Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-13 Ronald Reagan Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-13 Ronald Reagan 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by Flcelloguy 1.3 Mediator response 1.4 Evidence 1.5 Compromise offers 1.6 Comments by others 1.7 Discussion 1.7.1 Mediator First Thoughts 1.8 Syberghost's POV 1.9 Smokingmaenad's POV 1.10 Rjensen's POV 1.11 Mediation still necessary? 2 Case closed

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-13 Ronald Reagan

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Syberghost 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The Ronald Reagan page.

Who's involved?

Syberghost, Smokingmaenad, Rjensen, Flcelloguy, and others.

What's going on?

Smokingmaenad has decided that the article needs a LOT more language emphasizing various charges against Reagan, and that those already present are of far too sympathetic wording. He has further decided that said edits need to be made IMMEDIATELY, and that anyone who doesn't adequately answer his questions in the proper form is excluded from being considered in his vision of consensus. He has insisted he has the right to unilateraly make any edits, and that he will only allow their removal if he is the one who removes them.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like him to work with us to achieve consensus before making his edits, and to lay off the POV.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Here's fine with me, but if you need it, syberghost@gmail.com

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Not at this time.

[edit] Comments by Flcelloguy

I really don't know where to post this, so I created a new section. I hope that's okay. :-)

Anyways, on to my comments: mediation is absolutely not needed in this. Speaking from both my perspective as an editor and as a member of the Mediation Committee, I think that mediation would both be fruitless and ineffective here. The dispute really only involves one person - Smokingmaenad - with most everyone else agreeing that his insertions are, for the most part, not acceptable. He has been reverted several times by various people already, and the matter has been discussed lengthily on the talk page. He also has been warned about violating the three revert rule, and has been blocked once already for that.

In addition, I've also tried my best to explain everything to him, and - pardon my lack of modesty - but I think I'm doing a good job here. It's my view that outside intervention from the cabal (it's a joke! ;) ) is not necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Disputants are not terribly receptive to mediation. I don't think there's too much I can do here to help.Danny Pi 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Mediator First Thoughts

Okay... so I've decided to take this case. I will obviously try to keep my own political biases out of this. My job is not to decide who is right, but to help all you disputants find common ground and consensus. That said, I'm a busy college student, and I don't have time to wade through ten pages of personal attacks. I don't intend on reporting anyone for violations at this time, but I'd really appreciate if you guys would stop with the fighting and discuss this in a civilized, orderly fashion. So, barring any objections, I'm going to delete the long discussion that has taken place up until now (without a mediator), and we'll all start over together. Seriously, though, if you have any objection to my deleting the discussion on this page prior to my arrival, let me know, and we'll talk about reinstating it. From my quick scan over it, though, it doesn't seem terribly constructive, and it escapes me what the point of arguing on the mediation could possibly be sans mediator. Again, I have no special authority as mediator here, but it would help me to help you if we all adhered to a certain level of orderliness and mutual respect.

So. That said, I'd like all interested parties to concisely state their views. That is, precisely what changes you'd like to make on the article. What wording you would like to see removed or added. Don't be vague. Say exactly which lines bother you. Please don't elaborate on the history of the fight, etc. Just indicate that something is NPOV or vague or grammatically incorrect or whatever.

No. Please don't delete any old discussions. With absolutely no disrespect meant, I notice that you're relatively new to Wikipedia - first, on talk pages we usually place messages at the bottom of the page, not the top. Second, we never "delete" or "remove" old discussions - we archive them if they're outdated (which in this case, they're not). Also, as I stated above, I feel that this will be fruitless, from both my perspective as an editor and as a member of the mediation committee. I'm committed to writing a nonbiased, accurate, and comprehensive article, but I don't feel that this is the right direction. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, archive, but don't delete. It might be helpful to rethread them and archive the old version, though; with all the unsigned and improperly indented stuff in there, it's impossible to follow the flow of conversation. -Syberghost 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The old discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-13 Ronald Reagan Archive. Re: Flcelloguy, "New" is (as you noted) a relative term. I realize that new posts are generally posted at the bottom- but the Reagan talk page is positively enormous, as you may have noticed, and it was a) easier just to throw it at the top, and b) I thought the likelihood of people reading it were greater at the top of the page (i.e. it shows up before you even start scrolling down). Lastly, perhaps you could elaborate for me why you don't think that this mediation will be fruitful?Danny Pi 01:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First, I apologize if my message came out as either aggressive or in any way impolite; I was tired and frustrated and was not up to my usual tactness. It was not my intention for my message to convey any such feelings. All I simply feel is that mediation by the mediation cabal is unnecessary here at the current time, in which I will elaborate on greater later. Again, I reiterate the fact that I'm committed to a comprehensive article, but that I don't feel that this is the right venue in the present situation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syberghost's POV

Enough people disagree with Smokingmaenad's take that it shouldn't be in there. He seems to have from somewhere gotten the impression that if he throws in enough points and they're not refuted one by one, he gets to trump consensus and word things however he wants. I'm so tired of arguing with the guy I don't even want to bother anymore. Initially I made efforts to try to help him word and place things in such a way so as to both address his concerns about inclusion and still meet wikipedia policies about neutral point of view and sympathetic tone, but he seems completely uninterested in either policy; at least, when it comes to articles about people he doesn't like. I called for mediation because I can't work with the guy. Since I'm not the only one, I have reached the conclusion that it isn't me, and I can only change me, so somebody who can work with him needs to get involved.

Understood. I don't think a majority should be able to arbitrarily censor a valid minority viewpoint. The question is perhaps whether Smokingmaenad's edits are valid contributions and expressed in a NPOV. Danny Pi 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smokingmaenad's POV

Well, I'm not the one who requested, but it is on behalf of my contributions that this mediation was started.

This is what I'm frustrated about - the Reagan article is deeply biased. It has improved somewhat in that we now have a reference to the corruption in the opening paragraph. My belief is that the corruption was so extreme that it needs a paragraph of it's own in the top - it was the most remarkable aspect of Reagan's presidency.

My other beef is this - Reagan set the record for corruption, and yet an extensive discussion of his corruption is not allowed on this page. It's scooted off to another page, thus drawing attention AWAY from it. When someone sets the record for something as signficant as corruption, that deserves attention on the main page. To the extent that it is mentioned, that mention is moved ALL THE WAY DOWN TO criticisms. Thus, a paragraph on Reagan's nicknames, for God's sake, warrants more generous placement than the sheer level of corruption does. It's preposteous and it's biased. The article on corruption, in order to avoid bias, needs to be placed underneath foreign/domestic policy because the corruption was deeply entwined with policy. You cannot separate Iran/Contra from foreign policy just as you cannot separate the HUD scandal, the EPA scandal or the WedTech scandal from domestic policy. To have the temerity to suggest that nicknames are more important is preposterous, dishonest and partisan.

Also, there is a statement that needs to go - historians the world over DO NOT attribute to Reagan the downfall of the Soviet Union. American conservatives do, and with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, that's pretty much it.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my general impression is that the article is fairly unbiased. There are a goodly number of references to the various scandals of Reagan's presidency. What exactly do you want changed? Can you make a list? What information do you want included, omitted, etc? As to the question of placement, I think the current category for controversies is consistent with wiki's other articles on presidents. A quick look at Nixon's listing shows the Watergate scandal at the end of his "Presidency" section. Similarly, Clinton's listing shows the impeachment at the bottom of his "Presidency" section. I'm not here to judge, and I'm not suggesting Reagan's scandals don't deserve greater mention or elaboration. However, I would like to point out the consistency of the placement of that information vis-a-vis the Wiki article. Danny Pi 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Reagan was far more corrupt than any of those people and that is an objective, verifiable fact - that is not opinion, though his supporters will try and say it is. That is why I think it belongs with policy. Nixon is the only president who comes close and his corruption was NOT linked to policy. Clinton, despite the fact he was impeached, was not even remotedly corrupt. Reagan had 19 staffers convicted, Clinton 1. So, in Clinton's case, having it at the bottom of the page is appropriate. Reagan's extreme corruption was completely intertwined with his policies - it cannot be gotten around. Iran/Contra was a direct extension of his foreign policy. The HUD scandal was rooted in his contempt for the department, as was the EPA scandal. The WedTech scandal (though not yet mentioned) was part and parcel of the defense policy. Reagan's corruption dominated the news, and corrupted everything his adminstration tried to do - one could literally make the case that he pursued policy that allowed him to foster corruption. Was policy an outgrowth of what his staff wanted to steal, or was the corruption a result of policy? Who knows? Certainly not me.

Reagan, again objectively speaking, set the record for corruption, and I think that deserves a mention in the opening bio that is not subordinated as an excuse for a nickname. I also think that the paragraph on corruption deserves to be with policy because that's what his corruption is linked to.

And since we're talking about consensus and other presidents, my main frustration has been their notion that their is no value in objective truth and empirical reality - that consensus and opinion trump truth. If I'm expressing a truth they don't like, they describe it as bias. For a long time, they objected to even a paragraph on corruption because, according to them alone, Reagan wasn't "known" for being corrupt, therefore it was irrelevant. Look at the discussion. It's there.

I didn't ask for this intervention. Syberghost was frustrated that he couldn't run all over me, and asked for it.

Your obedient servant,

Smokingmaenad 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in some sense consensus does trump objective truth. The wiki purpose is not to present original research, but an orthodox source of information. The original research may in fact be correct, but Wiki would not be the right place to publish it. I certainly won't argue whether Reagan was corrupt (1. It's not my job. 2. I agree that he was). Nonetheless, the claim that his was more corrupt than other administrations is a difficult claim to defend objectively. How exactly does one compare corruption anyway? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the article DOES need to mention Reagan's corruption in greater detail. Or perhaps simply more explicitly. Rather than making those changes yourself (and getting slapped with a 3RR ban), wouldn't it be more constructive to seek a consensus about the wording on the talk page before performing the edit? Failing to do this, someone else will simply RV your changes anyway. If you sincerely believe your claims are objective and appropriate (and I believe you do), then why not seek consensus on the wording and placement? After all, if you can convince (rather than strong arm) everyone that your point is valid, then the community would then willingly allow the edit, and those edits would be semi-permanent. Perhaps you'd need to compromise, but it's better than being totally shut out of the process, isn't it? I'm not saying they're right, and I'm not saying you're right. But ideally we all want the same thing: an objective, informative article. But when you unilaterally decide to make an edit, you're changes are doomed to be RV, and whatever positive contribution you could have made to the article is lost. Being hit with a 3RR only compounds the problem. No one wins revert wars.Danny Pi 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually quite a simple concept to defend - no one else has anywhere near as many staffers convicted as Reagan - it's a black and white fact. You either are convicted or you aren't. Nixon comes in second with 15. Harding and Grant are quite a bit further down the list and, I assure you, this involves no original research. There have been plenty of books written on Watergate that listed the number of people convicted, as is the case for Harding and Grant as well. In point of fact, the quote I used that traumatized them so badly was from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who covered Iran/Contra who stated that Reagan's record was the "worst ever". Princeton professors, which is what Haynes Johnson is, are paid to always get these facts right. They're paid to be the guy who goes and researches this stuff. Publishing companies don't let you make statements like that unless you can document it.

What are the totals you have for Truman, Grant and Harding? I suspect you have no totals at all (see the Truman article for help). Johnson got a prize 40 years ago buit not for THAT book. He plagiarized the numbers from another book. Rjensen 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum. Present some evidence of plagarism. Go ahead. And while you're at it, if you have a beef with Haynes Johnson's quote, prove him wrong. Find another established historian who says Reagan DIDN"T have the most people investigated, indicted and/or convicted. Do some work and quit sniping.

Smokingmaenad 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus they agree to that involved mentioning Reagan's corruption. They disputed the idea that had the most convictions, so I provided with links to mainstream sources that validate all the convictions and they simply split that off to a separate page. There argument is, as I have said, that Reagan isn't "known" for being corrupt, so it's not important to the page. How do you arrive at a consensus with people who feel their way through empirical reality? Truthiness I think is the current word for this kind of thinking.

Their idea of objective is a highly biased and dishonest article. It's empirical reality and objectivity that they refuse to let be a part of this article.

Again, I'm not the one who asked for this mediation - I think you should talking with Syberghost rather than me. I can document what I say, and I do document it.

Smokingmaenad 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Smokingmaenad- You've mentioned several times now that you aren't the one that requested mediation. This is entirely unnecessary, since the request for mediation can be seen at the top of the page, which clearly says that the mediation was requested by Syberghost. Now, if you take issue with my objectivity, you can request a new mediator. If you don't want to take part in mediation, it's your prerogative whether to participate- and it is possible that this issue will be brought up for arbitration. I don't think it's very constructive, though, to continually point out that you are opposed to the mediation process (if that is what you mean to imply). As for directing my comments to Syberghost, it seems like you're the one in the minority right now. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but the onus does seem to rest on you to justify your proposed edits and to be flexible to compromise (indeed, even if you were in the majority, it would behoove you to do so). You haven't clearly expressed which specific phrases you'd like to change, and you don't seem to be willing to compromise, so all this discussion seems largely theoretical at this point. I would point out that it seems entirely objective to point out that X number of Reagan staffers were convicted. That is, truly, an indisputable objective fact. However, you extrapolate from this that Reagan's administration was "the most corrupt ever," which does not seem to me to be particularly NPOV. The line between POV and NPOV is not always very clear, and I don't presume to sit on judgment. My suggestions are merely that: suggestions. But rather than debating Reagan's legacy, perhaps it would be more constructive if you could simply make a list of the changes you'd like to make. Can we please start with that? Anything else would be nothing more than pointless theoretical digression. You may be right with regards to the edits you'd like to make, but you simply will not convince everyone in the world that Reagan was a bad president, and it's certainly not fruitful discussion on this site. Stick to concrete phrase-by-phrase changes you'd like to have made. That's the only way we can proceed on this thing.Danny Pi 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is this - Syberghost is the one who is unhappy with actual facts being introduced into an article. He should be specifying what I've added that he's wants to see changed. I don't understand why I'm the one being asked. I have never said I'm opposed to the mediation - I wouldn't be here if I felt that way. But I think you should be asking Syberghost what he has against my proposed contributions. What are his problems with giving the guy who set the record for 20th century corruption a mention of it in it's own right, and why he objected (as he did) to it having a full paragraph. As I have documented what I said, what's the problem with including it? Ask him what his problem is with not cloaking the corruption in the soft, fuzzy covering of a nickname?

I have specified repeatedly what the changes are that I think need to be made. I will do so again:

1. The reference to corruption in the opening bio should stand on it's own. The fact that he earned a nickname because of it should not be the reason for the reference - that's inverted in terms of importance. The structure of the sentence makes the nickname the point, not the corruption. The corruption was so overwhelming that it needs to be the point of the reference.

2. The paragraph on corruption should be moved up to the area beneath Foreign/Domestic policy. The reason being that Reagan's corruption was directly related to his policy. It was genuine corruption in the formal, legalistic sense in that people who were appointed to positions BY REAGAN used both policy and office to enrich themselves and their friends. Reagan had several departments that were completely corrupted - no other president in American history has faced so much corruption on so many fronts. Nixon was limited to Watergate. Harding pretty much to Teapot Dome. Grant is the next in line to Reagan in that there were a few different scandals but Grant had no where near as many indicted or convicted.

This isn't a partisan viewpoint on my behalf. It's a simple, honest to god, fact of history. And because he set the record, it deserves prominent mention. It's one of the most important things to know about Reagan.

I'm fine with you and this mediation. But you can't resolve the problem by talking to me. Syberghost is the one who is objecting to my contributions. He needs to explain why my additions are inappropriate.

Smokingmaenad 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rjensen's POV

Wiki should take a long-term perspective. Truman's administration had far more scandals than Reagan's, for example--and they involved not lying to Congress but loyalty to the USSR and stealing millions of $$. Rjensen 06:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Those were civil servants, not Truman staffers. It has nothing to do with Truman.

Smokingmaenad 07:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No there were over 200 political appointees--including his Attorney General and his top White House aides. Truman himself accepted an expensive freezer from a businessman who needed to get to Europe in May 1945 and was given the high level passes by Truman's military aide. Rjensen 22:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How many of Truman's staff were formally investigated - meaning that they were the formal subject of a federal prosecutor's investigation - how many were indicted and how many convicted? You need numbers. Not allegations. Right now you have nothing.

Smokingmaenad 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer in one year alone in one political agency (IRS) 1950, 166 IRS employees either resigned or were fired. (The IRS was later taken over by civil service). That's more in one year than Johnson gets in 8 for Reagan. Truman scandals included heads of numerous agencies including his attorney general. Rjensen 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And how many of those were appointed by Truman? If they are civil service workers, it's irrelevant to Truman. Now, I ask again, how many of TRUMAN's staff were investigated, indicted and convicted? NO civil service workers.

The IRS was not under civil service in late 1940s and all were political appointees, zero were civil service. How many of your 130+ names were civil servants, by the way? Rjensen 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the 138 - they're administration staff - by definition, they are not civil service. Now, you're going to need to prove that the IRS employees were appointed - not simply hired for the department. How many of them came in with Truman, and would exit with Truman? . How many were indicted and convicted? I've told you how many were convicted in the Reagan administration. How many in the Truman administration. Everything I've seen describes them as IRS employees.

Smokingmaenad 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation still necessary?

I'm actually a bit unclear about where we are in this dispute. Do you guys still want me to try to calm the waters or what? As long as at least two people are interested in continuing this process, I'll do my best to reasonably seek consensus. Otherwise, feel free to shoo me. I can either 1) request a new mediator, or 2) close the case. What's the opinion on this?Danny Pi 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

This case has been closed due to the apparent lack of possibility of mediation. Should mediation still be requested, a new request should be filed at the Mediation Cabal so the dispute resolution can start fresh. Cowman109^Talk 19:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)