Jump to content

Talk:Ronald Reagan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 135: Line 135:
::::: The Fairness Doctrine was anything but so I don't see why removing his repeal of it puts Reagan in a more positive light by having it in would put him in a more positive light as it was a very good thing and very pro 1st amendment to repeal it. [[User:AmYisroelChai|AmYisroelChai]] ([[User talk:AmYisroelChai|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
::::: The Fairness Doctrine was anything but so I don't see why removing his repeal of it puts Reagan in a more positive light by having it in would put him in a more positive light as it was a very good thing and very pro 1st amendment to repeal it. [[User:AmYisroelChai|AmYisroelChai]] ([[User talk:AmYisroelChai|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
::::: it was to fairness what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to democracy [[User:AmYisroelChai|AmYisroelChai]] ([[User talk:AmYisroelChai|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
::::: it was to fairness what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to democracy [[User:AmYisroelChai|AmYisroelChai]] ([[User talk:AmYisroelChai|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::: If you're talking about whether something is a "good thing" or not, then that's entirely subjective and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. We need to be neutral which is what this is all about. We need to cover both sides, not just make this a masturbatory fantasy about good ol' Ronnie God Bless His Cotton Socks [[User:Leopheard|leopheard]] ([[User talk:Leopheard|talk]]) 17:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:17, 23 December 2017

Featured articleRonald Reagan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 15, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 8, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 12, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
February 6, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
July 31, 2008Featured article reviewKept
May 21, 2009Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 5, 2005, and January 2, 2014.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Conservatism SA

Template:Vital article

Unfair statement on Reagan getting two full terms since Eisenhower

"He was the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower to serve two full terms, after a succession of five prior presidents failed to do so."

That is rather unfair as it is hardly Kennedy's fault that he got bullets in his head.

Surely there is a better way to word that statement.122.108.156.100 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is. (Fourth paragraph). Captainllama (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unfair its just a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmYisroelChai (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Section

The AIDS section of this is highly misleading and not particularly balanced. It says:

"The Reagan administration largely ignored the AIDS crisis, which began to unfold in the United States in 1981, the same year Reagan took office. AIDS research was chronically underfunded during Reagan's administration, and requests for more funding by doctors at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were routinely denied. By the end of the first 12 months of the epidemic, when more than 1,000 people had died of AIDS in the U.S., the CDC had spent less than $1 million on AIDS research."

So why does the funding quote stop after the first year? By the end of Reagan's admin, funding was over a billion annually. It also omits the fact that virtually no one (left or right) considered this any sort of "crisis" early on. Note the fact that neither Walter Mondale or Ferraro brought this up in the debates in 1984.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the figures don't seem to be correct either. The CDC couldn't have spent $9 million during the first 12 months following the Legionnaires' outbreak. According to the book AIDS and Contemporary History (p. 188), the CDC spent $162,000 in fiscal year 1976 to fight Legionnaires' disease, not $9 million. Also, "research spending" falls mostly under the NIH, which the AIDS section omits completely. In fiscal year 1982, NIH spent $3.4 million on AIDS, and the CDC spent $2 million, whereas nothing was spent by the NIH on Legionnaires' in FY1976. That's a total of $5.4 million spent on AIDS in fiscal year 1982, much more than what was spent on Legionnaire's disease in FY1976. The article cited to support the $9 million figure for Legionionnaire's disease is an opinion piece and should not be deemed a reliable source. CatPath (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the foward.com source more carefully, it claims, "Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease." The source is talking about spending on Legionnaire's disease in 1981-1982, not 1976, which the AIDS section implies. Even so, CDC spending on Legionnaires' in FY1982 was $1.1 million, far less than the $9 million stated in the AIDS section. CatPath (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

@Leopheard and Viewmont Viking: please discuss the change here, and don't edit war. I've reverted it, as this is new material and there are obvious issues with it. Most blatantly, it's spelled "Reagan" and not "Regan"; there's also possibly WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are neutral PoV issues all over this article. For instance, the Iran-Contra affair section treads very lightly when it comes to Reagan's admissions and blame by the Congressional Inquiry. Furthermore, the fairness doctrine repeal has very real and current implications on the media and First Amendment as a whole, yet every time this is added, it is removed in questionable circumstances, presumably in order to paint Reagan in as much of a positive light as possible, which is clearly against the guidelines of Wikipedia leopheard (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone tried to add something about the Fairness Doctrine (in the legacy section). I don't have a dog in that fight but my thoughts: I frankly don't see how that is really relevant at this point. With the advent of the internet, the death of the print media, and the proliferation of all the cable channels.....would the Fairness Doctrine even be enforceable at this point? Even when it was in place, I don't recall too many saying the media was fair. (Myself included.) Because the fact is: the networks had a lot of discretion as to when/where/how it was enforced.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody asked how enforceable it is at this point? I think you're missing the point of the conversation. It's like saying "Oh well the Iran-Contra affair isn't a big deal now I don't think". If it was a debated topic either then or now (which it was/is), then it needs including as a notable action Reagan took during his term. We can't have this selective/rose tinted history of Reagan because it suits certain people leopheard (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you put in this statement on the Fairness Doctrine (in the main article), you put it into the "Legacy" section of the article. You also said in a previous comment on this thread: "[the Fairness Doctrine's] repeal has very real and current implications on the media". So obviously how enforceable/relevant it is (at this point) is something you think is important. If that is the case, then I was providing perspective as to how relevant/important it really is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Fairness Doctrine was anything but so I don't see why removing his repeal of it puts Reagan in a more positive light by having it in would put him in a more positive light as it was a very good thing and very pro 1st amendment to repeal it. AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it was to fairness what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to democracy AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about whether something is a "good thing" or not, then that's entirely subjective and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. We need to be neutral which is what this is all about. We need to cover both sides, not just make this a masturbatory fantasy about good ol' Ronnie God Bless His Cotton Socks leopheard (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan&oldid=816781563"