Talk:Ronald Reagan

Article neutrality

The article appears to present an overly simplistic and generous portrayal of this president.

There are a number of pertinent points missing in the article. Firstly, my studies on the subject have revealed that Reagan was a strong believer in an apocalyptic second coming during his lifetime. This is also evident from his speeches, his policies, and his admissions. This might help to explain why he ordered the greatest buildup of the nuclear arsenal ever. Even though Gorbachev did manage to convince him to enter into agreements to gradually reduce this arsenal over the succeeding decades, it together with that of Russia, remains by far the largest collection of WMDs to this day. Furthermore, Reagan refused to abandon his SDI initiative even when Gorbachev offered unilateral nuclear disarmament in return (Reykjavik Iceland 1986).

It would therefore be helpful for this article to expand on and elaborate in following areas:

1. one Reagan's religious beliefs.
2. two Reagan's military policies.
3. three Reagan's international activities including disarmament treaties and negotiations.

please let me know what you think..

AD Adinov 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so simplistic is fine, solong as not a caricature. I like this purported quote for Reagan: "Ronald Reagan once said, when asked the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists, that Marxists are those who have read the books of Karl Marx and anti-Marxists are those who have understood them." RL Raylopez99 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in fairly simple English, but it presents a reasonably complex and full portrait of President Reagan. The author notes that Reagan was widely criticized for some of his policies, and he or she includes a number of foot-in-mouth Reagan quotes. The comment, "tax cuts leading to dramatic increases in government revenue, which couldn't keep up with congressional spending," may be an exaggeration. However, in general I am satisfied that the article is balanced. -Larry Siegel

Re-think your choice of words. "Simplistic" implies simple-minded. Readable language is a plus, but not at the expense of facts and fairness.

Mention of Governor Reagan's handling of the Cesar Chavez-led grape-pickers strikes is vital. --JJP

This article is not merely generous, it is unjustifiably (and disgustingly) reverent. Let me put it this way ... when it was announced that he had Alzheimer's, my reaction was "how could they tell?" ;Bear 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's simplistic interpretation will improve to one more scholarly when less attention is given to his alleged religiosity, rather than more. Too much of the article accepts at face value Reagan's own self-assessments, and those of his most strident supporters. His mother gave him a strong religious upbringing, but he was a nominal Christian as an adult (insofar as anyone knows). He was very private in his personal feelings and beliefs, but knew how to quote the Bible to woo the religious right. Indeed, the most striking aspect of Reagan's religious beliefs was his almost Machiavellian orchestration of religious voters into a bloc that has exerted immense political power in American politics since 1980.--JStripes 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why has the Reagan's legacy section made no mention of the fact that under his administration, the U.S. national debt TRIPLED and that virtually EVERY gay activist in the country who was alive and active during Reagan's first term, regards him as the single greatest abettor in the spread of the AIDS epidemic? For a citation, see investigative journalist Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On".

religion edit

I'm editing this line: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church but never attended church regularly, including during his presidency.

to reflect the well-known reasoning that Reagan had for not attending during his presidency - the church services became all about him - people would come just to see the president, and it caused genuine inconvenience to the other parishioners at the church.

See, for example, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E1D71539F93BA35750C0A962948260

I'm changing the sentence to: As an adult, Reagan was a member of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, but didn't attend regularly during his presidency, due to the inconvenience his presence caused the parishioners.

with a reference to that NYTimes archive.

Also, this sentence is highly subjective: Reagan had an easy-going but deep Christian faith.

perhaps someone will consider making that a bit more scholarly! 80.229.242.179 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

This sentence...

"and huge tax cuts leading to huge budget deficits and subsequent tax increases labeled as "revenue enhancements" and tax reform"

...is this necessary as part of the introduction to the article? I see this as a slanted statement.

WikiProject Baseball

I don't think Reagan's article really warrants being a part of this Project based only on the following excerpt of a paragraph:

In 1932, after graduating from Eureka, Reagan worked at radio stations WOC in Davenport, Iowa, and then WHO in Des Moines as an announcer for Chicago Cubs baseball games, getting only the bare outlines of the game from a ticker and relying on his imagination to flesh out the game. Once, during the ninth inning of a game, the wire went dead but Reagan smoothly improvised a fictional play-by-play (in which hitters on both teams fouled off numerous pitches) until the wire was restored. As a Headline radio announcer, Reagan took a screen test that led to a seven-year contract with the Warner Brothers studio.

That's the only part in the entire article that talks about his connections with professional baseball; surely that doesn't count, does it? If there are no objections raised, I will revert the bot's adding of this project. --ScreaminEagle 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Baseball/Iowa

You could add in that he stopped in to a Cubs game when Harry Carey came back and called an inning with him.

It should also be noted that it was because of baseball - that he became more than just "Dutch" the play by play guy. He was "discovered" while covering the Cubs in Arizona during spring training.

Should probably be added in here that his first few years in Iowa he was the Iowa Hawkeye play by play man - and you can find a few quotes around the web from those days that give an insight on what he believed in the 30s.. most telling would be the way he regarded black Americans then. (... and the guy that replaced him in the mid 30s - Jim Zabel - just retired as the play by play man of the Iowa Hawkeyes a couple of years ago)

Glaring propaganda

There are probably many problems with this article, but a severe one jumped out at me, namely the article's assertion that the US "was found guilty of having supported terrorism in Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice". Firstly, this was not a criminal court and nobody was "found guilty". Second, the court did adjudicate on the issue of "terrorism" or even support for "terrorism" but was instead found to have been involved in the "unlawful use of force" (because of the treaty with Nicaragua and because the court rejected the claim of collective security). This is not a trivial distinction, but the assertion is quite trivial and should be removed. 129.71.73.248 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This part bothered me as well, I second its removal or rewording.Welostclyde 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So...?

When does the "disabled editing by unregistered users" tag come off, that way user including I can edit now?(71.96.229.107 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)).

The article is no longer semiprotected. In the future, if you would like an article to be unprotected so that you can edit, you can make such a request at requests for page protection and unprotection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

amnesty to illegal immigrants

does anyone remember when regan granted amnesty for imigration. if so, does anyone have any websites or sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.159.86 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Greatest President in US history i miss u Reagan very much god bless u Rest in peace.

Hello. This is not the appropriate place to either ask factual questions about the subject of an article - for that, see Wikipedia:Questions - or to discuss and give commentary; instead, it is a discussion page for how to improve this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jelly Beans Picture

The trivia section mentions his well-known love of Jelly Beans. Do people think a picture should be added? The following one from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is in the public domain so should be ok: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c1638-18.jpg. Uberdude85 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a nice touch. Too bad it's not the famous one made of jelly beans as a portrait of him. Morenooso 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Administration

Hi everyone. I know that you guys on here are all about "short and concise" articles, but after taking a look at Gerald Ford's article, and looking at his "Presidency" section, it looked a lot nicer than Ronald Reagan's, which is so shortend down, that it makes it seem like the Reagan Presidency was no big deal. But it was a big deal, and for Wikipedia readers, I propose that we eliminate the article called "Reagan Administration", and just use that as the "Presidency" section. Yes, it will be long, but we can cut out info. Also, if you want to shorten the article, take a look at the "1976 Campaign", "1980 Campaign", and "1984 Campaign" sections, which are very long. I think, that if we work hard enough (and add some citations), we can get President Reagan's article back on to the "Featured Articles" list. Drop me a line, and tell me what you think. Happyme22 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make major revisions, removals, or edits without consensus for change.K. Scott Bailey 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I added quite a bit of info from the article Reagan Administration, which I think helps Ronald Reagan's article, and makes it look more similar to Gerald Ford's and George H.W. Bush's. Ford's is a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happyme22 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

References

Edmund Morris's book Dutch properly belongs in the biography section. It is NOT a primary source. The persona at the heart of the text is a fiction: a device employed to give the biography a personal feel. I have moved it twice, and someone reverts my edits. --JStripes 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey guys. I added a ton of useful info that you guys all deleted! I even icted it in the proper format! Can you tell me what was wrong with what I had done? Also, what makes your edit right, but mine wrong? Happyme22 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMPRESSIVE WORK!

Six months ago this Reagan article was filled with partisan phony claims and partisan lies, which only hurts Reagan's long-term reputation. I was turned off. But what I just read is impressive!

GDP Numbers

Are the GDP numbers from the Reagan recovery listed (maybe by year)? I see this line "GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession." By the way, I thought the coverage of the deficits is very good, so now maybe a one liner on the GDP growth by year would be good.

inconsistent syntax

This article desperately needs revision for consistency. In particular, lists, such as under "policies" need consistent syntax. It currently reads as if the whole article is a stitch job by a group of minimally illiterate undergrads and high school students (which may be closer to the truth than we like to admit). JStripes 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 19, 2007 edits/deletions

user:Happyme22's edit summaries suggest that he is arbitrarily editting this article. Those same summaries are disruptive with capitals that indicate shouting. Suggest another editor review. Morenooso 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone/deletion

First, I have a question. Why do people dislike me around here? I'm just trying to improve Reagan's article, but I'm getting yelled at for doing too much (see the above comment). Why? Anyway, everything that is listed in the "policies and desicions" section is mentioned in other places in the article. Should we check through it one more time, add unmentioned things to the correct places in the article, and then delete the section? It seems unnessecary to keep it if everything is already listed. I'll do it, if you want me to, but I'll probably get yealled at for trying to do too much :) . -- Happyme22 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one dislikes you, bud. They disagree with your point of view, and some might not be very civil or AGF about their comments, and that just makes them ass-clowns. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun (remember, you aren't getting paid for this, and you aren't really getting published), and people are supposed to work together. Since you are new, people with more experience are supposed to be helping you out by explaining things to you. If they aren't, then that's on them. If you don't get something, or don't get a particular edit, go to the person's talk page and ask them. Often, you will find people respond better to being talked to rather than arbitrarily reverted. And never use caps in an edit summary, as most of us geeks consider that the net equivalent of shouting. Arcayne 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing A Fine Job

Don't take it personally. Any political entry is going to invoke responses in others. Some think the information given is fake. Some simply do not like the other side. Some want to ensure that the information is from a good source. Just be careful that everything you add is rooted in an impartial, reliable source.

As you know, I disagreed with a few things but you compromised and made adjustments, so I think your work fair. The exagerated phrase "won the Cold War" was eliminated for example. So I think what' happening here is good work. Speaking of which, how about the great ground work that Harry Truman did to win the Cold War? Who won the Cold War?

By the way, I give this article high marks. Just be careful to avoid exagerations.

Citations

Thanks for that guys. I'm trying my best to help out. I was forced to add quite a bit of tags to the "Cold War" section, though. There's a lot of uncited info in there that's been recently added, and it would be helpful for whomever added it to adequatley cite your work (see Template:Citebook or Template:Citeweb). If the work is not cited, much of it will have to be removed. Again, I'm not playing the "bad cop" here, but to benefit the article, every "fact" needs a citation. Thanks, Happyme22 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, many, many fact tags were added by another user, so they should be fixed ASAP, and I'll help with that. -- Happyme22 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend taking a look at the current and ongoing Peer Review, majorly focusing on User: Awadewit's comments. They are very helpful! -- Happyme22 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

this is an amazing article

i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

this is an amazing article

i would like to say that this is a wonder biography on Ronald Reagan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.70.118.217 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

And someone really needs to address the GLARING flaws in the War on Drugs section which is ENTIRELY inaccurate. Time magazine itself has reported that DARE officials have now admitted as far back as 2001 that the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" campaign is a nearly COMPLETE FAILURE. Not only did it NOT reduce juvenile drug use but it actually led to LOWER rates of self-esteem in teens who went through the program. Having been one of your fellow Americans who paid with my professional life because of the crack epidemic Reagan's administration oversaw, likely because of the drug dealings in the Iran'Contra corruption, I demand that section be re-written to reflect REALITY and TRUTH, not wishful thinking!

Critisicms dispute

Hi everyone. This article was recently tagged for POV by User:83.233.181.88, because it did not have a "Criticisms" section. This is the same message that I sent to the user:

Hi there. I noticed you said that Reagan's article does not have a criticisms section. That is because all of the crisicisms are woven into the correct places of the article. I was told during the FAC candidacy to remove the critcism section, and integrate the criticisms into the correct sections that they belong in. Check out the page for yourself: [1]. For that reason alone, I am removing the nuetrality tag. Happyme22 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I right? Happyme22 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Jimbo himself has stated that "Criticism" sections are "troll magnets" " it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms". And since what Jimbo says is Law... The only kind of "Criticism" section one would include would be a critical "Reception" section in terms of how Reagan has been perceived by political historians of all stripes, that sort of thing. Awadewit 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

Hi all. I had authored a large part of Ronald Reagan's pervious lead, stating:

Ronald Wilson Reagan' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and moved to California in the 1930s. Before entering politics, he was a successful Hollywood and television actor, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and a spokesman for General Electric. Previously a New Deal Democrat, Reagan became a conservative Republican in 1962. During his work for General Electric Theatre, he began to articulate the political themes that would carry him into the California Governorship, which he won in 1966, and the Presidency of the United States. He narrowly lost a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 before winning the Presidency in 1980.

As President, Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates. Beginning in 1981, he implemented large tax cuts; following a brief recession, he presided over record-setting economic expansion, jobs creation, and reductions in inflation, after surviving an assassination attempt.

In foreign affairs, Reagan rejected détente, famously portraying the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide, while simultaneously negotiating with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. He believed in a strong national defense, and supported increases in military spending. Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, and helping to bring down the Berlin Wall. Reagan survived several scandals during his Presidency, the most infamous being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

After leaving office, Reagan wrote a best-selling autobiography, An American Life. In 1994, Reagan disclosed that he had been afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease, and he died ten years later, in 2004, at the age of ninety-three. After a major state funeral in Washington, D.C., Reagan was laid to rest in California. He is the second longest-lived president in U.S. history, 45 days behind Gerald Ford. Academics and historians rate Reagan among the top twelve American presidents, although he is ranked higher in several public opinion surveys.

I had it like that. It's not too detailed, but outlines the major events during Reagan's Presidency. User:Hats1$ changed it to this, even after I left a message on his/her talk page stating to please read WP:LEAD

.....As President, Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates. Reagan advocated free markets, and he implemented large tax cuts and increases in defense spending to stimulate the economy, and moderate deregulation to encourage investment. Reagan's popularity with the American people initially waned due to a brief but severe recession in 1981, but Reagan's popularity rebounded and he was reelected by the second-largest electoral landslide (97.58%) of the 20th Century after surviving an assassination attempt and achieving a record-setting economic expansion, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but large budget deficits. "The Teflon President" survived several scandals during his Presidency, the most infamous being the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986.

In foreign affairs, Reagan enacted the largest peacetime military budget in American history, including modernizing America's weapons systems, to pursue his foreign policy of "peace through strength." He rejected détente and confronted Communism, famously portraying the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide, Reagan later negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. When Reagan visited Moscow to give a speech on free markets at Moscow State Univerity by Gorbachev's request, a journalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era." Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, three years after Reagan left office, and helping bring down the Berlin Wall.

The first and last paragraphs were left untouched

Look at the diferences. I beleive User:Hats1$'s version is too long and detailed for what WP:LEAD says to do. He/She keeps changing it back to his/her way without and compromise. Even in the Peer Review, one of the recommendations said to cut down the lead. I did, and now it's longer than what it was before! Tell me what you guys think. Again, it's too long and deatailed. -- Happyme22 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

I like the compromise lead as it is loaded as of this time at 11:18 PM EST on April 2, 2007. The previous version was not accurate. This new version still leans much that way, but I am willing to accept it.

By the way, not long before Happyme22 came here, I made significant contibutions to the introduction and much of the other text under another log-in. I received a warning from one of the administrators for the sweeping contibutions I made. I added Reagan's autobiography quotes and set much of the narrative. So I don't appreciate my work being erased. You have to leave the work of other people, too. I'm simply restoring what was there. It's Happyme22 who has erased other work.

And just to be clear, Ronald Reagan says in his own autobiography that he peacefully ended the Cold War long before USSR collaped three years after he left office. He gave the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to Gorbachev for his lead role in ending the Cold War and ALLOWING Eastern Europe to slip away. Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize and Time Magazine's Man of the Decade. The current version stretches the truth past that, but not beyond a reasonable point. Leave it how it is and do not make it worse.

When asked if USSR was still the evil empire, Reagan said, "NO. THAT WAS ANOTHER TIME. ANOTHER ERA"

So DON'T PUSH IT, HAPPYME22. The tax interpretation changes you made are also bologna. Take the best compromises you can get.

In the long run, distorting the truth only hurts Reagan's legacy. The truth is simply so sincere and charming that it does not need much fluffery. He was one in a million

Please sign your posts with four tildas ~~~~. Since wikipedia is a collaborative project, you must accept that your work will be revised by other editors. Also, please see the discussion of Reagan's autobiography as a problematic source in the most recent FAC nomination. Just because Reagan said he did something in his autobiography does not mean he did it. He has an interest in representing himself in a particular way in that book for political and historical reasons. Statements such as "he peacefully ended the Cold War" from his autobiography need to be verified using scholarly sources because scholars have a more objective view of the events. I would also urge you to reconsider your notion of "truth;" it is rarely "simple." Clearly, there are different interpretations of the "truth" of Reagan's presidency. Awadewit 18:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The statements followed by citation needed tags need to be addressed, or the article will be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 05:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

The intro to this article is blatantly biased towards Reagan. There is no mention of the Iran-Contra affair or the other numerous scandals which were important parts of his presidency. The current introduction portrays Reagan as the savior of the American economy. Progressives would argue that these "tax cuts" would ultimately create a greater tax burden on the middle class and that Reagan tax policy primarily benefited the rich. As the introduction currently reads it could have been written by the RNC. Wikipediatoperfection 09:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient(see the Wikipedia entry for this statistical measure of inequality) of the USA soared under Reagan, taking the USA to being far more unequal than castebound India. It is a horrible legacy.

You're the one showing the point of view by stating that it's a horrible legacy! I'll add the Iran-Contra, but other than that I see nothing wrong with the lead. Reagan's tax policies sought to stimulate the economy by implementing large tax cuts. Iflation dropped. Unemployment dropped. Yes, Reaganomics led to huge budget deficits, but that is mentioned. The Military grew. Reagan spoke with Gorbachev, and their summits helped draw a close to the Cold War. You can't disput the facts! So, I'll add Iran-Contra, and maybe a critical statement, but I'm going to rm the POV tag. Happyme22 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Happyme22, I think what Wikipediatoperfection is trying to point out is something similar that I mentioned in my peer review - real wages have dropped steadily in the United States since the late 1970s (that includes the Reagan years). What that means is that what people can buy with their money, even if they are making more money, is actually less. Also, you mention in the article that the tax burden on the top brackets dropped dramatically during the Reagan years. Not everyone agrees that this is a good thing, because it pushes the tax burden onto the middle class and the poor, who have less money to begin with (20-30% of $40,000 is not the same as 20-30% of $500,000). Also, the rich do not always invest their "freed-up" money in a way that benefits the middle-class and the poor; for example, investing their money in the stock market does not always the rest of us little people. The article really needs to be clear that only some economists, such as those from the conservative Cato Institute, think that Reagan's economic policies worked to benefit the entire country. Many other economists think that they benefited primarily the rich (just like Bush's). By the way, for the "War on Drugs" section, you might want to listen to NPR's ongoing series about the "War on Drugs." It might give you some ideas for sources on the "War on Drugs." It is available online. Awadewit 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

The lead (by the way, not the "lede") for this article is much too long and contains details that are better left to the article (such as religious details about Reagan's parents). Please don't continually revert edits made by other editors in good faith (especially when they contain spelling mistakes!) without discussing them on the talk page.

• The first paragraph about his early life is much too long, for example. We do not need all that detail (it is provided later); also Reagan is best-known as a President, so the lead should focus on that.
• Here is a good example of an edit that I made for conciseness and clarity that keeps getting reverted: "Reagan is credited with revitalizing America's economy and morale after a period of political setbacks and economic stagflation with high interest rates." To "Reagan is credited [we still need to know by whom] with revitalizing America's economy after an economic recession, which was characterized by stagflation and high interest rates." - The second sentence emphasizes his economic policy and eliminates the vague "morale" and "political setbacks" which are never clearly articulated.

There are just a couple of examples. Editors are not going to be encouraged to work on this article if the editors on this article consistently revert their contributions and reinsert poorly worded, misspelled and superfluous information. Awadewit 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing extremely important to mention in the intro is that Reagan opposed the use of government intervention to solve problems, as he said in his inaugural address "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."