This is an archive of past discussions about Ronald Reagan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see the one on the right of the page, but not the one I usually look for towards the bottom of the article. (Come to think, why do so many articles have both anyway?)
There were a couple of claims made that refered to Reagan preferring small Government. One in which it claimed to be the reason he left the democratic party. No, the source makes no mention of that. The reference clearly states that reagan political leanings begame more conservative but not that there was even a outlook of anyone at the time that conservatives felt that way back then. It amounts to a hidden political, propagandic sort of POV ansd original research. If we want to discuss the small government claim, it must be referenced with a varifiable inline citation.....that actualy makes the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Reagan was America's biggest cocaine dealer
It's been admitted to by the US Department of Defense in FOIA. Either, the US Government is right about Reagan's cocaine dealing, or... everything else they've said about him is wrong. It can't be both. The National Security Archive covers this extensively (fifty+ documents): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Could you please provide a more direct link that explicitly names Reagan as "America's biggest cocaine dealer"? Or was that characterization a bit of hyperbole? - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick view of the NSA/GWU contributor list shows a definite trend toward those
who may readily be termed LEFTIST (e.g. "*Streisand* Foundation").
I am all for OPEN GOVERNMENT, but certainly prefer a more unbiased source!
Should "The Hasty Heart" not also receive a mention??? Not only did it receive an Oscar nomination for Richard Todd (and win two Golden Globes) but it was the only film Ronald Reagan made in London. His experiences of the technical crews turning down overtime opportunities because of overly high direct taxation impressed on Reagan the fact that the Socialist policies of the Labour government in Britain of the late 40s were not for him!!! He did not need an intense academic understanding of economics - his experiences gained while working on the "Hasty Heart" were burned into him!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrs10 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
In the 1956 presidential election, Eisenhower won 60% of the black vote. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Reagan came of age politically, the situation was different than it is today. It was not a foregone conclusion that any Republican politician of that era would be unpopular with blacks. If Reagan did become unpopular, it may well have been due to something related to his particular policies or political persona than it was to his party affiliation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sense of humour
To claim that Reagan had a good sense is entirely POV and has no place here. A sentence like "To his supporters Reagan had a good sense of humour" would be far fairer. By the way Reagan's favourite comedian was Benny Hill who was about as amusing as toothache. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The rewording would be appropriate, however, your opinion of Benny Hill (even if I agree with it) is your opinion, and has as much place here about the statement in question. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hang on a second gentlemen: NPOV doesn't mean politically correct. There are multiple sources in the article that say that Reagan had a good sense of humor and that his humor contributed to his public persona. If it is cited and well established, how is that not in keeping with NPOV? Happyme22 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, the longstanding information is already cited. Smokey, Reaganite sources? Let's check the sources given for all things re: humor in the article: CBS News, a story with Dan Rather (not exactly a Reagan guy) recounting multiple displays of Reagan's humor; Fox News, a story chronicling different humorous instances; About.com, labeling his Cold War joke a "classic radio gaffe". I suppose the only one with a hint of bias could be this from National Review, which says all the same things as the others but occasionally raises eyebrows because of the publication it is from. No matter, as a simple Google search seems to reveal that there are a good many reliable sources. Even more within the Google News archives. I'll go ahead and replace the National Review one simply to avoid conflict. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, it was the reason he beat Mondale in 84, was one of the things he's best remembered for, and recognized by his adversaries, sounds pretty definitive. Can we please give this a rest? Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
economy
The national debt did not increase from 700 billion to 3 trillion; rather 900 billion to 2.7 trillion
Kpomplun (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
He was a great man!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.56.91 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Lou Cannon
Considering that some of Lou Cannon's work is used in this article, I'm curious why the early life section is so short and lacking in important detail about Reagan. For example, I wanted to know more about Reagan's use of the "binge" metaphor to describe the recession on January 14, 1981. Apparently, his father was an alcoholic, and Reagan's experience with his father lends touching insight into the character and moral fortitude of a man who most people don't know. It would be nice if biographical articles actually focused on the person. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly, you are correct in that nothing is written about his alcoholic father. I don't know how we could have missed that.... I'll add something. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "binge metaphor," however. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why "surprisingly"? There's a lot missing in this article. The alcoholic binge metaphor was a central touchstone regarding his discussion about the 1981 recession, and is covered by Cannon in detail in President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (2000). Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Variditas, you already covered the question about the 1981 recession in your posts above this topic. If you have a personal vendetta against Reagan, that's cool, but please refrain from editing the article if you let your emotions rule you. You edited for 5 years so I am sure you must have forgotten the [[1]] guide. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comment is completely off-topic and should be removed. This thread topic is about my request to expand the early life section. If you wish to discuss me instead, please compose an e-mail with your thoughts enclosed, and send it to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Controversy
Shouldn't there be a redirect to the Wikipeida Article Reagan administration scandals under the heading of Further Reading?````
well I was in Moscow when Chernobyl happened and can report the Cold War did NOT end then. For this article you need reliable sources to cite. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Try to read for comprehension: "The cold war ended because of" means something important here. As for sources, this claim does not appear in the article, but the other one does. "Some would argue that what killed the Cold War was the world's worst nuclear accident, which occurred in the spring of 1986. That disaster may have marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union." (Lopez & Myers 1997)
"In policy terms, Chernobyl's positive fallout followed quickly. As Velikhov described, it pushed Gorbachev toward "a great, instinctive leap to break the old cycle" of secrecy, stubbornness, and deadlocked negotiations. By May, Soviet delegates to the Stockholm talks on conventional forces had new instructions-to accept unprecedented on-site verification measures-and by July a treaty was completed. At this time, Gorbachev also requested an "interim" summit, before the next scheduled U.S.-Soviet gathering, which became the famous Reykjavik conclave of October 1986...There Gorbachev shocked Reagan and his advisers-but not those who understood the seriousness of his January proposal-with huge concessions in a bid for total nuclear disarmament. Agreement foundered on only one issue: Gorbachev's insistence on modest limits to SDI, which Reagan rejected. But there was no more mistaking the sincerity and radicalness of Gorbachev's intentions. The genesis of Reykjavik, and the underlying shift in Gorbachev's view on international security, are seen in various deliberations from the summer and early fall of 1986."English 2000Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
not quite. Reagan had launched a new arms race (Star Wars and many other programs) that the Soviets knew they could not compete in--they lacked modern computers. Chernobyl demonstrated the inferiority of their poor technology, meaning they had to accept reagan's terms (which included ending the Berlin Wall).Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The arms race prolonged the cold war; it did nothing to end it. For Gorbachev, the Chernobyl disaster showed "the sicknesses of our system...the concealing or hushing up of accidents and other bad news, irresponsibility and carelessness, slipshod work, wholesale drunkenness." According to Gorbachev, "Chernobyl made me and my colleagues rethink a great many things."[2] Soviet society began to open up as the media began reporting on the disaster, and glasnost began to be practiced rather than preached, for the first time:
The truth about Chernobyl which eventually hit the newspapers opened the way to a more truthful examination of other social problems. More and more articles were written about drug abuse, crime, corruption and the mistakes of leaders of various ranks. A wave of 'bad news' swept over the readers in 1986-87, shaking the consciousness of society. Many were horrified to find out about the numerous calamities of which they had previously had no idea. It often seemed to people that there were many more outrages in the epoch of perestroika than before although, in fact, they had simply not been informed about them previously.[3]
Chernobyl changed everything: It forced the leaders of the Soviet Union to reevaluate their positions; it opened the country up to the free flow of information; and it ended the cold war. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
the accelerated arms race made the Soviet position hopeless and the military, the scientists and the political leaders all realized that they had to exit from the arms race on Western terms, which meant giving up the empire, first in Afghanistan then in eastern Europe. The cold war ended in a military defeat for the Soviets. Glasnost hastened the process because it was no longer possible to cover up the failures and ignore vast military lead opening up by NATO. Gorbachev though he could preserve Communism in the USSR by giving up the empire, but that proved a fallacy when he could not produce economic progress and when the republics resisted and some of the military revolted (1991). By then it was clear that Communsim was also a failure and it was shut down in late 1991. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
From Ruud van Dijk's Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1 [4], [5]:
Gorbachev's efforts to limit nuclear arms and end the Cold War had initial sources in the necessity for economic reform at home. The economic cost of defense could not for long be sustained, especially in an economy that was being rocked by reform. On January 15, 1986, Gorbachev proposed that all intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe be eliminated and that all nuclear weapons be retired by 2000. Parity in arms was replaced by reasonable sufficiency and the arms race was described as a specific threat to Soviet security. Received cynically in the West, Gorbachev's proposal actually fit perfectly with Ronald Reagan's desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. The Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 further instilled in Gorbachev a horror of nuclear war or nuclear accidents resulting from war. Combining this passion with the new thinking on Soviet security, Gorbachev was able to make arms reduction offers that eventually resulted in important arms control agreements...
The Chernobyl disaster strongly influenced Mikhail Gorbachev's thinking with regard to Soviet Union foreign policy strategy. He sent a letter to U.S. president Ronald Reagan with a request to meet and discuss questions concerning the nuclear arm race programs of both the USSR and the U.S. Meetings between the two presidents took place in Reykjavik, Iceland on October 11 and 12, 1986. Gorbachev's dream was to reach an agreement on the complete liquidation of nuclear weapons, which was only made more urgent by the Chernobyl disaster. For the Soviet leader, the Reykjavik summit was a crucial event in post-war Soviet foreign policy and a major breakthrough in the realm of actual nuclear disarmament. Though the meeting did not yield immediate results because of the U.S. president's insistence on keeping his SDI plans intact, Gorbachev was able to find a similar nuclear abolitionist in Reagan, and this new understanding ultimately resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Reduction Treaty, signed by Soviet and U.S. leaders on December 8, 1987, in Washington...
The Chernobyl disaster made evident the critical need for dialogue between the two major participants in the nuclear-arms race. If ending the Cold War was one of Gorbachev's top priorities at the outset of his career as General Secretary, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl strengthened his determination by making the consequences of nuclear war painfully clear.
May I just butt in here and mention that Star Wars had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War. It didn't work then, was easily (and cheaply) fooled and now after 30 years of experiments, still doesn't. The cold war ended when the brave people of East Germany opened their borders fully expecting a Hungary style Soviet invasion. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Richrakh
In regards to the early life of Ronald Reagan, I came across a picture of a young, handsome man in a boat with another man, and on the back of the picture was written "Dutch"...
Is it possible through this medium to be put in touch with 'someone' who could advise me if this could actually be Ronald Reagan in early 1930's. There is a story to this picture, but I need to find the right people or place to help with this.
There are several different reasons for the end of the Cold War, and I have my opinions on what caused the end just as everyone else has theirs. But please -- this is not the place to discuss them. Feel free to discuss them and their respective sources at Talk:Cold War. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a growing consensus among scholars such that both conservative admirers and liberal critics agree that he has been the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, leaving his imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics. for example "As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in Reviews in American History, Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," Journal of Social History, Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," Enterprise & Society, Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. Rjensen (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"both conservative admirers and liberal critics" This has POV issues, as suggests all conservatives admire and all liberals criticize Reagan. Please replace with a less partisan statement, e.g "both admirers and critics" --92.9.184.151 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The current content, "As thousands became infected with the virus, President Reagan did not increase funding to try to discover cures, rather he downplayed the situation and only acknowledged that it was an issue of concern at the May 31, 1987 Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington," is inaccurate. From President Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address:
We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.
On Sept. 17, 1985, in response to a reporter's question during a White House new conference, President Reagan responded,
[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.
During Ronald Reagan's first full fiscal year as President, 1982, funding by federal government for HIV/AIDS research went from zero to $8 million. When Reagan left office in 1989, the fiscal budget for HIV/AIDs was $2.322 billion. Under Reagan, HIV/AIDS research increased an average of 128.92 percent per year. The facts simply do not support the misstatements currently posted on Wikipedia, which misrepresents the historical record of the Reagan Administration's response to HIV/AIDS.[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.20.124 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Factually correct or not, I don't think the paragraph about HIV belongs in this section of the article. The rest of the section speaks exclusively to President Reagan's own personal "health and well-being." LarryJeff (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
this article is completely and wholely wrong. the presidentcy of ronald reagen has nearly destroyed the social and ecconomic structure of this nation and continues to do. our current is a direct result of reagens ecconomic policies. to glorify this monster is unfantomable to me. i will never understand his appeal but i will bear witness to the destruction he caused for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.252 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Economic data during Reagan Administration
tuco_bad 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles about Reagan and "Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration" cite various economic statistics. I am citing data directly from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. tuco_bad 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
Indeed, there are many different economic statistics presented on this page and the various articles dealing with Reagan's economic policies. But we are not here to discuss that; we are here to discuss the repeated insertion of an "average" unemployment. I do not doubt the Bureau of Labor Statistics' ability to find an average unemployment figure for all presidential administrations, but the relevance of said averages, especially during the Reagan presidency, is what conerns me. As you well know, President Reagan inherited an economic slump which turned into about a year long recession, during which unemployment figures were higher than they regularly are. Those figures inflate the average. After that year, unemployment steadily dropped for the remainder of the Reagan presidency, dropping down very low. So presenting an average as a way to justify whether or not his economic policies were good or bad, which is what this average seems to attempt to do, doesn't seem the right thing to do, as a definite cause of the early 1980s recession has not been established; some blame Carter, some blame Volker, some blame Reagan. If Reagan casued the recession and caused the recovery then the average may be an interesting figure, but there is no consensus for the cause of the recession. Happyme22 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
From the Reagan article:
During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).[99] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%.
To follow your logic, we should remove the 12.5% inflation average of Carter and 4.4% average of Reagan. Also by NOT reporting that unemployment hit over 9% in 1982 and 1982 and averaged 7.5% in Reagan’s term, one would get the idea that the employment situation under Reagan was good.
We should report the raw data, and let the reader research further the causes, and of course, you might wish to add that recessions skewed the statistics.
However, let us report ALL the data, not selective data. tuco_bad 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to prove. The facts state that Reagan's policies were responsible for the decline in unemployment, growth of jobs, and the rise of the national debt, among many other things. What is in doubt is who caused the early 1980s recession. By putting that figure in, you are blaming Reagan for the early 1980s recession, which I will object to because there is no single source for the cause.
One would get the idea that the unemployment situation under Reagan was good because the unemployment situation under Reagan was good. Of the eight Reagan years, unemployment rose during the first two (due to the recession) and dropped for the remaining six. What caused the recession? The debate rages on today and we still are not sure.
It is not the reader's job to research, it is our job to research. Presenting an inflated figure and telling the reader to go out and research why it is inflated is called slander. That's promoting a hidden agenda, not telling the truth. Happyme22 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You write: “…unemployment situation under Reagan was good.” Therefore you do not want any data on Wikipedia that conflicts with your viewpoint. Unbelievable! tuco_bad 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing is preventing Happyme22 from providing context (from a reliable source), but the facts are the facts. If Happyme22 can find a reliable source to support his views, then that's fine. But to censor a statistic with the hyperbole that it's "slander" and "promoting a hidden agenda" is probably not assuming good faith.Mattnad (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Reporting a fact is never slander. The only hidden agenda here is that of Happyme22. Rickrakh````
The Great Communicator
It seems to me that the use of the word rhetoric in this section comes across as not being NPOV. I was reverted, but because rhetoric seems loaded to me, is there a better phrasing to use? Or does nobody agree with me on this one? :P Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
According to dictionary.com, rhetoric is: the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech; the study of the effective use of language; the ability to use language effectively; the art of prose in general as opposed to verse; the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory; etc. That seems to describe what Reagan did pretty well. If you are more comfortable with another word I'm open to possibly replacing it, but I think "speech" in place of "rhetoric" sounds very odd. Happyme22 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no. I agree. "speech" in place of "rhetoric" did sound odd, but I just didn't know what would fit. I guess it's moot, since it's just a feeling that it's loaded, and trying to even avoid the appearance of systemic bias. Along the lines of "I don't like it" Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that, in spite of the dictionary definition, the word rhetoric is often (intentionally) used with a negative connotation. However, I'm at a loss to think of a better word choice. LarryJeff (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole sentence is awkward and the citations are bad. One cite is a dead link and the other one points to a book review that you can't access unless you pay for the privilege. Since when do we use book reviews as citations? This sentence smacks of original research with these dead end citations to dress it up. And in terms of the word rhetoric, that is a loaded word in any context.Malke201003:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Economics section
I am fairly new to this but I wanted to call attention to the section "Presidency, 1981–1989" sub section ""Reaganomics" and the economy". The second paragraph reads.
Except for the Obama Administration, Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[101]
The reason I am asking this is that it seem wrong.
First off the Obama administration is barely 1 year old so this seems to be pointless and I am unsure what this piece of info is trying to say.
Secondly, would this info not more appropriately be placed under
Yes the Obama Administration is only 1 year old, but I just wanted to be accurate as to what I said about Reagan and his economics policies. tuco_bad 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
Reagan didn't raise the minimum wage because to do so in an economic downturn will fuel unemployment and delay recovery. Obama probably won't raise the min wage for the same reason. Employers have to trim workforces when the min wage is raised.Malke201018:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Obama has aready raised the minimum wage on July 24, 2009. George W. Bush raised it in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Clinton raised it twice, George H. W. Bush raised it in 1990 and Reagan raised it in 1989. The US minimum wage started under Roosevelt in 1939. Some short term job loss is always a result, but things soon equalize and increased consumer power creates more jobs than before. www.time.com, www.infoplease.org. Richrakh````—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs)
Reagan wasn't in office in 1989. (Please see term limits section of the U.S. Constitution.) George H.W. Bush was president in 1989. Clinton raised it during plush economic times. The economy was also plush when George W. Bush raised it. So when Clinton and Geo W. Bush raised it, it was okay because unemployment was low and plenty of jobs were available. George H.W. Bush raised it during the start of the recession and made things worse. Dumb move. Obama has now raised it during the worst economic crisis in the history of America fueling job losses worse than the Great Depression. Dumber move.Malke201018:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Reagan was in office in 1989. His term ended on January 20, 1989. The part about the federal minimum wage not increasing during Reagan's presidential term is correct though as can be verified by looking at the US Department of Labor's website at [6]. Richrakh however is correct about the federal minimum wage being increased during Obama's time in office on July 24, 2009. It was increased from $6.55 to $7.25. I'll remove the part about Obama now so that its up to date.Chhe (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Your wrong. There wasn't any federal minimum wage increase in the year 1989. See the US Department of Labor's website I listed above for the dates when there was wage increases.Chhe (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It was passed in 1989 and went into effect in 1990. I'm not wrong about anything. [7]. You, however, seem to have a jones for following me around, watching all my edits. Maybe your time would be better spent making positive contributions to the project.Malke201000:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Now you are just splitting hairs. From reading above its clear that this was not what you meant. P.S. I should also add that if you want to go strictly by who was around when the bill was signed then Bush gets credit for the July 24, 2009 wage increase not Obama. Such an interpretation is clearly the best one, but clearly not what we were previously discussing.Chhe (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and if we're really splitting hairs, it's not the president who raises the minimum wage anyway - it's Congress. Many presidents of one party have served under a Congressional majority of a second party which voted to raise the minimum wage.Stanselmdoc (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are so many POV guotes allowed here, but not elsewhere? They are properly referenced, but come from biased sources. Shouldn't they be removed or at least quotes with opposing opinions be allowed? It really slants the article. richrakh````
Which "POV quotes" are you referring to? The statement which you removed about Reagan reinvigorating morale is a statement of fact, backed up by nearly all, if not all, Reagan biographers, most prominently Lou Cannon (the most respected and well known of Reagan biographers). Among many others is Gil Troy, whose opinion is referenced elsewhere in the article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You mean…
[[Termed the Reagan Revolution, his presidency would reinvigorate American morale[80][81] and reduce the people's reliance upon government.]]
…which I tried to remove?
This statement is NOT fact. It is an opinion by Cannon and Troy and most of the Republican party, but it is refuted by the books of William Kleinknect, Michael Schaller, Haynes Johnson and the 35 million people who voted against him. Not one of them was “reinvigorated.” Look, when Obama says that “Hope has returned to America” do you believe him? Would it be a fact if it was “…backed up by all, if not all…,” of Obama’s biographers”? As you can see, such an implication is a ridiculous, though referenced, POV and should be removed.
Similarly, the second phrase of that sentence, that the Reagan Revolution would “reduce the people’s reliance upon government.” is also a POV. It implies that is a good thing, which is an opinion. Further, though many people were removed from the food stamp and welfare programs by the Reagan administration, those people came to rely on the government in other fashions, such as increased enlistments, higher crime, greater use of emergency rooms, etc. I would be happy to add proper references to that, if you let me.
Finally, Ronald Reagan and his staff knew what they were doing and did it deliberately, critics be damned. You do the man no service when you limit access, delete opposing comments and whitewash his achievements. He can stand on his own. Richrakh````
Richrakh is pretty hostile to Reagan...but he's also hostile to the experts that write about Reagan. The latter is a very serious flaw that he has to overcome to be an effective editor. He mentions a couple books (Schaller, Haynes Johnson) that are decades old that were part of the battles of the time. He also mentions a recent book by a local crime reporter in New Jersey which the NY Times said is "This is an ad hominem vision of politics in which differences are never the result of disagreement and misunderstanding, always of evil and dishonesty. It will appeal only to those already running a high partisan fever."[2] So it's time to start reading more widely -- start with Wilentz, a leading liberal historian.Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. I VOTED for Reagan. Stick to the point. "...would reinvigorate American morale[80][81] and reduce the people's reliance upon government..." is an opinion. If you cannot defend that statemnet, (my reading list aside) it should be removed. To be an effective editor you must stop being a cheerleader. Richrakh````
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides' of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.' - (emphasis added)
I repeat - (my reading list aside) To be an effective editor you must stop being a cheerleader. Please review the comments of Happyme22 's 1st paragraph and her comments about "Richrakh being pretty hostile to Reagan."
I have a problem with what was "reference 250" # ^ http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0610-01.htm which anyone with a website could have written. This "source" was not written until 2004. This reference is the epitome of re-written history . This is a very unprofessional reference and needs to be removed. I only want to see true numbers from credible sources. Show me the source of the number, besides someone with a hate-on, and I will be fine with its inclusion. Bikeric (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
TFA Feb 6 2011 ?
we should have this as the article of the day, next year for his 100th birthday. I will try to remember to nominate it then, but in case I forget, maybe someone here can remember. --T1980 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a glaring error in the article: "Reagan transformed the American presidency in ways that only a few have been able to."[269] He redefined the political agenda of the times, advocating lower taxes, a liberal economic philosophy, and a stronger military"
Because it was Carter's recession. Remember double digit inflation and interest rates? These were thanks to Carter's failed economic policies. So, while you may remember a Reagan recession, the rest of us know the truth about the early 1980's recession. Scurry64 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a sentence should be added. This topic is too politicized with POV left and right. You can find 100 economists who will say Carter caused the recession and 100 economist who will say Reagan caused it. Same situation as now in USA. Is Bush or Obama to blame for the current recession and would it be known as the 'Obama Recession'? Meishern (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Bush recession began in December 2007. Obama was elected because of it, not in spite of it. Please pay closer attention. The Reagan recession appears to be covered in every reliable source on the subject except this hagiography on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are not facts; opinions differ based on the source. Labeling recessions according to presidents solely based on whose presidency it occured in and one's own personal like/dislike of the president is not warranted. Meishern is correct in saying that perhaps a sentence on the early 1980s recession could be added, though phrases such as "Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year" are within the economy section.... Hagiography? Please... Happyme22 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
They are most certainly facts: It is a fact that the U.S. entered a recession in December 2007. It is a fact that voters were frustrated with the Bush economy (and other things) and elected Obama because of it. It is a fact that a discussion of the "Reagan recession" was extensively covered in the media and in books and papers. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If you mean you want to make it more clear that Reagan was elected in a recession, which was ongoing early in his term, then perhaps that would be appropriate (near the section that mentions the recession). If you're proposing inserting reasoning as to who caused what, then that's not going to fly here. The article you linked to basically says, "There was a low-point, but then fiscal policy helped turn around the recession and Reagan regained popularity." I think this article captures that point already, but that's just me.—DMCer™11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<-----
Partisan politics. Why waste time arguing if Carter or Bush caused the recessions and Reagan fixed it and Obama is in the process. I disagree with the name 'Reagan Recession' since other sources label that time period as "Reagan-Volcker-Carter" recession. Meishern (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How about the Nixon/Ford recession? Remember WIN buttons? The explosion of inflation and erosion of our purchasing power started happening before Jimmy Carter took office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.189.193 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Train?
I'm pretty sure some guy named Train was never a vice president. Can someone fix this? The link to Train's page even directs to some user's page. A poorly organized page, at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.168.184 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this as well. It appears the user whose page it links to has been warned concerning vandalism of several other pages. I am not positive I know the correct information to make an accurate change, or I would,and I would like for this user to receive some form of punishment (perhaps suspension) for the vandalism. --Scottac87 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. It took a little while to find it because neither of you said where Highyack07 placed the edit on February 14, 2010. While I have this article on my Watchlist, I have a lot of other articles and I depend on other users more familar with RR to police his page.
As a tip, you can say on the talkpage the date and where the vandalism happened so that it can be corrected more quickly. That way, the actual user can be identified too and I could have went to that edit date/history to make the correction. I hope I am not lecturing you too much but want to give you some "good to know" info. Additionally, any user can correct an error/vandalism like this by looking at the history by clicking the history tab and then the "undo" hyperlink that you see off to the side.
Finally, I did look at Highyack07's talkpage (to tell you the truth his userpage disturbs me but that is IMHO). He was blocked in November 2009. At that point, his warnings get reset unless he goes back to immediate and very disruptive edits/vandalism. This one falls in what most Wikipedia patrollers or Admins will say is that he back to a level one warning (not serious enough to block immediately). Keep up the good work; learn more about Wikipedia; and, maybe become a page patroller. Morenooso (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nationality
Why does the bio facts box on the right list "Nationality"? Why does it say "American"? Should this be deleted? Other celebrities have actual facts, not this vague term. Would Michael Jackson's entry have this? (It doesn't -- though it would be equally accurate.) I recommend removal. Johnpdeever (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of Contra Death Squads?
In Central America it is a widely known fact Reagan's right-wing Contra Death squads were responsible for as many as 70,000 deaths in El Salvador, 100,000 in Guatemala, and 30,000 in Nicaragua. Yet this article doesn't even mention the issue? Miguel D'Escoto, a Catholic priest who was Nicaragua's Foreign Minister has spoken at length on the matter and supports the above figures. While according to John Pilger by the end of his two terms, 300,000 Central Americans were dead. In addition, Allan Nairn who won a number of awards for his reporting in Central America has stated that "The victims were priests, peasants, labor leaders, student leaders, academics and journalists, not communists".
Plus Ronald Reagan when describing the Contras in Nicaragua stated: "They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help, they are the moral equal of our founding fathers." I would expect for an Encyclopedia article on the man to include the unflattering aspects of his policy as well, this as it stands now is an insult to the victims. 137.52.151.195 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The word "Apartheid" doesn't appear once
Embarassingly, the word "Apartheid" doesn't appear once in the article, despite the fact that Reagan supported the apartheid government of South Africa. ??? Why the omission? 137.52.151.195 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Grenada
As pointed out in several wikipedia articles (other languages and English main article) the "facts" that led to the invasion of Grenada are not as stated in this section ... here it seems like it was a justifiable intervention, which I doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.100.32.208 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The PATCO strike
I beleive it is unfair to say that Reagan "busted" PATCO. It was more like PATCO committed suicide. Some facts: The PATCO union was
fed up with long hours and outdated equipment. Under the Carter administration talks were started to try and resolve these issues.
The talks were not completed by the time Reagan took office. He appointed some people to the negotiations who were familiar with the airline industry, but not necessarly skilled at labor negotiations.
When the talks broke down and it looked like PATCO might go on strike, Reagan wanted to bring in a whole new team who were more skilled at labor negotiations. He pleaded with the union to give his
new team two weeks to be briefed and brought up to speed on the current status of the negotiations. When PATCO refused, a group of union leaders from the AFL-CIO went to the White House and met with
the President. He told the union leaders that he was disappointed that PATCO would not give him the two weeks he needed to get the talks back on track. He also told them in no uncertain terms that any strike by PATCO would be illegal and the strikers would be fired.
After the meeting, the AFL-CIO leaders stood on the White House lawn
and held a press conference during which they told PATCO that they should give the President his two weeks; and that if PATCO did go on strike it would be an illegal action and they probably would be fired. They went on to say that if PATCO did go on strike, that none of their unions would honor PATCO's picket lines because it was an illegal strike. (Source: ABC television news)
PATCO ignored both the President and the union leaders and went on strike. Only two rather small unions honored their picket lines. Upon refusing to go back to work, the PATCO employees were fired.
The wording in the article sort of goes along with the popular myth
that Reagan was just looking for a union to "bust" so that he could throw his weight around and show how powerful he was. As you can see, the facts tell a different story. Prehaps this section should be rewritten with a more neutral POV. ````Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.189.69 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
G.C.B.
Notwithstanding it was a British honor, he was made an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and while not entitled to call himself Sir Ronald, he was entitled to the initials G.C.B. after his name. They should be added to his name as it appears in the first paragraph.
69.181.57.166 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the days of the American Revolution American politicians have been very careful NOT to emphasize British decorations. So leave the initials out. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Anti environmentalism
Should his opposition to expanding national parks and regulating CO2 emissions be included in his policy? He stated numerous times how he felt that CO2 emissions from cars were not significant.
Ex:"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" "A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" and "I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about" (which for the record is completely false).--67.86.120.246 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Environmentalism is boring for one, and how is that really relevant to the overall achievements and failures of Reagan? When people think Reagan they think: "Cold War", "Contra", "Tear down this wall" and "Jellybeans". I don't think it's really worth starting an argument over something that wasn't really that important in the time, nor to the overall crux of what made Reagan, Reagan. My 2c. I just quite enjoy this article for it's balance atm, and having hippies and global-warming-deniers arguing over it and changing things ever two seconds would suck. 121.74.243.13 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
YOU find environmentalism boring. For those of us who actually have children and grandchildren, and are actually concerned about their futures, environmentalism is not boring. In fact, it's essential for future sustainability. Of course, you'd probably just chalk all this up to "hippies." Unfortunately for you (but fortunately for the rest of us), real, hard, verified science disagrees with you. And regardless of what people initially think when they hear the name "Reagan" is unimportant and ignorant. Wikipedia is about documenting online sources, not Rorschach word tests. But, to attest to others' concerns, yes, this article is horribly skewed and paints Reagan in an entirely glorious light. Anyone who is critical of Reagan and his disastrous economic policies is labeled just that, a mere "critic," which points to the obvious use of weasel words and biased language. -- R.R., 20 Feb 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.143.123 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the point the first responder made at the end of his comments proves the first comment of the second responder. Man, that's just emotional rhetoric, dude. Environmentalism wasn't important to Reagan anyway. And I've never heard anyone mention these quotes before, so I question their legitimacy. I suspect Kitty Kelley. PokeHomsar (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is this locked
I'm a Reagan scholar who has published one mainstream academic press book and countless articles on him who finally found time to come work on this page, and this is what I find. Sheesh. Bye. Should have known better.... Reeeeet (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but I'd think a Reagan scholar would be able to spell Reagan's last name correctly the first edit around. If you really have written countless articles and a mainstream academic press book, it's probably cited or will be cited at some point. Kelseypedia (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Popularity
I think the statement 'Top Third of popularity' is Untrue, and think that at least. 'Top Quarter' would be more approipate. The new phrase seems all a bit wordy to me, as If someone is trying to play his popularity down. In the most recent surveys since 2005 Regan has been in the top 10, And he is still popular in the US today. --86.149.189.210 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What text needs to be replaced with what other text (or added or removed)? Thanks. —C45207 | Talk05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Paragraph 4, Summary. "He has been rated by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents." The article does have a table of rankings that include Reagen, but the average of the scholarly rankings has him at slightly less than fifteenth place for greatness. Furthermore the highest ranking achieved was sixth in a poll by the WSJ, the eighth place ranking was also from a poll by the WSJ. The language here is inaccurate. The citation should be removed, or the language should be changed, because as written the statement could apply to any president on whom academics have been polled. 173.48.59.243 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This footnote refers to a compilation of presidential surveys contained in the other Wiki article. This compilation in turn is derived from a list of third party sources. Practically speaking, the link to the other Wiki article is quite efficient in this instance.Jrgilb (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Stagflation cure
As a fan of William Greider, I may be biased. But this article seems to get things a bit wrong.
Inflation was an increasing problem in the 1970s, which Carter "cured" with very drastic and painful medicine; namely, his appointment of Volcker.
The "medicine" was to be extraordinarily high interest rates. No suprise to anyone at the time that this created a major recession around time of Carter's re-election campaign. No suprise that Carter got (deserved) blame for the recession and lost the election. Carter deliberately fell on his sword, doing what he believed was right. Though the recession probably wrecked the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, it "worked." Inflation was tamed using highly conventional and simple economic theory & practice -- just in time for Reagan to get the credit for the wrong reasons.
It seems to me there should be a lot more information on his time as Governor. This is a serious weakness of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.126.63 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Reagan's legacy
While I was reading the section about Reagan's legacy, I couldn't help but notice some things that I believed were either misleading or violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Some examples of misleading statements include the statement that Reagan was supported by many Jews, even though the source provided said that only 40 percent of Jews supported him, which is not a majority of Jews. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that many Jews supported him. Also since there is no concrete proof that most people believed that "Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev played a significant part in ending the Cold War", I think that it is also false to suggest that many people believed this, and should be changed to say that some people believed this.
Also, I think that the quote by M. J. Heale should be put in quotations, since some of what he said, such as him "rehabilitating conservatism", "reviving faith in the presidency" and him "contributing to 'victory' in the Cold War" are not neccessarily facts, and are simply opinions that he said. In reality, much of what he said remains a matter of debate. While I have no problem if it remains in the article, I think it should be put in quotations to clarify that it is a statement from one historian, and is not neccessarily based on fact.
The part of this article that troubled me the most, quite honestly, is the part that refers to Reagan's supposed "unabashed patriotism". This reference is clearly biased, since it says it in this article as if it is a fact, and as if other presidents were not patriotic like Reagan. I think that the reference to his "unabashed patriotism" should be removed.
Some other parts of this article I would also like to point out are the sections that say he "reinvigorated American morale" and "reduced the people's reliance upon governemnt", since this is also not neccessarily a fact, and is merely an opinion (like the section about him "reinvigorating American morale") or the perception of some people (like the section about him "reducing the people's reliance upon governemnt"). Also, there is the reference to the nation's economic "malaise" that I'd like to point out, since I am unsure that this is a proper way to describe it, since although it is what some people have referred the nation's economic stagflation as, it should perhaps be either rephreased or put it quotations. I have already rephrased these two parts of the article, but I just would like to point them out since I was concerned that these sections were not entirely neutral.
The bottom line is, many parts of this article I noticed were either misleading, were not necccessarily neutral, were opinions, not facts, or simply need small modifications (i.e. quotations for some sentences). I simply want to make sure that this article has a neutral point of view, and is an article to learn facts about President Reagan, not a place for people to continuosly praise Reagan's legacy.--Joker123192 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a Featured Article which means many editors have gone over it to address your concerns. Suggest you write a draft article with changes and submit here for concensus by other editors. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you maybe go into more detail about why my particular edits are somehow wrong? Because I think I have explained and given reason to most of my edits, and the only real explanation I have gotten is that you and Soxwon "disagree with the changes." Also, my Morning in America edit was removed without any particular reason, even though I've clearly explained why I felt it should be removed or moved. Why is this?--Joker123192 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is that this is a Featured Article and has been run over with a fine-toothed comb by dozens of editors both pro and anti Reagan. There are 15 pages of archived conversation where dispute resolution has taken place. Before the wording of article is changed to suit your opinion, make sure you become thoroughly familiar with the arguments that have already been made and resolved. Featured Article status on controversial subjects is not easily attained, and one should excersize extreme caution when editing (as the warnings at the top of the talk page already indicate) Rapier (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There are more than a few adjectives in this article (both pro and anti reagan) that could be left out without harming it.Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reaganomics, Evil Empire
Is there a reason that my edit regarding Reaganomics was removed? Because if there is, the people here haven't done a good job letting me know. All I was doing was rephrasing the article. I don't believe it had any bias in it whatsoever, and I don't get why it should be removed just because some people, such as William S. Saturn, simply don't like it.
Also, is Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" really significant enough to be put in the lead? I agree that it is a somewhat significant event in his presidency, but I don't agree that it should be in the lead.
By the way, I don't see other presidential articles, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or even Barack Obama being either so positive or negative about the president those articles are about, just as how this article appeared to be tilting in an overwhelming pro-Reagan direction.--Joker123192 (talk
I have re-edited the "Reaganomics" sentence to make it (I believe) more clear. Take a look and see if it is okay.--Paul (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Unquestionably, the Evil empire identification is essential to the understanding of Reagan's philosophy toward the Soviet Union. And as an aside, the complaint of bias was rejected at the FA nomination, and has no merit without evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, in response to the FA nomination, which I've heard many conservative editors here use as their defense countless times, the section here about the nomination also includes the sentence "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." So just because it's gotten this nomination, that does not necessarily mean that you cannot edit or improve the article. If you have a source or reference to use in the article that shows that it is essential to understanding Reagan's philosophy, by all means, go ahead and put it in the article. Until then, I think it should be changed back to my edit, along with the sentence about Reaganomics, since you have failed to provide an actual excuse for why my edit about that shouldn't be removed, and since there is nothing wrong with that edit as far as I'm concerned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs)
You are editing against established consensus. The burden is on you to provide a source that the Soviet Union policy (built on the Evil Empire philosophy) was not essential to Reagan.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Concur with William S. Saturn. Reagan's Evil Empire is one of the classic presidential speeches and ranks with FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and JFK's "I am Berliner". In essence, each of their presidencies were marked by these one-liners. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why isn't FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" speech included in the lead paragraph of the FDR article, and why isn't JFK's "I am Berliner" speech included in the lead paragraph of the JFK article. I'm sure if I tried to reference it in the lead paragraphs of those two articles, the conservatives over there would remove it, saying exactly what I'm saying now; that it is significant and should be included somewhere in the article, but not in the lead. By the way, nobody has answered my question yet about the Reaganomics sentence.--Joker123192 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As to the other two presidents, I have no idea as I am not on those articles. Again, their articles like this one are built on WP:CONSENSUS as to what gets put in and what goes in the body of the article. The decision on Reagan's was made long ago and is probably due to the impact felt afterwards. As for Reaganomics, if you don't understand why it's here, you're probably on the wrong article. Please read the headers above. Consenus was developed to include both noteworthy and critical items that were put into this article. By concurring with the other editor, in effect, your comment about it was nullified as well. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you really think that I was confused about why the Reaganomics sentence was there in the first place, you must not have read my actual question about Reaganomics. All I wanted to do was rephrase the sentence to say that the goals of Reaganomics were to control inflation and spur economic growth, and that it would do this through tax cuts, less regulation, and less government spending. I just wanted to clarify the sentence by specifically stating what the goals of Reaganomics were, and how it would do this. Thankfully, I think the recent edit by Paul.h is fair, and basically does what I was trying to do, so I'll just leave it at that. However, I remain skeptical of the consensus of this article, since it seems to be far less neutral than the other presidential articles I have seen. But if you really don't care about neutrality, and will block any tiny bit of neutrality I put in the article, I'll just leave it. Happy?--Joker123192 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL Why? Are you really that desperate to keep your claim that I think this is a vast right wing conspiracy on this talk page? Besides, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the editor who seemed at least a little serious about this conversation (moreno oso), since the comment that you posted proves that you are not serious about discussing this article.--Joker123192 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better then go ahead and remove my comment again, but you should have asked the first time. Hopefully you can see the absurdity of your accusations against editors of mulitiple wikipedia pages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Rated by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents
This statement is self referencing and misleading. In fact, he is rarely rated in the top 10. I would recommend a change to:
I agree with this IP. I have no POV agenda, but Reagan is in no way ranked as one of the greatest presidents in same way Lincoln, FDR or Washington have been. This sentence should be reworded to say rated favourably or at most, highly. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I have seen no reputable nonpartisan articles or polls that rank Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest presidents. I would even mark this Wikipedia article for neutrality problems (74.64.100.170 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)).
I stumbled across this discussion and completely agree. To say that historians rank Reagan as a "greatest U.S. President" not only violates NPOV, it violates the data we have on the question (Siena most notably). I have made a change which still reflects popularity in public opinion polls, however. Ingersollian (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the data, the most common rankings in polls released recently (with the exception of the very liberal Siena Research Institute) rate Reagan very highly. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to state a fact. Before a featured article is modified, I'd like to see a little more discussion among editors that aren't annonymous to get a better idea as to whether or not a new consensus has been reached. If so, then fine, make the change. But three people in three months do not a consensus make. Rapier (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously attempting to dismiss the most notable scholarly ranking of American Presidents in the United States as "very liberal"? And are you trying to portray a POV phrasing like "greatest" as "fact"? Consensus can change, and your willingness to automatically revert changes does not a consensus make. Ingersollian (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing anything, but the Siena Research Institute is considered by many to be a "very liberal" organization. And I am not trying to state anything at all about whether or not RWR was one of the "greatest" presidents. I'm simply stating that according to the sources given the sentence as stands is accurate. As I stated, if a new consensus forms supporting the new wording, then by all means it should be changed. To avoid an edit-war I'm not going to revert, but I believe it may be appropriate to request a comment on this issue. Agree? Rapier (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.
This article seems to be well-suited to be included in the Pending Changes trial. As is evident from recent edits, review of edits by non-autoconfirmed editors is warranted. As with many other articles included in the Pending Changes trial, this one gets a fair amount of drive-by vandalism—precisely the sort of thing that the Pending Changes system is good at weeding out. Sunray (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Pending Changes is a failure. It causes too much work for individuals who have the page on their watchlist, and has created a class of drive-by reviewers who approve bad edits.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What about it causes more work? Also, are you suggesting that there are too many mistakes by reviewers? I certainly agree that there have been some mistakes. However, this seems to be sorting itself out as reviewers get used to the system. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed, but it takes a long time to load. Also, messy good faith edits can't be rollbacked, so that takes even more time. It would save much more time if the edits were never made in the first place. I have not yet come across an unapproved contribution that has improved an article in any significant way.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You have a point about the slowness of loading. I imagine that can be solved through programming. On the other hand, I think the trial is successful in deterring casual vandalism, such as the "hey guys, look what I just put on Wikipedia" variety. I just reverted the change of the fullname of the state of California in the infobox to "the Republic of Katie." The vandal never got to see it and was thus robbed of the ability to say: "Hey Katie, look at this." I'm pretty sure this will deter all sorts of "hey Mary" and "big fat penis" types of vandalism. The latter being a continuing assault on the credibility of WP, IMO. But perhaps we should probably continue this on the talk page of the pending changes project... Sunray (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Those edits would not have happened in the first place and would not be viewable in the edit history if the article was just semi-protected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection of all articles? A sweeping change that would surely subvert the principle that "anyone can edit," don't you think? Sunray (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This section should not be included unless it has a source:
Noam Chomsky, speaking before the Left Forum in New York City on May 1st, 2010, went further, saying that Reagan "hated working people" and blaming him for the phenomenon of homelessness, which first appeared during his tenure.
While you can go after me for not liking Noam Chomsky, which I don't, the point is Chomsky is not a reliable source for criticism. I could go into it if you want, starting with his lecture against the Reagan Administration shortly after the death of Milton Friedman (he brought his death up for a reason in the lecture.) Criticism should not be included here if it presents things that are false. I don't care if one of you tells me that's not the point; we shouldn't be putting clearly false information on Wikipedia. If someone can give me a source, I will go through it for reliability. I will do it. I will then present my findings. If it turns out Chomsky is right, I'll let it stand if a reliable source is found. If not, I will remove this criticism. False criticism isn't criticism. It is venom, something Wikipedia shouldn't give a voice to. PokeHomsar (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Chomsky's comments are simply political rhetoric and add nothing to an understanding of Reagan. They should go, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog or debating society.--Paul (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. While I respect much of Noam Chomsky's criticism of the political elite in Western countries, it is impossible to accept that his comments about Ronald Reagan were even remotely objective. Indeed, we would be hard-pressed finding a less objective critic of Ronald Reagan. BlueRobe (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In trying to fix the error at the bottom of the page where "Navboxes" is displayed instead of the actual boxes, I received the error "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.". Not sure what to do about that. DCEdwards196615:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Grenadian invasion
I want to edit this sentence in the "Lebanon and Grenada, 1983" paragraph, as it contains a factual error;
"On October 25, 1983, only two days later, Reagan ordered U.S. forces to invade Grenada, where a 1979 coup d'état had established a Marxist-Leninist government aligned with the Soviet Union and Cuba."
Grenada joined the Non-Aligned Movement under Bishop and he actively maintained the country's status as an non-aligned one. It co-operated with both Eastern bloc and Western bloc on economical matters (similar to Yugoslavia, which also wanted to achieve communism). For sources, see the Wikipedia article on the Non-Aligned Movement.
I also want to edit this line in the same paragraph;
"President Reagan also cited the regional threat posed by a Soviet-Cuban military build-up in the Caribbean and concern for the safety of several hundred American medical students at St. George's University as adequate reasons to invade."
to
"President Reagan also cited the regional threat posed by an allegedly Soviet-Cuban military build-up in the Caribbean and concern for the safety of several hundred American medical students at St. George's University as adequate reasons to invade."
There were never Soviet troops on the island. Infact, the Soviets didn't even bother to send troops to Grenada when the invasion began (see Invasion of Grenada). According to the Cuban government, there were 784 Cubans on the island at this point. Only 43 of them were military personel which surrendered within the first day of the invasion. The rest were construction workers and medical personel. This figures were later accepted by the US government ([3]). Only after the invasion had begun, the Cubans sent troops. I would hardly call this a "military build-up".
The Cuban military engineers were armed and actively fought the US and allied invading forces. Military engineers are oftentimes combatants, the Seabees on Guadacanal for instance oftentimes fought the Japanese in addition to engineering projects.XavierGreen (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Assassination Attempt
Since the article goes into medical details on President Reagan's condition, I would like to see a medical explanation as to why President Reagan did not receive human blood products to aid in the operation and as a life saving procedure toward his full recovery. News articles at the time stated that he received an artificial blood substitute such as Haemaccel. Since there is ambiguity as to the date that the AIDS virus was discovered in Wikipedia articles ("late 1980 to early 1981") and how much was known about the condition of AIDS as being a blood borne disease, one wonders what was known at the time of President Reagan's hospitaliztion and how that affected his medical treatment. I also recall that news articles stated that the President had been "shot in the heart." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostics (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Fan Mail
The paragraph "Fan mail," while interesting, is given an unwarranted spin: what celebrity doesn't have someone else answer their fan mail? --Yopienso (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Unemployment rate discrepancies
Someone tagged the economics section as being contradictory since it includes two different unemployment rates. The first figures of 9.7% and 9.6% are annualized rates, while the second mentioned high of 10.8% is for the month of December 1982. I can see how it might be confusing, but the numbers are accurate. Should the annual rates and average be removed, and instead use only the monthly figures? Nothing would really change using monthly figures, the rate would still be 7.5% when Reagan takes office, 5.4% when he leaves, and the average is still 7.5%. --FrankieG123 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Cultural and political image
This section says almost nothing about his image outside America, which was pretty negative. In particular, I recall vividly that in the UK he was widely regarded as a dangerous idiot (cf George Bush), and regularly satirized, e.g. by Spitting Image (I think it was that show that had a long-running storyline 'The President's brain is missing'), Whoops Apocalypse, and Private Eye. In the archives I found the following deleted paragraph, which strikes me as quite accurate AFAIK; the 'Princess David' incident for example was headline news in the UK, and treated as clear evidence that Reagan was not in sufficient command of his faculties. I think this paragraph should be reinstated with sources:
Residents of Western European countries often saw Reagan very differently from many Americans. In the United Kingdom, though Reagan had the strong support of Margaret Thatcher, he was routinely lampooned by much of the media as being dim-witted, if not senile. This was fueled by certain real-life incidents, including a November 9, 1985, speaking engagement in which he forgot the name of Diana, Princess of Wales and after some hesitation referred to her as 'Princess David', to widespread embarrassment. In the nations of Eastern Europe, however, Reagan enjoyed a good deal of popularity among residents (though not their governments) for his harsh criticism of communism, and has been praised extensively for his role in ending the Cold War.
I've never seen media representations of political figures as particularly representative of the public consensus. Worldwide the media is generally more liberal than conservative, and if you look at media trends in satire, conservatives get hit harder. Compare Obama, to Bush. Clinton only ever gets the sex-maniac hit. Just an observation. 60.234.137.101 (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Says who? The international media may be more liberal than you, but that doesn't mean it is more supportive of liberal policies and individuals than of conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.37.150 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Political figures, especially US presidents, have always been at the center of jokes, satire, and parody in the US and abroad. As for Clinton.. SNL did numerous skits making fun of him, remember the one with Phil Hartman and Clinton eating everyones food? Carter was made fun of for his accent and verbal flubs just like George W. Bush. It does not have anything to do with being Liberal or Conservative, it is just entertainment.--FrankieG123 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reagonomics
Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that he had the largest tax increase in history, and that his average unemployment rate was higher than either his predessor or his successor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.22.141 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no section on controversies? His presidency was not the all-singing, all-dancing tenure you might get the impression of by reading the article. In fact there were a lot of controversies that should be mentioned. Also, while it may be true that Reagan's image has become better over the years than under his tenure, this is only true inside the U.S. itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.53.54 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you have any specific controversies in mind? No other article on a U.S. president has a controversies section, so I would be interested to know why you think only the Reagan article needs such a section..--FrankieG123 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just because a controversy section isn't present anywhere else doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Someone has to be the first to begin any convention. Basically every presidency has a few controversies and it stands to reason that a well rounded article would include them. A nearly universal trait among presidencies deserves it's own section, I'd argue. I'm not versed enough on Reagan to do it myself, but I'd be interested to see someone create a Controversies section.
The Cap'n (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia style guidelines are to avoid controversy sections. Any controversies that are notable enough to be mentioned should just be incorporated into the flow of the article. Are there any particular controversial parts of Reagan's life that you feel is omitted from the article? Ashmoo (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I can think of a couple of controversies (other than his refusal to even mention the word AIDS for the first 7 years of his presidency). One is his dealing with the environment. His record is one of the worst of any president and James Watt was probably the most ant-environmental secretary of the Interior we ever had. Remember Reagan's insistence that "trees pollution more than cars"? There was also his effort to 'reform' school lunches, which was draconian to say the least. He tried to have ketchup declared a vegetable, and only backed off when Senator Heinz told him in no uncertain terms that it wasn't. The controversies this article seems to avoid are also the effects of his policies on most of the population. This article makes it sound like his attack on social programs was a good thing, not the devestating thing it was, and continues to be, for many Americans. In other words, this thing needs to reflect the dark side of his presidency, not make it sound like there wasn't one. jolly momma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
I was not aware that Wikipedia discouraged Controversy sections; thank you for letting me know. As for issues not addressed, I concur with jolly momma, and would add President Reagans positions on government care for the mentally disabled (or lack thereof) contributed enormously to the dramatic increase in homeless people.
I know that we can't discuss every controversial decision a president makes, but I think Wiki has a responsibility to show the objective impact of Reagans presidency, good and bad. Especially with the current wave of Reagan-worship going on, discussion of his less successful/popular decisions is important.
The Cap'n (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Please state where you want this edit in the article. — Cargoking talk 11:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What text needs to be replaced with what other text (or added or removed)? Thanks. —C45207 | Talk 05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Done TbhotchTalk C. 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
...){kind=link}