Talk:Ronald Reagan

a map of Reagan's travels.

Unlike Carter, Ford and Nixon, there is no map of countries as to where Reagan traveled to, while he was president. I do not know how to do this. Please, will a person do this. Thanks.

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 (). Only after the invasion had begun, the Cubans sent troops. I would hardly call this a "military build-up".

Please let me know what you think. Bricklayer (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Noam Chomsky

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)

I've removed this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Template error

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. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:51, 1 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)

What's 50,000 dead, when they're non-people?

Checking out the entry today, I note that all mention of AIDS under his administration has been removed from the entry. Excellent work. Allows room for more hagiography. Censorship by omission: it's the American way! Engleham (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.77.34 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Let's not talk about the hideousness of AIDS and that it all happened on his watch! From the first reporting, to the first deaths to it reaching epidemic proportions as funding was slashed! Bill Clinton's entry has a separate page for Lewinsky but not even a single mention on Ronnie's page about AIDS. Hideous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.241.74 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys are tripping: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration#Response to AIDS. Although if makes you guys feel any better, Reagan never slashed funding for AIDS and far more people died under Clinton from AIDS than under Reagan.

--FrankieG123 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course more people died from AIDS under Clinton - do you know about the incubation period of HIV? The fact remains Reagan cut and cut the health budget at the start of the epidemic! Why is none of this, major domestic policy not on his main page? This is Wikipedia - not the home page of his own website - this is not the site for canonizing people! The seminal work of the early period of AIDS, Randy Shilts’ best selling “And the band played on” is highly critical of Presidential policy at the time!

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.

Ben Finn (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)