Talk:Michael Reagan/Archives/2015

Legal problems

There are two sections here, one called "Felony accusations" and another called "Fraud and conversion lawsuit relating to Reagan.com email service." Both of these sections have been extensively fought over. This is understandable, but the sections seem to have odd and inconsistent headings. One is too specific, the other is too general.

It seems to me the most neutral and clear way to do this is to have one section "Legal problems" and two subsections, named for the companies the lawsuits were about. Call the first "Agricultural Energy Resources," and the second "@Reagan.com."Flyte35 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So I'd like to go ahead with this. Objections? Flyte35 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

references-small

<div class="references-small">
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
</div>

references-small was a class used to make the reference list font smaller. Both {{reflist}} and <references /> have had styling to apply a smaller font for along time. references-small was deleted 10 December 2010, so this has not worked as expected for five years.

I am not watching this and will no longer edit here. -- Gadget850 ^talk 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)-

Alma Mater

A school is only your alma mater if you take a degree from it. Since Michael Reagen never took a degree, he has no alma mater and that information should be removed from the info box. 2601:645:C300:16DD:FD70:DAE0:2AE2:AA38 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The dictionary defination of alma mater is "a school, college, or university which one has attended OR from which one has graduated." Flyte35 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Article has extreme POV/UNDUE skew.

Michael Reagan is mostly known as a successful author and talk radio host who reached an audience of millions on a daily basis, yet the "Legal problems" section is longer than his entire "Careers" section, and his talk radio career is only covered by a couple of brief lines devoid of detail. His "Political commentary" section consists of a few one liners on cherry-picked issues that I guess became minor scandals for a while in the liberal blogosphere, rather than covering his general political views on a wide array of important topics.

I don't have time to do it right now, but this article clearly needs substantial additions to bring it into compliance with NPOV and just basic encyclopedic quality. VictorD7 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. Looking through the history of this article makes it clear why making such improvements here so difficult. Flyte35 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I'm not sure what the ideal article here as envisioned by Truthchecx is, but I've been trying to remove the obviously POV parts of this in an effort to reach a neutral compromise in a way that the other editors can agree upon. I've proposed all my recent edits here in talk. See above. I'm not sure what more I can to do here. Flyte35 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You are deleting relevant, current information about the subject. It looks to me that you are hired to manage this person's reputation and clearly violating Wiki's rules. All new information that you deleted is supported by facts and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthchecx (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've actually deleted no information you added. I just fixed sourcing and changed the language to make it more neutral, because that's appropriate for Wikipedia. The only significant change I made, which I first proposed in talk above to get feedback on and received no objections to, was to the legal problems section. My explanation was this:

There are two sections here, one called "Felony accusations" and another called "Fraud and conversion lawsuit relating to Reagan.com email service." Both of these sections have been extensively fought over. This is understandable, but the sections seem to have odd and inconsistent headings. One is too specific, the other is too general.

It seems to me the most neutral and clear way to do this is to have one section "Legal problems" and two subsections, named for the companies the lawsuits were about. Call the first "Agricultural Energy Resources," and the second "@Reagan.com."

That being said, I sort of think the article itself is POV in that there's far too much information, whether negative or positive, about the subject, that doesn't really come from reliable sources. A lot of the information here is simply not that important. I'd appreciate thoughts from other editors. Flyte35 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2015

replace {{city-state|Los Angeles|California}} with [[Los Angeles]], [[California]] since there is no template:city-state. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears by this comparison that Ceradon (talk · contribs) went back a long way - almost five years. By my calculation that is 1295 edits reverted. Ceradon, was it necessary to go back quite so far? All the good edits in between have been reverted too, such as this one which if not reverted would not have caused the problem that Frietjes refers to. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Restored. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Done by Ceradon. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

This edit war has been going on for a MIGHTY long time. The current status quo only serves to worsen the article. This article has been locked until next year, and I would strongly caution any administrator from reversing this. I have reverted this article to a version that is five years old. It isn't perfect, but it is a version that is (as far as I can see) untouched by this edit war. I would like dialogue to occur between all parties involved. I would like to see claims backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia's readers are in no way benefited by petty bickering, and this is the nonsense up with which I will not put. I hope that this can bring all sides to discussing this article, and that this dispute may be sent gently into that good night. @Flyte35 and Truthchecx: The ball is in your courts. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have reduced the protection for this article to a week. I did not have complete faith that discussion would work when I protected this article. That faith has diminished further after digging deeper and consulting with other admins. I do not believe that good-faith editors should hang in the balance for that long if an editor or editors should like to turn an article in a battlefield. I persist in my hope that this week-long protection can edit this dispute. But if it doesn't, I will go with my first instinct and start handing out blocks. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually add anything to this article at all, ever; I just fixed sourcing and removed the most egregiousness POV edits. I would very much prefer prefer the version you've got here, but all of my attempts make the article more neutral in the past have been reverted by Truthchecx, despite numerous attempts to discuss issues in talk. Flyte35 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyte35 and Truthchecx: I think everything in the article is sourced now (forgive me if I left something out). Is this okay now? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Flyte35 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Truthchecx went in and put all the POV stuff back in. I thought we had agreement here. Not sure what's going on here. Flyte35 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)