The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:31, 31 July 2008 [1].
This article has problems on 1b and 1d (not neutral and comprehensive). Jimmuldrow ( talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The main editor reverts any facts with references that aren't hero-worship. Some time after the article achieved featured article status, editors kept insisting on a historically wrong comparison of Reagan and Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson spent very little money as President on anything, including the military), which was eventually removed because of me. Other issues kept out at first or allowed only after several reverts include any mention of thousands of people denied Social Security Medical benefits by the Reagan administration, and Reagan's policy on drastically cutting EPA funding. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the big arrow. I responded on the talk page for this one concern, but the FAR is for an ongoing series of the same kind of thing in what, in theory, is supposed to be a Featured Article. See above for details. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
To recap a series of reverts that, over time, point to persistently biased editors:
Multiple editors kept reverting any attempt to correct a comparison of Reagan and Jefferson that was very wrong on the facts according to the book "Jefferson: American Sphinx", which was a History Book Club selection. Not that bad a reference. As to what the problem was, here's a hint: Jefferson and Reagan went opposite directions on the issue of deficit spending and military spending. That multiple editors of what is supposed to be a Featured Article wouldn't know this doesn't say much for the article.
Multiple reverts were made on any attempt to mention any details of Reagan's very well-known policy of deregulation, especially with regard to environmental protection (major) and also administration attempts to purge tens of thousands of people from Social Security Medical Disability roles (certainly not minor). There were good references for each. The reasons given were that they weren't relevant to the Presidency section of the Ronald Reagan article, which is very questionable. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Whether the FAR is closed should be decided by those who are not directly involved with the article.
The main article should mention at least a short, concise summary of the important issues, although I'm sure they're mentioned in more depth elsewhere. Deregulation is certainly one of the things Reagan was most known for. If the article is about Reagan and not environmental deregulation then the Cold War shouldn't be mentioned because the Soviet Union and Gorbachev aren't Reagan, and so on.
And yes, every edit I mentioned above was reverted multiple times and no, it was not all about you, Happy. Other editors acted the same way. Hero worship would explain what otherwise doesn't add up, imo.
Jimmuldrow ( talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The "lengthy" addition in question was three or four sentences, depending on which revert you're talking about. As for balance, if facts needed to be added you would have mentioned them by now.
Also, Reagan's EPA and Social Security appointees were specifically chosen because they shared Reagan's values with regard to deregulation. They were specifically chosen to implement Reagan's policies. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
As to the quality of the edits, let some outside party judge. They were factual, had references, were as relevant to Reagan as the Cold War and, as mentioned before, several editors defended a completely wrong comparison of Reagan to Jefferson more than once. Let someone less directly involved also judge the quality of your responses.
Jimmuldrow (
talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
Didn't you see that this nomination was removed by Marskell? Why was this reinstated? Once again, remove nomination.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:31, 31 July 2008 [1].
This article has problems on 1b and 1d (not neutral and comprehensive). Jimmuldrow ( talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The main editor reverts any facts with references that aren't hero-worship. Some time after the article achieved featured article status, editors kept insisting on a historically wrong comparison of Reagan and Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson spent very little money as President on anything, including the military), which was eventually removed because of me. Other issues kept out at first or allowed only after several reverts include any mention of thousands of people denied Social Security Medical benefits by the Reagan administration, and Reagan's policy on drastically cutting EPA funding. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the big arrow. I responded on the talk page for this one concern, but the FAR is for an ongoing series of the same kind of thing in what, in theory, is supposed to be a Featured Article. See above for details. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
To recap a series of reverts that, over time, point to persistently biased editors:
Multiple editors kept reverting any attempt to correct a comparison of Reagan and Jefferson that was very wrong on the facts according to the book "Jefferson: American Sphinx", which was a History Book Club selection. Not that bad a reference. As to what the problem was, here's a hint: Jefferson and Reagan went opposite directions on the issue of deficit spending and military spending. That multiple editors of what is supposed to be a Featured Article wouldn't know this doesn't say much for the article.
Multiple reverts were made on any attempt to mention any details of Reagan's very well-known policy of deregulation, especially with regard to environmental protection (major) and also administration attempts to purge tens of thousands of people from Social Security Medical Disability roles (certainly not minor). There were good references for each. The reasons given were that they weren't relevant to the Presidency section of the Ronald Reagan article, which is very questionable. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Whether the FAR is closed should be decided by those who are not directly involved with the article.
The main article should mention at least a short, concise summary of the important issues, although I'm sure they're mentioned in more depth elsewhere. Deregulation is certainly one of the things Reagan was most known for. If the article is about Reagan and not environmental deregulation then the Cold War shouldn't be mentioned because the Soviet Union and Gorbachev aren't Reagan, and so on.
And yes, every edit I mentioned above was reverted multiple times and no, it was not all about you, Happy. Other editors acted the same way. Hero worship would explain what otherwise doesn't add up, imo.
Jimmuldrow ( talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The "lengthy" addition in question was three or four sentences, depending on which revert you're talking about. As for balance, if facts needed to be added you would have mentioned them by now.
Also, Reagan's EPA and Social Security appointees were specifically chosen because they shared Reagan's values with regard to deregulation. They were specifically chosen to implement Reagan's policies. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
As to the quality of the edits, let some outside party judge. They were factual, had references, were as relevant to Reagan as the Cold War and, as mentioned before, several editors defended a completely wrong comparison of Reagan to Jefferson more than once. Let someone less directly involved also judge the quality of your responses.
Jimmuldrow (
talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
Didn't you see that this nomination was removed by Marskell? Why was this reinstated? Once again, remove nomination.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply