I personally don't think the Congressional numbers belong, because I think that they should be in the separate article and I think we need to cut, cut, cut (the article is ridiculously long, not only as a stand-alone article about a single individual (because the iran-contra crisis wasn't just about Reagan, and neither were the campaigns, nor the controllers strike, nor Reaganonmics, nor Lebanon and Grenada, and on and on), but also in comparison to most all other articles about presidents), but again, I won't fight the Congressional numbers. Info999 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Happyme22 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not need cut, cut, cutting, as it is only 8,000 words of prose which is about 2K below the suggested maximum.  It is smaller than the Carter article and it within 10% of Nixon, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Johnson.--Paul 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering -- is there some rule about the KB count? I think some articles will demand more information, while others won't need as much. Certainly we don't have to worry about overloading the servers. Brian Pearson 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LENGTH suggests 6,000 to 10,000 words or about 32K to 50K of "readable prose." This article is currently just slightly over 8,000 words. --Paul 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you 99% Paul, but all I'm saying is that Info's alternative version to the 1980 campaign section was probably better, more neutral, and cut down on some unnecessary details and the kb count. The only other section I would even consider doing something similar to is "Reaganomics and the economy," but that very, very long discussion is for another day! Paul makes very good points: the article isn't too long, nor is it false, and things can be repeated in other articles. This is my view: This article should not drastically change, but other "mother and father" articles could be expanded. The information can be similar, but this article must be well written and comprehensive, or bye-bye FA. Happyme22 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's better. It is shorter, but it has removed information and interest, and the article isn't too long anyway.  As to more neutral, if you think that removing all of the quotes from Reagan - because there are no quotes from Carter - makes it more neutral, then I suppose so, but I don't think that's neutrality I think it's rhetoric cleansing. It's now a yawn, with not even a nod towards "compelling and brilliant prose." --Paul 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can work with that. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Try at Rewriting a Section That Already Has a Wiki Article

message: Instead of attempting to rewrite/remove things for right now, why don't we concentrate on adding things about the man Reagan?  Because maybe if we find lots of other interesting stuff to add to the article, the information that could be removed will become more apparent, and it'll be easier for us to make decisions on what to cut, and maybe it would cut down on the arguing over little things.  ???Stanselmdoc 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work with that. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why dont we focus on this?

message: If I hadn't worked on this article and read the lead section, I would think that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's all throughout his presidency because of a sentence (or two) stating: "Reagan left office in 1989. In 1994 he disclosed that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease." Now, I know that there had been spectulation that he had the disease during his presidency, and some statements might point to that, but nothing is for sure. Take a look at this page, and there is a quote by Dr. Larry Altman, a Senior Medical columnist for the New York Times, who once investigated whether he did have the disease as president. Quote: "I was unable to find any evidence by any medical criteria that is known to the medical profession that Mr Regan had any symptoms or signs of Alzheimer’s when he was President. The signs and symptoms developed several years after he left office, but interviews with senior Cabinet officials in his last term, with his doctors who treated him on a regular basis, and other people who knew him, could turn up no evidence that there was any incidence or incidents that suggested that he had Alzheimer’s. And even his biographer didn’t find any evidence of it."
Then there's this from www.timesunion.com, with, "At times during Reagan's stay in the White House, he seemed forgetful and would lose his train of thought while talking. However, doctors said Alzheimer's was not to blame, noting the disease was diagnosed years after he left office."
Dinesh D'Souza, a biographer of Reagan's (and, yes, a conservative) also says this isn't the case: "There is no evidence that Reagan had Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency." (from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/authors_corner/july-dec97/dsouza_12-19.html)
In Nancy Reagan's book, I Love You, Ronnie, she says Reagan was diagnosed in August 1994, and released it publicly in November 1994. Basically, she says they went down to Mexico in July 1989, where Reagan was thrown off his horse. They flew home and got his head x-rayed at the Mayo Clinic  where they said he had to be operated on. According to Nancy Reagan, the doctors believe that is what triggered the onset of Alzheimer's. (Source: Reagan, Nancy. (2002) I Love You, Ronnie. United States: Random House. , page 179-180)
Therefore, the sentence is misleading. I think it should read: "Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994." I know this is a place where some editors may think I'm being POV, but this is the truth. Best, Happyme22 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point. What I was trying for in that edit (pretty sure that was me) was that he had disclosed the information in 1994 - that it was something that he did proactively. You could even put in a short phrase that it was done in an open letter in his handwriting. But in any case, regardless of speculation on either side of the argument (the doctor you cite never examined Reagan, never ordered tests, etc.), there is no way to be sure, from an encyclopedic standpoint, exactly when it was actually diagnosed.   This isn't just any piece of information - it's something that has been speculated on since during his second term (especially once his videotaped deposition was aired). The only thing that can be cited from a trusted source perspective is that the disclosure occurred in 1994. The "truth" is that it was disclosed - the only source we have for what you call the "truth" are people with something at stake, and therefore not reliable on their own. If that doctor had said, instead of what he did, that it was his opinion that Reagan had the disease all throughout his second term, I have the feeling that you would say that the doctor never examined Reagan, never ordered tests, etc. I think we should stick to what we can source for sure, but I won't fight anyone on this point. Thanks. Info999 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ....there is no way to be sure, from an encyclopedic standpoint, exactly when it was actually diagnosed. I'm not so sure this is the case. We could take Reagan's word for it.  The note says "My fellow Americans, I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease."--Paul 08:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's definitely the other side haha. I'm going to see what other editors think, though. Happyme22 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if there is mention of it in his recently published diary. BTW, in 1985 he declared a proclamation that June was to be Alzheimer's month, if I remember correctly. No puns intended. Brian Pearson 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Reagan left office in 1989. In 1994 he released a hand-written note to all Americans disclosing he had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. This note marked the end of his political life." --Paul 06:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Perhaps an alternative to that could be: "After leaving office in 1989, he revealed in 1994 that he had been diagnosed with  Alzheimer's disease, and was retiring from public life." That seems to cogently tie up all the parts and more succintly state the same material. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too fond of that. By putting both things in the same sentence, it makes it seem that he left office, hibernated for five years, and then woke up and revealed he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.  Also, the fact that this was announced in a hand-written note addressed to all Americans was suggested by Info999 above, and is not irrelevant.--Paul 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean, Paul. I see the gaping hole after he left office and might want to know what he was doing in the interim. Apparently, he fell off a horse at one point, which prompted the medical attention and subsequent diagnosis. This is precisely the sort of information that this article should focus upon. I think that the inclusion of the hand-written note was to act as an attempt by Reagan to be a bit more personal about his departure from public life, as opposed to a formal press release. I think this points to the man, and not so much an addition of sentimentality. Do you understand what I mean by that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to make some changes to the lead and the "Alzheimer's" section momentarily and see what you think. This is a great source, even with qotes from his doctors. I'll start with what Nancy said in her book, and I'm going to work with this new source later tonight. Happyme22 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering -- suppose we made no comparisons, and just wrote what Reagan believed and espoused? Brian Pearson 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Because that, in itself is not encyclopedic. Some people believe that telepathic mind witches based on the Martian Face control our actions and take to the streets to smellily espouse these beliefs. In context with outside interpretation and commentary of their beliefs makes them more encyclopedic and neutral. I think we should put what Reagan believed and espoused, but to devote the entire article to politics or presidential policy-making cheapens the man's legacy and memory, turning him into a two-dimensional recruiting poster. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alzheimer's while president?