Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Does anyone else find this article over journalistic? It spends a whole paragraph talking about other things that happened on June 5th before it even starts to talk about Ronald Reagan. Can we trim this? DJ Clayworth 13:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excessive

I must throw in my comment that the image content of this article is far too excessive. It's not only encyclopedic, it's also wasteful of bandwidth and a nightmare for dial-up users. Linuxbeak 20:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I like to see lots of images, and think its great for broadband users. -SV|t 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed sime editorialising. While I applaud the wealth of detail in this article, some of the comments stray outside the bounds of fact. Also some of the details are just a little too detailed. In the first category come sentences like "People around the world were seeing history in the making.". In the second comes a couple of lines describing who was doing the background commentary on Canadian television, in the middle of the funeral procession description. I hope this is OK. DJ Clayworth 18:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too detailed in general. Some of these details are unencyclopedic and we don't need all of those picturesBrokenSegue 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How about a critical perspective? There were allegations that public events related to the funeral had been planned well in advance and that the event would be used as a tool in the presidential contest. Does anyone have any further information or sources? --MarkSweep 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Much of this needs to be changed or deleted. It is clearly biased and does not take any critical position of the deificaiton of a President. ALso, it spends time discussing Michael's presentation to the RNC, but not Ron's to the DNC. CLear evidence of bias.--Veniceslug1 03:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Veniceslug1, Michael's presentation to the RNC had to be there. You mentioned that Ron's mention to the DNC wasn't there. Michael's was more important. Reagan was a Republican, not a Democrat. SNIyer12 01:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The question of bias aside, it needs cutting, as so much is irrelevant. As for the photos, the White House with the flag at half mast for the Gipper looks much the same as the White House with the flag at half mast for anything else -- et cetera. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Hoary, the photo you're talking about is the scene at the White House on June 5, 2004, after news came that Reagan had died. You might want to look at the photo of the flag at the Peace Tower at half-staff for Pierre Trudeau at Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau -- User:SNIyer12 18:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is there really anything less irrelevant about the Peace Tower-pic, except that it looks pretty good?

Don't articles like this and the one about Pierre Trudeau's funeral count as Memorials as described in what Wikipedia should not be?

Peter Isotalo 08:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's getting dangerously close. Without some SERIOUS paring down, a vfd might be the only alternative. --InShaneee 03:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

I have to question the useability of some of these images. A lot from CNN/Reuters/AP/Corbis, etc, which I believe hold all rights reserved and limit reproduction? --tomf688^(talk) 04:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688, answering your question, the CNN/Reuters/AP/Corbis thing you were mentioning, It is the web site where the photo came from. User:SNIyer12

I just started deleting some of the photos. I referred to Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau as a guide for this. User:SNIyer12

Just because it comes from the website does not automatically mean it is fair use. I'm not familiar with their copyrights, but you should read the fine print and make sure that they allow images to be reproduced. --tomf688^(talk) 01:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

But that's the very definition of fair use: we're using images in a certain context despite the fact that someone else holds the copyright and has not given explicit permission for reproduction. This is permissible under certain conditions. If we had permission to publish the images under the GFDL or other free license, there would be no problem and we wouldn't have to resort to fair use claims. --MarkSweep 19:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The general rule on Wikipedia is that the number of fair use images should be kept under 10 if possible. Even with my reductions, this article uses 32. I am going to pare it further. I know that SNIyer12 will not be happy with me doing this, but if we don't have some sort of rule on this, then Wikipedia would be open to lawsuits. Imagine using 32 or 47 pictures in a paper encyclopedia without permission. You would be sued many times over. The same general principle holds here. Wikipedia:Fair use describes the fair use doctrine as it applies to Wikipedia. It doesn't give 10 there as the limit, but the image slueths have said that it is a general rule. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the article looks better or worse because it has 47 or 32 pictures. There is a legal question here and that's much more important. --Woohookitty 07:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Endnotes/sources

I'm not too happy about the recent revert that took out all the notes I had added for the article's sources[1]. We need clear citations of the sources used in writing this article, and inline links to external websites don't provide enough information about the authors and publications details of those sources. --MarkSweep 19:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, I'm very sorry that I had to take out all the notes you added for the article's sources. It was necessary in order to reduce the article size. I also replaced those areas where the BBC videos comes from with the link to the story where that video comes from. -- SNIyer12

Cleanup Taskforce

I am working on this page as part of the Cleanup Taskforce. I will probably be making changes that might upset some people, but my job is to make the page as readable and encyclopedic as possible and I appreciate everyone's patience. --Woohookitty 22:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there are 47 pictures in this article. That's 47. All are copyrighted. Fair use is all well and good, but that's excessive. I want to cut that number in half. --Woohookitty 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I've done alot of editing. Just a note to SNIyer12. It's Wikipedia convention to Wikilink something the first time it appears in the article and then not again unless it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, you end up so many links that people can get overwhelmed by it when reading the article, which kind of defeats the purpose of linking. Anyway, I also renamed the "Notes" section into "References" since again, that matches the rest of Wikipedia. Other than that, I removed alot of the gushy, fancruft like statements and tidied it up...more to do. --Woohookitty 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, thank you for your editing. I know that you removed a lot of images. I had to keep what details about the passing from CBC News's coverage of the 60th anniversary of D-Day, especially seeing that quote came when the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill became the place to mark the passing of Pierre Trudeau. SNIyer12 03:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the article Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau as a template to create this. Much of this article has been modeled from that. 03:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but the Trudeau article is almost as bad as this one. There should be a maximum of 10 fair use pictures in these articles. Anything beyond that is illegal and unwise. Also, The problem I have with including the comments from the CBC is that it makes the article rather geographically centric. Also, please do not edit my changes until I am done, ok? Undoing them like you did just makes more work for me. Wait until I am done. --Woohookitty 03:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're done. I'll give you authorization to be part of the Cleanup Taskforce on the Trudeau article also. I won't edit your changes until you're finished. -- SNIyer12 03:25, 27 May (UTC)

Woohookitty, I also put the Cleanup Taskforce on the Trudeau article as well. You can make changes there also. -- SNIyer12 03:36, 27 May (UTC)

Thank you, though anyone is authorized to do anything on Wikipedia. It's the point of Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You can start the extensive editing on the Trudeau article right now. You're doing it right here, but you can do it there also. -- SNIyer12 03:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, you've done a nice job in the extensive editing. Please let me know when you have finished with it, because I have given you permission to do the same with Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau. I know that I have given you permission to do it there, also. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 14:11 27 May 2005 (UTC)

...People don't actually need your permission to edit articles you've started. Once an article is on wikipedia, it becomes property of the community to do with it what they see fit. There is never an instance where a single author has authority over an article. --InShaneee 15:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I have the picture count down to 14. I think I'm done with that part of it. More editing to do. --Woohookitty 02:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Update

I've got the notes pared down to 20 from 64. Before I hear complaints. :) I did 3 things. First of all, some of the attributes were not needed. For example, in several places it said that tributes were made and then it had footnotes for them. No reason to do that since the tributes themselves were not being cited. Secondly, some of the footnotes went away in general editing that I did. Thirdly, I found websites that took the place of several citations. The best example is the quotes from the eulogies. It went from 8 down to 1 citations just in that area.

In addition, I am working on ditching the narrative format, which does not belong here. We aren't a newspaper or a book. I will try to keep the article chronological but it doesn't need to be in a day by day format.

Now, SNIyer12, I suspect you are a newbie here and I try to be nice to newbies. But. :) If you want to tackle stuff like this again, I would suggest looking at similar articles first and I don't mean the Trudeau article, which you yourself did most of the work on. Just look at as many articles as you can and pay attention to the format used. One piece of advice for you is that none of us "own" these articles. In fact, you have to assume that they will be edited. So you need to not make the article so detailed that it is impossible to edit. Again, I'm not being critical. It's easy to treat Wikipedia like a research paper but that isn't what we are. And using the methods you used make the article extremely difficult to edit. This is already easily the toughest edit job I've had to do and I am only about halfway through my work.

The best piece of advice I can think of is what I just mentioned...that we don't "own" these articles. Everyone on Wikipedia owns them. If you keep that in mind, I think you'll do just fine here. I would suggest reading What Wikipedia is not if you haven't been following what I have been saying. It's a terrific guide for when you are writing articles. So...stick around...read some articles...learn how things are done...but...PLEASE...don't write an article in this style again. PLEASE. :) This is making my head hurt. LOL --Woohookitty 09:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm done

OK I am done with the editing job. I actually had to wipe out every section heading and start over. Now, SNIyer12 (or anyone else), PLEASE don't revert my changes. I have no problem with editing my page. That's the point of Wikipedia. But please don't restore huge sections of what I took out. The page is still over the suggested limit for Wikipedia (34 K), but I couldn't find any more trimming that I could do. --Woohookitty 01:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You and everybody else who cleaned-up this article did a wonderful job! With a longer lead section this article should sail through FAC now. However, some people may object to the large number of fair use images, saying such a number is not fair. Making sure they are from a diverse set of sources should put that objection to rest. --mav 04:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The number of fair use images is much more reasonable now. Current image stats: 6 public domain (from the U.S. federal government and armed forces), 6 fair use (from CNN and AP). --MarkSweep 04:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I somehow missed the fact that the headings should not have been capitalized. Sorry about that. But thanks for the extra help. Yeah 12 is much better than 47 isn't it? :) And I haven't even seen how many there were before they were cut down initially...that was done before I tackled the article. --Woohookitty 05:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Why no mention of the funeral of JFK

How come there's no mention of the funeral of JFK? There should be because even though Reagan had the first state funeral since LBJ, the state funeral that is burned most deeply in memory resulted from the assassination that made LBJ president. -- SNIyer12 22:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then, write an article on Presidential funerals. The problem is that you are adding more material to an article that is too large anyway. --Woohookitty 21:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the other events section

It is not necessary to tell people what other events were happening that day. This is not a narrative. It is not a news report. It is an article on Ronald Reagan's death and what else happened that day has absolutely no bearing on him or his death. The only point to including that information is to "give the story context" but this isn't a "story". It's an encyclopedia article. Major difference. SNIyer12, I've told you this before and I'll tell you again. Please read the articles on here on What Wikipedia is not. It is not a newspaper. it is not a place for obits or tributes. Alot of your material here is close to the line on that anyway.--Woohookitty 21:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weird section

Why is this text in the section, State funerals in the United States? Do all Presidents have these songs?

Several songs were played at each event of the week, including when the casket was moved into the Library, out of the Library, into and out of the Capitol, into and out of the Washington National Cathedral and finally, at the private internment ceremonies. These songs included "Hail to the Chief," "My Country 'Tis of Thee", "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "God of Our Fathers," "God Bless America," and "America the Beautiful." The casket was draped in the Stars and Stripes all along its journey.

I'm in favour of cutting it all together, opinions?--nixie 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was the compromise I made. The original version (by SNIyer12) was in chronological order and it listed each song that was played at each stop on the casket's journey, i.e. when it was removed from the library, was moved into the capitol building, etc. So the songs were each mentioned several times so I decided to put them all together in one section. If you want to remove it entirely, feel free. --Woohookitty 06:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

SNIyer12, please stop reverting the stuff that I took out when I did the massive edits of this page. I'm not sure if you think you are going to sneak something pass me or what. You do not have to add that the Reagan family was grief stricken. Of course they were. If something can be assumed, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Also, again, you do not need to link the same thing more than once in an article. It is not necessary. --Woohookitty 20:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I have just removed links to the same thing where they have been linked more than once in the article. -- SNIyer12 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting information

We currently have conflicting information regarding the date that the casket was transported from California to DC: did it happen on June 9 or on June 10? Just checking to see if anyone knows off hand. --MarkSweep 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, it happened on June 9. -- SNIyer12 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rule on linking

Basically, things are linked the first time they are mentioned. And you don't link things more than once unless its absolutely necessary. --Woohookitty 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except for full dates, which should be linked every time so that per-user date preferences can take effect. --MarkSweep 12:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I have just removed the links to those that are linked more than once. -- SNIyer12 22:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major editing

I just did another round of major editing. Again. Add all you want to this article, but please stop reverting stuff back in that I took out. it's not like I took out anything germane. I took out flowery language and trivia. There is no reason for either in an encyclopedia article. Plus, there were some other issues. There were a couple of statements from people that did not have notations so I took those out. If you can come up with where they come from, put them back in. Just getting tired of taking the same things out again and again and again. --Woohookitty 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture placement

Actually SNIyer12, when I said in the edit summary that it works better the other way, I didn't mean direction. You had changed it to all 3 pictures were on one line, all aligned on the right side. All I did was change it back to what it was, i.e. 2 next to each other and then one further down in the article. You yourself had them aligned right. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 04:21 (UTC)

SNIyer's recent edits

SNIyer this evening added this bit of information: "CG MDW". I removed it once and have done so again -- it's a nonsensical designation to the lay reader and adds nothing to the article; see Wikipedia:Explain jargon. You also re-added this commented phrase: <!--You might want to create a page for the Air Force Band of the Golden West, stationed at Travis AFB, in California.--> I have removed it once again. A redlink is clearly an invitation to create an article that doesn't exist currently; there's no point for such a commented phrase inside the article, whether it's displayed or not. You also re-added this commented phrase: <!--Over 35 million around the world watched the funeral on television, see [http://www.ronantynan.net the website of Ronan Tynan].--> Again, there's no need for this to be there. Either the information belongs in the article or it doesn't. Re-adding information that was deleted earlier as a commented phrase is a bad faith move. I've deleted all of these changes. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tributes to Reagan

It has been moved to Wikiquote:Tributes of world leaders on the death of Ronald Reagan per vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan. So SNIyer or anyone else, if you want to edit the article, you need to go onto Wikiquote's site. Please do not try to recreate the article on here or else it will be speedily deleted. Thanks. --Woohookitty 06:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/coverage

Mentioning the fact that most of the criticism came from liberal sources opens up a whole can of worms that we have tried to avoid here. I mean if you include that then you need to say how conservatives felt about it. No need to insert POV here. I will edit it so it isn't "some sources" but is more specific. --Woohookitty 20:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite me one conservative who ripped the Reagan funeral festivities the way that Nation article you cited did? Otherwise I feel it's appropriate to say that the people criticizing Reagan at death were of the same ilk as those who didn't like him when alive i.e. liberals. Ellsworth 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the addition; there are numerous problems with the text as it stood. First, it contains Wikipedia:Weasel words. But even if you could prove it were true, it'd amount to original research, which is prohibited here on Wikipedia. If you can find a reputable, verifiable source that says the critics were mostly liberal, then you can cite that criticism. But the way it was written is inappropriate. Another way to approach it could be something like ... "blah blah was criticized (including by X, X, X) -- give some examples instead of using weasel words or claiming with no real hard data that "most" were liberal. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sources that are cited in the section are really one source - the Village Voice, which is indisputably a left-wing opinion journal. I'm just saying, is there any real dispute that the criticism of the Reagan funeral etc. came from liberal POV? Ellsworth 22:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The criticism was not just from his political opponents. I have modified your addition to be more reflective of the general mood of the country as well. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Would you accept my characterization of The Village Voice? Ellsworth 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not me. But I won't revert it until Kate chimes in if she wants to. I don't want any mention of "liberal" or "conservative" in this article at all. it just opens up a can of worms. --Woohookitty 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Woohookitty. It makes no sense for us to make this fit into the current US political discourse (moreover, what's liberal in the US context may be conservative in a different context). People are free to form their own impressions and opinions about the various sources. --MarkSweep 02:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to using the Village Voice as an exemplar of a media outlet that criticized its coverage, if you can back that up with an inline link. But it's not just an "opinion journal," it does straight news as well. Its editorial board's reputation is liberal, but we can't just say "it's liberal" -- that takes a side and is too authoritative. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All right, then, if we're going to not characterize the Voice ideologically, how about adding a reference to complimentary coverage by another source, such as National Review? See the latest edit. Ellsworth 17:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the National Review part is not criticism. I renamed the section. I still object to putting it in there, but I'm tired of arguing about this article. --Woohookitty 00:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the point. "Some media outlets criticized the funeral, such as X. However, some didn't, such as Y." I'm sure lots of places didn't criticize it. Is it really necessary to say that though? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My point is, if you're going to include two quotations from The Village Voice under the header "Criticism", I think you're giving the reader of the article an impression that's a representative sample of what people were saying. That's not the case. Some comment was critical, some was laudatory, and it tended to fall on the left-right axis of the political divide. Ellsworth 13:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But the section is not Outlets that commented on the funeral, the section is Criticisms. It's not really germane. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty has rectified that by changing the section header. Ellsworth 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, my last additions (the Noonan/M. Novak article links) have been left in the article so I am disinclined to change the rest of this section. I just wanna point out that Tom Carson in his VV article described it as being written "in a sincere spirit of tribute to an enemy" in case there was any question as to where he stood POV-wise. Ellsworth 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have titled that section, "Media comments on funeral coverage" because it is a better title, especially after seeing what had been said. Some used "Funeral coverage," others used "Criticisms of funeral coverage," and so on. I think that "Comments on funeral coverage" is a better title for that section. I had earlier used "Comments on funeral coverage," but after looking at the section, I decided to use "Media comments on funeral coverage." SNIyer12^(talk) 17:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had covered this before...apparently not

President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Senate President are 2 different offices. The Senate President in the United States is the Vice President. Through the years, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has become the day-to-day gavel holder in the Senate, though they often give that role to junior senators on the majority side so they can learn the rules of the Senate. But, if there is a tie vote and during certain other times, the VP still acts as the President of the Senate and they have that official title. In fact, for most of the history of the US, it's been the only real role of the Vice President. Until the US Constitution is changed, the VP will still have that role. I know it's confusing, SNIyer, which is why I'm explaining it. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"nearly a decade"?

The first sentence seems especially important, and "nearly a decade" implies "less than a decade".

The issue of mental impairment in heads of state is important enough that it doesn't seem reasonable to prejudge the issue of Reagan's mental capacity while in office (see this speech: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/5/325.long) .

Maybe it would be better to say something like, "nearly ten years after publicly acknowledging he suffered from Alzheimer's." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/06/us/in-poignant-public-letter-reagan-reveals-that-he-has-alzheimer-s.html)

I've never edited a wikipedia article, so I leave others to judge how best to address this, and what citations to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.218.84 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)