Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Ronald Reagan

 * previous FAC

I know I've said this before, but Ronald Reagan is finally ready to be a featured article. It meets the FA criteria, complies with the manual of style, is neutral, stable, and claims are verifiable. Citations are provided throughout. The recently "remodeled" 'Reaganomics and the economy' section is much more engaging and neutral, plus shorter. This article does a great job presenting the life of America's 40th President, and it is ready. Best, Happyme22 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment At 106 kilobytes long, there are still concerns about the WP:LENGTH. Some browsers or internet connections may struggle to load this page.  Also, it may help to split off some of the information into separate articles.  ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:LENGTH is concerned with readable prose, not overall length, and suggests "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." The Ronald Reagan article is currently about 9,000 words and 55K of readable prose.  While this is at the upper end, it complies with the recommended length guidelines.--Paul 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the US president articles will be understandably at the upper end of length recommendations.Sumoeagle179 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't know how hard I've tried to lower the kb count on this article. I'll keep trying, but I don't know if it's going to get much lower. Also, Gerald Ford, a featured article and a U.S. President, is 110 kb long. Happyme22 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are at least six FAs that I know of that have between 60 and 85KB of prose, surpassing WP:SIZE guidelines. No double standards here; at least Reagan is within guidelines.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The current prose size is 49KB according to Dr pda's script—completely within WP:SIZE guidelines. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that articles about US Presidents are likely to be longer than the average Wikipedia article. For the record, my computer loaded the page in about 12 seconds including images.  The article will be seen at its best with a modern browser and broadband connection. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (again) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You so much! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I have watched Happyme22's work on this article, including five FACs, since March 2007; I believe it now deserves featured status.  I've edited today to remove over-linking, complete refs, do some minor ce and WP:DASH, WP:HYPHEN and WP:MOSNUM fixes, correct some extreme oversized images per WP:MOS, replace some non-reliable sources (e.g.; About.com) and add some missing citations (noting that some incorrect, uncited data was apparently drawn from other Wiki articles). I added three cite tags, which I expect will be attended to before this FAC closes; if citations can't be provided, those three statements could be removed.  Disclaimer:  I figure as a top editor of the article, but almost all of my contributions have been ongoing ref and MOS cleanups during the FACs; I've contributed no text, and only a few minor copyedits.  When I work on refs, I work by section, and it chunks up a high edit count.  On his first appearance at FAC, I doubted that Happyme22 could complete this job, but s/he has persevered and done a fine job over many months.  I am particularly impressed by the tight focus and effective use of summary style, and adamantly disagree that length is an issue here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You so much Sandy. You have helped this article to be great, and we're so close! Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Rlevse 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Happyme22 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I think the progress this article has made is outstanding, and it is fully deserving of FA status. JCO312 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help with the Reaganomics section! Happyme22 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This article still reads in a lot of places like its either POV or its exaggerating his status in American history. -- CJ Marsicano 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but that's too vague to be an even barely constructive comment. You would help the editors working on the article by giving a few examples. Also you may like to provide an assessment of where he does fit in American history and how the article deviates from that. Thanks. Mark83 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not a legitimate reason to oppose the article without an example. Happyme22 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No examples? Reagan's status in American history is established by reliable sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hapyme22, you thanked someone below for simply writing, "Support." I agree it would be helpful to have specific examples of POV (which is what I am trying to do below), but sometimes what people give is a general impression of the article. Thank you Cjmarsicano for contributing to this discussion. Wikipediatoperfection 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thanked someone for supporting the article that I nominated. Happyme22 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose . Towards the end of the article, there is too much WP:PROSELINE. I don't like reading an article where every paragraph starts with "In 1987/On January 6, 2003/etc"-Wafulz 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Does it look better now? Would you consider supporting? Happyme22 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read through the full article, but I'll strike my opposition.-Wafulz 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Great work, its one of the most informative articles on wikipedia, it shows perfect NPOV and is well written.-- Southern Texas  22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose . The economics section still has remnants of the problematic sentence I criticized last time around and some of the same problems are still there. Quote: Critics of Reagan's economic polices dubbed them "Trickle-down economics,"[65] due to the large budget deficits spawned,[66] and the U.S. trade deficit expansion.[66] Unquote. The causal relationship is still wrong. Critics did indeed use the term "trickle-down economics" but not because of the deficits but because of how the theory was supposed to work. Tax cuts that directly benefitted mostly the well off were supposed to have beneficial effects that "trickled down" to those less well off. Critics did criticize the deficits but the nickname didn't come about because of them. Additionally the section is now too short in relation with the rest of the article. It should be lengthened again while some of the later sections could be shortened. The Death/Legacy/Popular opinion/Honors sections take up disproportionate space with sentences like: "The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority voted to rename Interstate 88, which was formerly called the East-West Tollway, in his memory, before being awarded three posthumous honors in 2005." Including information like this (and I'm not even sure I understand the sentence, presumably the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority did not get three posthumous honors) is much less important than covering Reagan's economic policies, theories and governance. I'd recommend reinstating the Regan quote, for example. Haukur 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The specific issues I complained about have been largely addressed. I still wouldn't say the economics section is good or well written but there aren't any real howlers now. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you dislike one sentence, why not fix it ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the sound of one editor building consensus? If I knew of a great sentence to use instead I would make a change. On the other hand I also think FAC reviewers that stay out of actual editing can, perhaps, give a more neutral perspective. Haukur 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to know how you want the sentence fixed, so I thought you'd give it a whirl. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what I want the sentence to say. I do want coverage of "trickle-down" and I do want coverage of the deficits and I don't want errors but beyond that I haven't got any ideas. Why don't you give it a try since you seem to know what I want it to say? ;) Haukur 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. NPOV, well written and well sourced. --RandomOrca2 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happyme22 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article reads much better than it used to.  My main concern is the general lack of scholarly sources, on a topic that academics have devoted a huge amount of time studying.  Though a number of respectable scholarly and semi-popular sources are listed in the References, for most it is not clear to what extent (if at all) they were used in writing the article, as they do not appear in any footnotes.  The biographies by popular writers (Canon and Reeves, in particular), meanwhile, appear frequently in the footnotes.  I'm not intimately familiar with Reagan historiography, so I can only give a few pointers on further scholarly sources.  In particular, the book The Reagan Presidency, (an edited volume from University of Kansas Press) is an important one in terms of historical assessment of his presidency.  I also expect that Diggins' book is a fairly rigorous source, as he is an eminent historian.  Whether or not these source issues warrant withholding FA status... that depends on how much the definition of reliable sources varies with spectrum of sources available for a particular topic.  My own view is that an FA should use not just reliable sources, but the best sources available; this article doesn't do that.--ragesoss 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been staring at the article, and in particular its section about "Reaganomics" and the economy, for some time now. It needs help from people who understand economics, that much is absolutely certain. I only have an MA in Econ., and that was from too many decades ago for me to feel really confident about myself, but some of the mistakes in the section were fairly obvious. Some result from oversimplification which has been extended to the point where the facts are just wrong; some from trying to connect thoughts into summary sentences in a manner which creates flawed connections... I'll try to fix them. I still haven't fixed the connection drawn between Reagan and Black Monday market crash; the stark wording makes that conclusion seem far more cut-and-dried than is tenable. In general, I agree with everything Haukur has to say about this article, though I have hope that it can be fixed quickly. I mgiht suggest getting help from WikiProjects related to economics &mdash; but on the other hand, that could be harmful, as it might draw out the POV-heads with their never-ending arguments... I dunno. I don't know anyone reliable in those projects because I have had no contact with them... --Ling.Nut 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia working very hard on the Reaganomics and the economy section, and it seems now to imply really what trickle down economics means. I think the section looks a lot better and more neutral now also. Happyme22 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article says Reagan was posthumously awarded with the Order of the White Eagle, but it doesn't say what good he did for Poland. I suppose the "Cold War" section should mention his support for Solidarity, opposition to Jaruzelski's martial law and close coöperation with Pope John Paul II (the "Holy Alliance" as Time dubbed it), all of which was crucial for the eventual fall of Communism in Europe. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I added a setence on Reagan and Poland, and the Pope, in the "Honors" section, because it would be too difficult to add it in the "Cold War" section. Happyme22 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is one of the best articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia.  Very thorough!  Excellent Job! Mike Searson 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Happyme22


 * Comment: Once again agreeing with Haukur, every US President gets boxes of awards. Can we delete the high schools and other trivia? There is less than one sentence about his focus on rebuilding the military... I think that there are a few instances of this kind of misplaced emphasis in the article... Ling.Nut 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, but not everything in the honors section has to go... Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent article, meets all the criteria. Truly deserving of FA status. Well done. Johntex\talk 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Image issues. Image:Reagan Boraxo.jpg is said to be in the public domain because it is "a work of the United States Federal Government" but it seems unlikely that the Federal Government was advertising a brand of laundry detergent. Additionally, many of the images come from the Reagan Library Archives with a note that the RLA says that all its images are in the public domain. They did, indeed, say that a couple of years back but they have since conspiculously removed the statement which suggests that they've found out that it wasn't true. This may still be good enough for us, I just wanted to make a note of it and say that maybe the image description pages should be updated with a note and an Internet Archive link. Haukur 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well let me quote from the Reagan Library's image page: "...The over 600 selected images represented here are only a small portion of the over 1.5 million photographs available. Please credit "Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library." Wouldn't they have said that they couldn't be used commercially if they didn't want them on Wiki? Happyme22 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they're happy for us to use the images. That doesn't mean they are all in the public domain or that the RL holds the rights to those that aren't. Haukur 20:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on reference format: Hey, I know Wikipedia is flexible on referencing formats, in order to accommodate the large number of differences between the styles used within different academic fields... but... this one has full references formatted as both footnotes and within a reference section. I thought that if you used both sections, the footnotes were strictly for two things: author/page no. (eg. Smith 1999, p. 26), and additional comments e.g. "Historians disagree on whether or not Reagan wore a wig, with the consensus being that he simply dyed his hair." But full refs are in both sections; some (perhaps many; haven't looked closely) refs are in the footnote-style section that are not included in the following section. Is that permissible? Sandy? Ling.Nut 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always disagreed with the nonsense about repeating all sources in both notes and refs; there's already a size issue here. Imagine what will happen to the load time if every note is also repeated in refs, just to comply with a nonsensical rule that sometimes says we should do that.  I hate the articles that do that, even more so when I'm forced to use a dialup. Why everything should be listed twice escapes my peabrain, I guess. The way the refs are presented here, IMO, is the most logical considering article size and load time.  If the rules say otherwise, IAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One editor's nonsense is another editor's golden logic. :-) But if you're OK with it, then I'm OK-ish with it.
 * I've made some additions to the econ section so the errors aren't so &mdash; please do forgive me if I am being too blunt! &mdash; painfully obvious. Really, the dedicated editors of this article should have made friends with some econ people a long time ago! The additions I've made don't really seem to flow perfectly, please forgive me... but... I may add one or two more little things, but then may have to beg off due to real life responsibilities. I apologize deeply. I will definitely keep tabs on what's going on here and will put in a clear thumbs up or down in time (striking my comments above if they are repaired). I won't leave you hanging. Ling.Nut 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS (don't overlook my comments immediately above) One problem with the econ section is that it makes no attempt to tease apart the relative degree of praise/blame that Reagan should get for economic events as opposed to the praise/blame due to Congress. I dunno, I suppose one brief mention, done in an appropriate place, could be enough, given that most of the full-blown details should be in the Reaganomics article -- Ling.Nut 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MUCH improved already. It looks to me like past edits had sacrificed accuracy for brevity, because of claims the article was too long.  If this article is too long (now at 48KB prose), then something MUST be done about the FA Ketuanan Melayu (at 82KB, almost twice the size of this one).  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  It also appears that simplistic arguments had crept into the text to satisfy a certain POV; your rewrite is much more thorough.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I have gone thorugh what was added and tried to simplify some of the words and make the section sound more netural; I have probably been labeled as POV right-wing nut more than anyone on Wiki, but if this article even has just a few (maybe two or three) POV statements, it's not going to pass. Great job Sandy and Lig.Nut on all your work in the Reaganomics section. I think the reason why Congress was largley overlooked was that this article is about Ronald Reagan, not the Congress. Although Congress might deserve a mention or two, I know that I was trying to focus it more on Ronald Reagan. Try adding things about Congress into the Reaganomics article. Nonetheless, thanks so much to both of you for your help. Best, Happyme22 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Sumoeagle179 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happyme22 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (don't want to oppose) Though this article is extensive in coverage in a compact (sort of) way, I feel there isn't a need to make a separate section for the popularity poll. It could rather be integrated in the article in a single sentence. Having a opinion poll as a separate section, doesn't go well with the overall standards set by the article. Trimming it will also trim the article on the whole. Good article BTW. Regards, -- Knowledge Hegemony  09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for your comment. Are you talking about the sub-section in the "Legacy" section entitled "Popular opinion?" We are saying that Ronald Reagan is regarded to be on of the most popular presidents and we have to give examples to back that up, for it's been attacked numerous times. Maybe I'm missing your point, but is that what you mean? Happyme22 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose There is still lots of debate over POV/NPOV of this article. I added a peer review page so we could get some feedback on this and was informed on my user page that an article is not supposed to be both up for featured article status and under peer review (I have no idea). This needs more editing and a through peer review of POV/NPOV more than it needs a star. Wikipediatoperfection 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't bring up actionable points, your oppose itself is likely to be perceived as POV-based. Would you please list POV details that are a source of concern to you, here on this page, so they can be addressed if necessary? Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, articles listed at FAC are to be removed from PR (I've removed it). The article is not undergoing POV debate; it is undergoing the routine improvements that happen during FAC.  If you have POV issues, pls list them so they can be addressed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * List as Requested:
 * There is a disagreement on the talk page as to whether he should be called a controversial president. I would say that there is no question that he was a controversial president. Both the contents of the article and objective outside sources reflect that. It should be stated within the intro, but not in the first sentence of the article, that he was a controversial figure.
 * Look at Jimmy Carter, a controversial president; does it say on his page: "James Earl Carter, Jr. the controversial 39th president?" No, because all presidents are controversial. If the president's a Democrat, Dems will like him and Repubs won't, making him a controversial figure, and visa-versa. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clinton's page doesn't say he was controversial either; non-starter. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is best confined to the talk page where it has been on going. This same argument has been used on the talk page and it has been unconvincing to those who think the word should be included in the introduction. The talk page has several arguments for adding the word that have gone substantively unanswered. I will add more to the talk page on this issue and we can continue the discussion there. Wikipediatoperfection 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reaganonmics section: As has been pointed out in the talk page this section divides into one section of raw data, considered the facts, and another section, the criticism. This section is unbalanced and poorly written.
 * The section recently had a "facelift," is much more neutral and gives both sides of the Reagan economic record. Your comment here is very vaugue for we do not have "facts" and "criticism." Those comments you were reading on the talk page were written before this problem was fixed and addressed by User:SandyGeorgia, User:Ling.Nut, User:Paul.h, and myself. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This structural issue seems to be resolved. I was going off memory when I wrote this. This section is still POV Pro-Reaganomics. There is no explanation of why critics called it trickle down economics. Real wages have stagnated since Reagan (I'll get you the source for that in the next couple of days, I remember reading it somewhere in a peer-reviewed sociology journal article). This article has done a good job outlining the pro-Reaganomics position/statistics but it lacks a well reasoned critique of Reaganomics. When we are talking about Reagan being called controversial, this is what we are talking about. This was massively controversial and still is. Wikipediatoperfection 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The War on Drugs section: This could use a good edit. It seems haphazardly thrown together. I think we could all look at the war on drugs article as a reference point. In terms of POV/NPOV I do not think either point of view is well represented in this section, but the counterargument particularly leaves something to be desired. The assessment of the "War on Drugs" and Reagan's drug policies seems to lack the advantage of time. What do I mean by this? Most people today agree that that the "War on Drugs" has not worked. That is not to say that there is a consensus that the US should stop, but there is a consensus that past efforts have largely failed. I think this is at least part of the counterargument that is missing from this section. This section should mention the ballooning prison population as a result of the war on drugs.
 * Can you cite the claim that most people think the war on drugs hasn't worked? And that's in todays world, not the world on the 80's. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't reference other Wiki articles, as they are rarely reliable, and this article must stay tightly focused on its subject. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that most people think the War On Drugs has not worked in the past because I have never met someone, liberal or conservative, who thinks it is going well. A quick google search popped up a 1995 poll which has only 11% of Americans giving the War on Drugs an A or a B in terms of drug-related crime. Only 2% gave As. The best results were for Drugs and the Workplace where 1/3 of Americans gave an A or a B. Here is the source: http://ndsn.org/april95/poll.html I can work on finding a more recent poll from a better known source for you, but I think the results are going to be roughly the same. Wikipediatoperfection 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed after I wrote this that you said "And that's in todays world, not the world on the 80's." I think this is myopic in outlook. The over the top, but apt analogy is quoting someone who died of a drug overdose on what an awesome high you get. This is about Reagan's policy in the 80s (the awesome high), but it is also about the lack of positive results both in the 80s and later on from the policies (the overdose resulting in death). There is a fairly strong consensus in the wide world that these policies had little or not effect on drug use/drug problems. This is shown by the poll above. This side of the story should be in this section, minus my over the top analogy and with proper reliable sources of course. Wikipediatoperfection 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Air traffic controllers' strike: This summary of the main article leaves the reader wondering why on earth this is important enough to make a President's page. This is because it lacks the context of the strike's importance. For the right it is seen as marking a balance between business and organized labor. For the left it is seen as crippling organized labor and workers' ability to fight for decent wages. Whichever side you're on this section does not due justice to what both sides consider a major turning point in the history of organized labor in the United States. As it is, someone who knew nothing about the topic would think it merited deletion from Reagan's article.
 * This article is about Reagan; in order to remain tightly focused and stay within WP:SIZE guidelines, every issue can't be explored in depth here. It's enough to mention that it was an issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about making it longer or looking at the issue in depth per see, it is about placing the issue within its proper context so that the reader understands why the section is there. I think we can do this and keep this section down to size. As it currently stands I do not see how a reader who knows nothing about the event could possibly understand why this is important enough to make a President's page. If I did not know better, I would ask, what is the significance of this? Why is this important? As it stands currently the section does not justify its existence. It does belong in the article, but it needs some work to show why. Wikipediatoperfection 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iran-Contra Affair: This section solely quotes Reagan's denial of any personal involvement and has nothing substantive on the Tower Commission's report. Even if we talk Reagan at face value (which many of us don't, but I digress), the Tower Commission's report was highly critical of Reagan. From the Iran-Contra affair main page:
 * "It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions."
 * This information is certainly worth adding to this section to balance it out. I would also suggest adding that Reagan's testimony before the commission had inconsistencies and he had troubles recalling certain things. Here is how the main Iran-Contra affair puts it:
 * "President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. It was also said that during the time in question he was almost constantly using heavy pain medications."


 * We should never take text from another Wiki article (a non-reliable source) and if you think the text there is accurate, then this article does the right thing by linking to it. For this article to remain tightly focused and within size guidelines, it need not repeat detail covered in another article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion at bottom of section, this info is needed to balance the article. Wikipediatoperfection 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence recommened by Wikipediatoperfection for balance about the determinatino of the Tower Commission. Happyme22 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I am talking about. You made a good faith effort to try and balance the article. However, you did not add a sentence "recommended" by me. You added your own sentence in the place recommended by me. Your sentence distorts its BBC source. I believe this is the sentence you added (if I am wrong, I apologize, but it is still a useful point of discussion):


 * "The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions."


 * Now here is the critical passage from the BBC article:


 * "Mr Reagan gave the impression of knowing little of what was going on. The Tower Commission report on the scandal absolved him from deliberately lying to the American people but criticised him for being out of touch. Later the final Congressional report laid the blame squarely on the president. It declared: 'If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have.' The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government."


 * Your sentence is an extremely selective and deceptive cherry pick of this BBC article. I assume you edited in good faith, but you are quite simply incapable of unbiased coverage of Reagan's darker/more criminal moments. Just as I am incapable of writing unbiased coverage of what his supporters consider to be his successes. Your sentence absolutely distorts the BBC source. They did not find he did not lie to the American people, they found he did not deliberately lie. We already quote Reagan's denial of any wrongdoing, you do not need to further cover his ass, especially with things which were highly critical of it. The congressional report laid the blame squarely with Reagan. And as the BBC puts it, "The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan's style of government." This is what is missing from this article. It also goes back to the issue of controversial. Gingrich may have tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job while he himself was having an affair, but most of the public do not see Clinton as a crook. Certainly not in the way he ran the White House. There is a large portion of the American electorate who do not simply dislike Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush, they think they were/are crooks. Wikipediatoperfection 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I did try and pick the most-carefull wording, and I didn't include the Congressional report because I didn't want the section to be too long (although it was added). You're talking about not having POV, but here you are expressing it. It's a very biased and POV statement to say that most of the country doesn't think that Clinton's a crook, but thinks that Nixon, Reagan and Bush are. I could argue the exact opposite by saying Clinton was impeached and Nixon, Reagan and Bush weren't (although Nixon came very close). Happyme22 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ... Reagan's darker/more criminal moments  ...hmmm, hello pot, this is the kettle speaking. By the way, it might be helpful if ya'll would move the big discussions of specific text to the article talk page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud at that :) Still, I think that what he's saying is that the article was written by too many pots and not enough kettles. Haukur 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might be helpful if I reviewed this section and see what you thought:
 * ====Iran-Contra Affair====
 * In 1986, the Reagan Administration was found to have illegally sold arms to Iran to fund the anti-communist (the bottom of the article says many critics think they were just plain murderers, starting out with this takes a position that they were not) Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra Affair was the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s. President Reagan professed ignorance of the plot's existence and quickly called for an Independent Counsel to investigate. Norman H. Gardner Jr., a congressional specialist for the CIA, said (He did not just say this. I assume he testified to this. The current phrasing makes it sound like he spilled the beans to a gossip columnist) that Reagan signed a finding, which was drafted by the CIA two months after the missile shipment, intended to help free U.S. hostages in the Mideast. (So what on earth is the significance of this? If I am learning about the subject from the article do I really know? I believe the signifigance is that this is seen as evidence that Reagan was in on it, This, however, is not clear from the article) The International Court of Justice (whose jurisdiction to decide the case was disputed ) ruled that the U.S. had violated international law in Nicaragua due to its treaty obligations and the customary obligations of international law not to intervene in the affairs of other states.


 * John Tower, Edmund Muskie and Brent Scowcroft made up the non-partisan, three-man "Tower Commission," appointed by Reagan, to review the scandal. (Were they appointed to review the scandal, "Yep, this sure is one hell of a scandal," or were they appointed to investigate it?) The commission determined that the president did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, therefore he didn't lie to the American people, but criticized him heavily for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. (I have already said what's wrong with this sentence above, but looking at it again I would like to add that there is also something wrong with the sentence structure. The "therefore he did not lie to the American people" splits the sentence making it awkward.) Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger was indicted for perjury and later received a presidential pardon from George H. W. Bush. In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president.


 * According to The Washington Post (Is this standard Wikipedia practice to name of the paper in the article???), some Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, saying he was an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he "saved Central America" and helped "nurture democratic governments and free-market systems across the region." (There has to be a better way to say all this. I am going to look for some polling on Reagan and central America. I think most people in central American would fall on the anti-Reagan side, but I will find something to back that up. As this is currently written it does not properly articulate this particular critique of Reagan and is more of a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is line.) Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan leader of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his "dirty war against Nicaragua."


 * We can discuss the various criticisms in here, but even if you think only half of them are accurate, this section has serious problems with POV which are reflective of the article. The best way I can describe it is the criticism of Reagan is given a some critics say, but look what a great guy he is treatment. Wikipediatoperfection 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the section now. Happyme22 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Easily fixed to fairly include the BBC coverage in a more complete way. As an aside, I think that your comments regarding your opinion of how the American people view President Reagan or Clinton are irrelevant to whether this article should be featured. JCO312 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had originally written that most Central-Americans didn't like Reagan because of this this & this, but someone added how he is liked there for "balance." Happyme22 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cold War & Star Wars: This section also seems to lack the benefit of time in relation to Star Wars. The way the article puts it is Reagan said Star Wars would work, critics said it wouldn't. This may have been the disagreement at the time (I think is was pretty clear it would not work at the time, but I doubt we can get a consensus for that), however, we now have the perspective of time that the DoD still can't get something similar to Star Wars to remotely work 30 years later (my definition of working is precisely the same as everyone else's, it has to be able to differentiate between decoys and real nukes and shoot down 100% of incoming ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads, and they still are not anywhere close to shooting down a single ICBM).
 * I don't fully understand your point. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I understand is that, if this article explored in detail every topic as suggested, it would be 3 times too long. Right now, it makes excellent use of summary style, and the interested reader can go to the other articles for additional detail.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My point, which in retrospect was not very clear, is that many people think it was not simply a difference of some say it would work, some say it wouldn't. His critics do not think he was simply wrong about this, they think he sort of knew it would not work, but did not care, ignored the science, and pushed for it anyway. My point was that with the perspective of time it is fairly clear that Reagan was full of it when he said Star Wars was technically feasible. Wikipediatoperfection 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Legacy: This section reads like a fan page. It lacks a serious analysis of his legacy from the left or the right. This part of the section should be seen as a starting point for a serious look at his legacy:
 * "Reagan's supporters believe that much of America's success today can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, including a more efficient and more prosperous economy, a peaceful end to the Cold War, and a world safer from the threat of nuclear war. Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, tripling the United States national debt."
 * Umm can I ask what's wrong with this? Citations are provided. Happyme22 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the part that is fine. What I am saying is that the rest of the legacy section reads like a fan page and this quote from the article should be the starting point for a good legacy section. Wikipediatoperfection 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Example of fan page text, please ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If Ronald Reagan were my hero I would put this quote on my wall:
 * The noted presidential biographer Richard Reeves summarized in President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination that Reagan understood ...how to be President, who knows that the job is not to manage the government but to lead a nation. In many ways, a quarter century later, he is still leading. As his vice president, George H.W. Bush, said after Reagan was shot and hospitalized in 1981: 'We will act as if he were here.' He is a heroic figure if not always a hero. He did not destroy communism, as his champions claim, but he knew it would self-destruct and hastened the collapse. No small thing. He believed the Soviet Union was evil and he had contempt for the established American policies of containment and détente. Asked about his own Cold War strategy, he answered: 'We win. They lose!' Like one of his heroes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, he has become larger than life.


 * Ronald Reagan is not my hero, but this quote is currently the lead in to the legacy section. Wikipediatoperfection 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the quote, because I can see how it can be POV-ish. Happyme22 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please look at the Legacy section now. It is much more neutral and presents a more fair picture of Reagan's legacy. Happyme22 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a sufficient list of problems that need to be tackled before it can be a featured article. I obviously expect there to be disagreement on a lot of what I have criticized (particularly the stuff about Star Wars), but I think a lot of my criticism is that from both the right and the left this article lacks substance on certain issues. I think this is particularly true of the legacy section and the article's general lack of explanation of Reagan's importance in shaping the conservative movement. For better or for worse, Reagan's presidency was a coming out party for the conservative movement. This is missing from the legacy section and largely missing from the article. Wikipediatoperfection 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added my comments to the above "questionable issues." Happyme22 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried that you're quoting from other Wikipedia articles, expecting this article to incorporate information from an unreliable source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the wiki articles are a good starting point, a quick way to show you what I am saying. These other Wikipedia articles could be better referenced and we can find good sources for what they are saying. However, once this content is better sourced, it will essentially say the same thing as the Wikipedia articles Wikipediatoperfection 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means there's no reason to repeat the text here, since this article is already at the size guideline. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Sandy. It seems pointless to repeat what's said in other articles in this article. Happyme22 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have to say that I am not surprised at all, you two have agreed on everything up and down this page. I think you are both missing what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the article should be longer per se, I am saying that the above information is what I think needs to be incorporated to make the article NPOV. Without info from the Tower report and/or hearings the section on the Iran-Contra affair is unbalanced. What you are saying to me (at least as I perceive it) is the equivalent of me saying to you, "Oh, you think the article in anti-Reagan? You think Reagan had no knowledge that Iran-Contra was going on? Well, why would we we repeat text here. That is in other articles anyway. The important information, that he could not recall certain things during the hearing and that the Tower report was extremely critical of Reagan is all there. The article is already to size, why would we add your text to it?" This may be over the top, but I think it will make my point. There is a time and place for sending things to smaller sub articles (see this peer review I did Peer_review/Mountain_Meadows_massacre) and that is when uncontroversial nonessential background information is cluttering the page. This hardly qualifies.
 * I am going to try to respond to all of your questions above as quickly as possible. Out of curiosity, I know Happyme22 is the main conservative contributor/ main contributor overall to this article, but is there a main liberal/progressive contributor to this article? The reason I ask is because I think that, correct me if I am wrong, this article has primarily been written by diligent Reagan fans who have in general made great strides to make the article NPOV, but do not have a regular main liberal or progressive contributor to balance the article out. Anyway, this is my impression, correct me if I'm wrong.
 * You are unlikely to change my mind this go around. If this fails to become a feature article this time around (which obviously I think it should) I would be willing to work with both of you (and any other main contributors), make significant contributions, iron out the sections where we have differences, reach a consensus, and recommend the page together to be a featured article.  Wikipediatoperfection 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I added a sentence in the Iran Contra affair section about the Tower Commission's findings. Is that better? Happyme22 02:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is well-written and well-laid out.  The issue of POV is a difficult one with any political figure in living memory, but the editors of this article have done a very good job of keeping things as neutral as possible.  Coemgenus 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Happyme22 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-Comment: Yes, Happyme22 I was talking about the sub-section "Popular opinion" in "Legacy" in my earlier comment.  Knowledge  Hegemony  06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok well I removed the header and kept I think 2 out of the 4 setences that were in the section. I wanted to keep the most recent polls as well. Does the section look better? Happyme22 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither oppose or support I don't see any explanation of his politico-economic philosophy. I think that's crucial for an article on Reagan. Operation Spooner 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide bullet points/outline for reference... what exactly are you requesting? Ling.Nut 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he read the classical liberal economists, such as Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek. He accepted their prescriptions as his own. His economic philosophy was laissez-faire. And if you listen to his inaugural speech it was very anti-government control over the economy, anti-welfare state, and pro-self-reliance. If we are to know the man, we need to know more about what he was thinking. There was a method to his madness. There has to be references out there explaining his philosophy and what writers influenced him.  What was the message in the speeches he wrote? Without this, I think the article is too superficial. Operation Spooner 04:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for your comment. Happyme22 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see there is a "Religious beliefs and philosophy section." There should be a discussion of his political and economic philosophy there. Operation Spooner 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you oppose the article over a single matter than why don't you fix it yourself, because you seem to know what you're talking about per one of Wiki's policies: Be Bold. Happyme22 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added something about it. I changed my mind about it being in the philosophy section. It is only a sentence and is essential. Other than opposition to political communism, his economic philosophy of self-reliance, low taxation, opposition to the welfare state, is what he was all about. He spoke about it all the time. It deserves a sentence in the introduction. Operation Spooner 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You and I have worked that out. Would you consider supporting now? Happyme22 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well done. Shane (talk/contrib) 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happyme22 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support Support - The last time I voted on this FAC (previous nomination) I objected because of prose. I'm not comfortable stating that any article has "brilliant" prose, but to pick two other terms in the criteria I certainly think it is engaging and of a professional standard. As for my conditional support, there are a few things that bugged me:
 * Regarding " Reagan tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's far right. Reagan won the pledges of some 600 delegates, but Richard Nixon quickly steamrolled to the nomination" -- the steamroll comment left me thinking how? So I went to Richard Nixon, not covered there either. So finally I made it to United States presidential election, 1968 which explains. Of course a paragraph of the same size would be crazy here - maybe just say "Nixon arrived at the convention with 98% of the votes needed for the nomination. ...oh and possibly link one of the words using the piped, maybe convention?
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Led by William J. Casey, the 1980 presidential campaign was" made me read it twice. Would it not be better to say "Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, managed by William J. Casey, was..."
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The diaries were recently published" is a no-no. Recently soon becomes out of date. More accurate to say "The Diaries were published in May 2007" anyway.
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "In his first inaugural address, which Reagan himself wrote,[50] he addressed the economic malaise he inherited, arguing: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." The Reagan Presidency began in an historic manner: on 20 January 1981 just 30 minutes into his inaugural address, 52 American hostages, held by Iran for 444 days were set free.[51]" is disjointed. Would it not be better to say "In his first inaugural address on 20 January 1981,..... rather than mentioning the date later.
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, however, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. " is both too significant to remain unreferenced and also weasel words without a reference i.e. "reportedly"
 * ✅ - I worded this a little more neutrally, but I don't know if I can find a source for that, so I just said the mission was aborted. Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this instance is "Caspar" a later instance says "Casper" - I believe the former is the correct one and the latter should be corrected.
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "In 2006, historians ranked the Iran-Contra affair as one of the ten worst mistakes by a U.S. president" - would be better to say "9th in the top ten worst..." - Gives it a better context and I personally was interested to see and had to go to the reference.
 * ✅ Happyme22 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work though to all involved. Mark83 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The check marks I added speak for themselves! Would you consider a totally supporting? Happyme22 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I also see NPOV issues with this article, particularly in the legacy section.  I opposed commented on (but would have opposed later) the last nomination of this article, and none of the concerns I raised were addressed.  (See the last nomination for what I said then.)  Instead of a balanced assessment of the impact of the Reagan presidency, we have quotes from what people said at his funeral.  People say nice things at everyone's funeral!  Get a historian and not a eulogist to tell me what Reagan's legacy is. Calliopejen1 08:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added two critiques of Reagan in the "Legacy" section, and removed the Dick Cheney quote. See what you think. Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now it's more balanced, but it's still insubstantial. I would hope after reading an article about Ronald Reagan, the reader would have a good idea of who (among reliable sources who normally assess this, i.e. serious historians) thought he was a good president, who thought he was a bad president, and why.  All we have now is a couple people gushing, and a couple people saying the gushing is unwarranted.  Calliopejen1 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the "Legacy" section now. I have removed all the quotes by George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc., and replaced them with quotes by historians. Better? Happyme22 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a misplaced modifier in the lead: "After surviving an assassination attempt during his first term, experiencing a period of economic growth,[1] and ordering a military operation in Grenada, Reagan was...". Surely it was the U.S., not Reagan, that experienced the period of economic growth. =) Perhaps substitute "overseeing" for "experiencing"? Although I guess some might argue that's not NPOV. 69.202.45.153 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done that. Thanks for the heads-up. Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose The legacy section in particular is highly biased in Reagan's favour and the clique of self-confessed Reaganites will not allow any mention of how his policies directly lead the deaths of some 300,000 in Central America.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are also the one who thinks Ronald Reagan is a murderer and wanted that to be written in the article. We already took your "advice" and wrote that many Central Americans don't think highly of him at all. And you still have not provided a citation to show that Reagan's policies "led to the death of 300,000 Central Americans." Happyme22 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even a busted clock is correct twice a day, Hap. All of the user's Big Bag of Crazy aside, he makes a valid point that he is largely reviled by a large number of people even now, almost 30 years later. That balance is missing from the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see what he wrote on my talk page:
 * "The Contras were not anti-communist because the Nicaraguan government was not communist. See the Wiki page on the FSLN. I am not committing vandalism I am correcting an error which I will continue to do. If you have some God-like power to block me then I hope you feel really good about yourself for supressing the truth.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject I note that you call yourself a Christian. Well, you may care to know that some 300,000 died in Central America as a direct result of your hero Reagan's policies; 60,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and the rest in Guatemala. The Contra terrorists gouged out eyes, chopped of genitalia, stabbed pregnant women in the belly. These were all routine. Those charming freedom-lovers who Reagan called the 'moral equivalent of the French Resistance'. And for what? What possible treat did these tiny countries thousands of miles away from the USA pose?. I will tell you: a threat to the profits of United Fruit (Dole) and Del Monte. The land-reform policies of the FSLN were a threat to the profit margins of these two US-based fruit multinationals. Block me if it makes to feel better to deny these truths but I must tell you that I am Christian too and one day we will both have to stand before God. Don't say you weren't warned.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"
 * NPOV? I even consider that a personal attack! And a citation still has not been provided! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - This article reads like a Republican Party advertisement. The Lead is so over the top with peacocking and over-blown claims that reflect little of its actual purpose of reflecting the article via summary. The sections are bloated, and on one case (Religious views) utterly unnecessary. there seems to be strong opposition to change within the article, and a significant re-write is long, long overdue. However, the pics are nice. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we have already talked about the lead on the talk page - when I get around to it in the next few days (I probably can't do it today) I'm going to work with you on the lead and we'll come up with something. And I will get rid of the religious views section and incporate the text throughout. Best, Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Good article, seems neutral and generally stable; once the wording is fixed in the above critiques, should be good to go. Judgesurreal777 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The honors section seems needlessly long and listy and would probably be better summarized and moved to a subpage. I'm not sure what work has been done to incorporate the criticism that Wikipediatoperfection mentioned was lacking, but I think that is definitely more important than this if we're prioritizing for space. Calliopejen1 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there's been a lot that was done. We removed much of the less-important things named after Reagan (i.e. highways, roads, schools, etc.) and made room for a more neutral Reaganomics section. The Iran Contra affair I must admit is a lot more neutral, with substantial criticisms of Reagan and his admin. The War on drugs was almost completly redone... Wikipediatoperfection has had an impact on this article, bottom line. Happyme22 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - On two grounds: 1. Does not comply with requirements for FAC, specifically stability and neutrality. This is a fan page strongly protected by partisans who gang up on anyone who points out factual errors, POV concerns, and innappropriate sources, and calls them "anti-Reagan" (and Happy and Sandy et al: please don't waste our time trying that on me; take a look at my contributions and you'll see that I am scrupulous about NPOV, facts and reliable sources, and not letting politics enter my edits). It is not neutral, and it is not stable. 2. The second objection is far more serious: this is the (5th? 6th?) time we are being asked to consider this article for FAC within a very short period of time. Besides taking up a lot of valuable time (and proving my point about it being a fanboy lovefest for Reagan), each time the article is submitted (by the same editor, who is the protector and "owner" of this article) before the concerns, problems and errors have been completely resolved...there appears to be a great anxiety on the part of the "owner" that this article achieve FAC status, as soon as possible and at all costs. That alone should raise enough eyebrows regarding its acceptance as FAC. Info999 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Please do us all a favor and re-read WP:NPA. Then live it.
 * Comment Perhaps you would like to point out exactly how you think I've violated this policy? The policy guards against attacks against a person, instead of arguments against reasoning, sourcing, logic, etc. I have attacked no one personally. Relevant (and ironic) factoid, Ling: the policy expressly states that accusing someone without justification of failing to adhere to the policy is in itself a violation of the policy! Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the articles multiple noms.. in fact.. if it fails this time, then I plan to hit it very very hard in the first or second week of next month (real-life permitting, which may actually be a concern)... yes I like Reagan but am a (nascent) scholar first, last and always, so I'll be keen on NPOV. Then I plan to re-nom it almost immediately. So feel free to include me in the broad brush strokes of your ad hominem comments if you like, even though I hadn't touched this article before this particle FAC nom. -- Ling.Nut 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, you accuse me of something "bad" without being able to point to any specifics. Pointing out that an article is a fan lovefest is not a personal attack, even on those who are participating in the lovefest! Not only is the neutrality of this article regularly questioned by well-meaning and politically-neutral editors (that alone fails the FAC test), but it should concern many of us that there is a great urgency to have it accepted as an FA - while continually failing to adhere to the rules governing FAs, and continually failing to be accepted. Info999 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So I've nominated this 5 of 6 times and it has failed all times...so what? The MOS doesn't say how many times an article can/should be nominated therefore your second objection is irrelevant. This time we actually have 12 supports and it just might stand a chance of passing. And if it doesn't, like Ling.Nut said, there's a pretty good chance it will pass soon afterward. I know this is suprising to you Info but I'm going to complement you - yes me, the mean old conservative. Thank you, Info999, for adding more facts to the iran Contra affair section and making it more balanced! Happyme22 03:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing then: Comment on content, not on the contributor. (Quoting from NPA). But I had forgotten the cardinal rule that responding to ad hominem is always and everywhere conterproductive, because people who resort to it never admit they are making ad hominem attacks, never admit any viewpoint beside their own, etc etc etc. So will strike all above.. as per WP:USELESS. -- Ling.Nut 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. It's remarkable how this FAC has brought out the POV pushers (most of whom have yet to provide reliable sources for the content they want inserted) and unsubstantiated claims about editors protecting the article.  I don't have this article watchlisted, did not support it on the previous SIX FACs, and have largely confined my edits to ref and MOS cleanup (intensive work that results in a high edit content, making me look like a significant contributor, but you'll find I have a high edit count on any article I do ref and MOS cleanup on—I'm also one of the highest contributors to Barack Obama because I cleaned up refs).  The POV of the persons opposing the nomination is abundantly apparent ("Reagan's dark/criminal side?") and no actionable POV has been identified and backed by reliable sources.  If POV pushers can sidetrack this nom, then they should take an equally close look at the featured article Barack Obama or the standards set on Wiki for featured bios by articles like Austin Nichols.  A double standard is at play here, and POV pushers appear to be attempting to destabilize the article so they can claim its unstable.  Ah, such is the Wiki !  Will they succeed?  Only Raul knows.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Borateen image is still listed as a work of the US Federal Government, which makes no sense. Just because it's found on a .gov website doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Haukur 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture problem has been fixed. Would you consider striking your opposition? Happyme22 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good (becuase *that one* was a valid oppose :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I take note of the many opposes, but suggest that every president is controversial, and is both beloved and be-hated :-). There simply isn't room enough in one article to explore the many nooks and crannies of the arguments on both sides, but this article does a good job of at least bringing them to the table. I strongly suggest that all remaining concerns be addressed in subarticles, such as Reaganomics Cheers! -- Ling.Nut 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ling.Nut for your help! Best, Happyme22 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I believe I read once that, by definition, the president of the united states is always simultaneously the most-loved and most-despised person in politics. I read the article with only consideration of the POV-concerns.  I come away with the impression that he did some things quite well, some things quite poorly, and historians and pundits disagree about a lot of it.  The article takes an excellent and appropriate just the facts, m'am approach.  Bravo! --JayHenry 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Best, Happyme22 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Refuse to participate - usually I'll just quietly abstain from FAC discussions, but in this case I think some uninvolved commentary might prove useful. While most articles that reach FA status have some good shepherds who steward articles through the FAC process, I think that we've moved past that and are bordering on ownership issues.  When each and every comment or concern is vehemently dissected and answered, and each support vote is thanked by the same one or two editors it has a chilling effect on dissent and discussion.  Couple that with said shepherds characterizing opposition as "invalid" (or commenting that only one oppose vote is "valid") and we have a process that is hopelessly tainted.  I would vote strong oppose for many of the reasons listed above, but I don't care to have my motives challenged or have a list of POV concerns nit-picked by those who are pushing so hard to have a gold star at the top of this article.  I have no doubt that this FAC will probably pass, however my abstinance should serve as a record of concern regarding the validity and vigorousness of pre-FA discussion.  /Blaxthos 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.