Talk:Reagan administration scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why not in Ronald Reagan article? 2 Cleanup 3 Clean Up 4 Rename? 5 Worst President? 6 Carlin quote 7 Complete rewrite

[edit] Why not in Ronald Reagan article?

A better suggestion: This ought to be in the Ronald Reagan article. It was shunted over here because some people objected to this much criticism appearing in an article about Ronald Reagan, but this would make a nice section in the Reagan article or perhaps the Reagan administration article. Griot 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No; we've discussed this heavily at Talk:Ronald Reagan. A list of every single indictment is not appropriate for the article on Ronald Reagan; a mention of the scandals is already mentioned. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm the editor that shunted the section over to it's own article. So my opinion on it staying is predictable. This article has quickly taken on a life of its own. I added the North and Watts pics. Rjensen categorised the different types of convictions and the timeframes. I think this page does the job of expanding on the scandals without putting too much emphasis on said scandals, on the main Ronald Reagan page.

06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe this should remain outside the Reagan article purely to keep the Reagan article from ballooning to an even greater length. I do feel that more information could be provided in this article, however, and I think I'm going to add a "see also" section connecting the article to the scandals it describes. -- Fearfulsymmetry 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is rather messy and disorganized in its current state. Any objections to adding a cleanup tag to it? -- Fearfulsymmetry 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it took less work than I thought to organize. I'll keep adding things when I get the chance. -- Fearfulsymmetry 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

I hadn't looked at this article since it was moved over here. RJenson inserted some blatantly false information which I've straightened out. He removed several people from the list of staff which were, in point of fact, administration staffers. He also moved Rita Lavelle to a category saying that her conviction had been overturned which is also wrong. In addition, he inserted his repeatedly debunked delusion that several people were convicted for crimes that took place after they left office. What he is referring to is the Deaver/Nofziger convictions for lobbying - however, these are still corruption convictions that relate directly to their positon at the White House. When you work for the federal government, laws govern how quickly you can begin lobbying after you leave office. Breaking the laws is considered a crime against your office because NOT lobbying for the appropriate time period it is part of the terms of the administration job. Had Nofziger/Deaver not worked for the administration, or had they waited the appropriate period of time after leaving office before they began lobbying, they would not committed a crime. Where people had their convictions overturned, I noted it and explained why.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 02:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the lead paragraph that you deleted, with some reversions. The lead section is extremely important, and as you didn't put in an edit summary or comment on why the lead was inappropriate, I reinserted it. However, I also removed the sentence that you disputed (In many of the instances the person was found innocent by the courts, or the activities happened after they left government service, or they were never employed by the Reagan administration.) so we can discuss it here and then merged in the paragraph that you added (the quote) with the rest of the lead. A direct quote is not necessary; in general, we don't use exact quotes from books unless they add significantly to the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. It is a completely false statement with no truth to it whatsoever. It is a lie - nothing more, nothing less. 100% of the convictions are for crimes against the office in which the person served. The two people he is referring to are Deaver and Nofziger. Both were convicted of breaking a federal law that prohibited them from lobbying within a year of leaving office. Here's a reference to that:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14203713.htm

In what he described later as the lowest point of his life, Mr. Nofziger was convicted of three felony counts of illegal lobbying for the Wedtech and two other firms under a law prohibiting former high government officials from lobbying ex-colleagues for a year on matters of direct and substantial interest to their former agencies.

And here's Judge Robert's advising the Reagan administration on Deaver's problems - note that once again, we're up against the one year time limit. If Deaver's crimes were unrelated to his job at the White House, the White House would not be seeking legal counsel on the subject:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a0ewGCIUvzLw&refer=us

Roberts also recommended that Reagan ``distance himself from a controversy over whether Deaver violated ethics laws by becoming a lobbyist.

Reagan should ``avoid any expression of approval of Mr. Deaver's activities, Roberts wrote in an April 7, 1986, memo as Congress was beginning an investigation of Deaver and a reported $18 million offer to buy Deaver's year-old lobbying firm.

Even if Deaver broke no laws, ``a sizeable portion of the public nonetheless regards the sheer lucrativeness of his trip through the revolving door as at least distasteful, Roberts wrote. Deaver was later convicted of lying to Congress and a grand jury investigating whether his lobbying of former associates in the White House violated ethics laws.

Further, not a single person on that page was later found "not guilty" - three convictions were overturned on technical grounds only. North and Poindexter's convictions were overturned because the judge the ruled the prosecution relied to heavily on their immunized testimonies. Nofziger's was overturned because it could not proved to the court's satisfaction that he understood he was breaking the law - so again, he was not found "not guilty". He was determined to be guilty (as were Poindexter and North) but released from the conviction on a technicality. That's why they're included. There are many more people who were convicted, but as they were not a part of the administration, they were not included in the page.

Now, all of the other convictions are documented. Will you please remove that blatantly dishonest paragragh? I document everything I insert - the RJenson has been wrong on every count, and I have proved him wrong with mainstream sources in every disagreement.

Your obedient servant,

Smokingmaenad 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Smokingmaenad, please stop removing the lead section - a lead section should adequately summarize the article (always in an unbiased manner, of course). What do you disagree with about the lead? I've also tagged the disputed sentence - I think that's the one you're contesting - with {{fact}}. In addition, I've also removed some of the language that you reinserted, such as "in express defiance of Congress and in like defiance of the Boland Amendment" and "coveted". Both use extremely connotative words and insert bias into the article; please don't re-insert them. Finally, I've also tagged the article with {{POV}} because the whole article still seems to be biased - the wording of some of the sections, along with the lists of every single conviction, still makes the article seem biased. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I told you in the first paragragh what I objected to - the paragragh is historically inaccurate. This is not true:

"In many of the instances the person was found innocent by the courts, or the activities happened after they left government service, or they were never employed by the Reagan administration. [citation needed]"

There is no citation, as I have pointed out before, because nothing in that sentence is accurate. No one was found innocent by courts - three convictions were overturned solely on technicals grounds and my article noted that, and explained why the convictions were overturned. Further, NOT A SINGLE PERSON on this page was convicted for crimes after they left government service except the lobbyists, and the reason for their conviction is that when you work for the White House, you are contractually obligated to not begin lobbying for a year after they leave the government. That is the law, and that is the law both Nofziger and Deaver broke. That's why they were convicted. Nofziger later had his conviction overturned because the prosecution did not prove to an appeals courts satisfaction that he knew was breaking the law - they held that he did, in point of fact, break the law but that the prosecutors needed to show that he fully understood what the requirements were.

Every single listed conviction on this page is verified by a link to a mainstream source. Why are you tolerating RJenson lies? He can't back up what he's saying. I would think that the fact that everything I've added, I've verified and that RJenson has been proved wrong in every single conflict would have an impact on you.

I showed up. I told you why I did what I did. Can you please take the time to explain what you have against my assessment. Have you read the page? Have you looked at the links?

Your obedient servant,

Smokingmaenad 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you only disputing that one sentence? In that case, I'll remove it because it has no source now so you two can discuss it. Why did you remove the entire lead section, then? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is completely false. And there's no reason for the summary of the individual scandals at the top - that's what the page is for. The top paragragh should simply acknowledge the level of corruption, and allow the reader to cruise through the paragraphs to get the basic information. What is the purpose of doing that when it's simply a badly written repeat of the following paragraphs?

Your obedient servant,

Smokingmaenad 17:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for more information on the lead section; it should summarize the article and cover all the major points. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, FlCelloGuy, I realized i didn't answer a few of your questions.

Yes, Superfund grants were coveted. I actually worked on the California end of it so it's something I know more than a little about. People's homes lost their value overnight because of toxic wastes and because of that, many of them could not afford to move away. Their children were getting sick - cancer, all sorts of stuff, it was bad news. Superfund grants allowed a neighborhood to clean itself up, and that allowed people to sell their homes, and move away. It was a very big deal.

The outrage around Iran/Contra was that the administration acted against Congressional measures approved with a genuinely bi-partisan majority.

Here's what Walsh has to say in his executive summary: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm

The Operational Conspiracy

The operational conspiracy was the basis for Count One of the 23-count indictment returned by the Grand Jury March 16, 1988, against Poindexter, North, Secord, and Hakim. It charged the four with conspiracy to defraud the United States by deceitfully:

(1) supporting military operations in Nicaragua in defiance of congressional controls;

The Boland Amendment was attached to a defense bill which Reagan signed, and which had passed the House unanimously. There are claims that it was sufficiently vague, and that it interfered the president's authority - that's why the actions were in "likely" defiance, but the statement can honestly go no further than that. Read the Wiki entry. It's good.

Your obedient servant, Smokingmaenad 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact is that "in express defiance" is simply too biased and too loaded language to include. The article already states that the actions were "illegal"; that summarizes the scandal enough - there's a link to the main article. Regarding "coveted" - there's simply no need to insert that in. Tell the facts, no more, no less. "Coveted" is still an unnecessary (and opinionated) adjective. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

I've got it... Reagan Screw-Ups. That'll be the name. Its far more biased than the current "Reagan Scandals" page. What do these people want the page to be named? "Days that Reagan wasn't the all supreme being that we make him out to be"? Ridiculousness. I think we ought to have a scandals page for each president of the United States, and then correlate them all on to one massive page called "United States Presidential Scandals" MUCH better idea.

[edit] Worst President?

Eh, Reagan had his faults, but even I think that line is a bit odious. Bush is CERTAINLY worse than Reagan is. Reagan he started the drain on the economy with his spending, tripling the National Debit! Bush is adding his record now

This subtopic is ridiculous. I don't think wikipedia should be used to make the OPINION that Reagan was the worst president ever. Especially having your only source be a long paragraph from Rolling Stones. I think this should be deleted.

[edit] Carlin quote

Can we please get rid of the George Carlin quote from his 1988 album What Am I Doing in New Jersey? It's no longer "timely", and since the second paragraph of this article is lifted almost verbatim from his performance, it's not encyclopedic, either. Tony Myers 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How reliable, or intelligent for that matter, is a quote from a famous comedian??? Can someone find another source...? ~ACC 18:22, 19 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.142.206 (talk)

[edit] Complete rewrite

I for one think this article could use a complete rewrite.

• It does not follow the MOS when it comes to headings, paragraph format, photo captions, etc.
• It is mostly a bulleted list with section breaks thrown in
• It does not accuratley describe the scandals of the Reagan Administration

There weren't very many scandals, but they should be told in a clean format and follow Wikipedia's rules, something this article fails to do. Happyme22 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is next on our clean-up list, Hap. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see something about the tax cut/deficit issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.181.19 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, precisely what re you referring to? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)